Financing Plan (In Us$) s28

REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT/APPROVAL PROJECT TYPE: MEDIUM SIZE PROJECT THE GEF TRUST FUND

Submission Date: 11 March 2008 Re-submission Date: n/a PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 3556 Expected Calendar GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: 2111 Milestones Dates COUNTRY: Uzbekistan Work Program (for FSP) n/a PROJECT TITLE: Strengthening Sustainability of the National Protected Area System by Focusing on Strictly Protected Areas GEF Agency Approval June 2008 GEF AGENCY: UNDP Implementation Start June 2008 OTHER EXECUTING PARTNER(S): Ministry of Agriculture and Water Mid-term Review (if planned) June 2010 Management, Main Forestry Department Implementation Completion June 2012 GEF FOCAL AREA(S): Biodiversity GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(S): SO1/ SP3 NAME OF PARENT PROGRAM/UMBRELLA PROJECT: N/A

A. PROJECT FRAMEWORK Project Objective: To demonstrate new management approaches for expansion of protected area system of Uzbekistan Indicate Expected Indicative GEF Indicative Co- whether Outcomes Expected Outputs Financ financing* Total ($) Project Investmen Components t, TA or ing* STA** ($) % ($) % 1. Master Plan TA Enabling Representation, for Protected environment to ecological and Area System of facilitate the management gaps Uzbekistan is expansion of the assessed; guiding the PA System to expansion. cover 10% of PA Expansion Plan Uzbekistan – in place; additional 2 million hectares PA system reconfigured: zoning adjusted to better Diversified capture biodiversity revenue streams values; 333,500 37 570,000 63 903,500 to meet expenditures for Management effective planning guidelines management - for buffer zone Financial management scorecard PA Financing Plan in place and screening tools for feasibility of financial mechanisms 2. Strengthened TA Improved - Coordination 343,000 40 520,000 60 863,000 institutional and management among agencies individual effectiveness responsible for capacity to measured by biodiversity and PA enable expansion METT in management and improved 822,000 ha strengthened, management - A new staffing- effectiveness Institutional and-reporting 1

Project Objective: To demonstrate new management approaches for expansion of protected area system of Uzbekistan Indicate Expected Indicative GEF Indicative Co- whether Outcomes Expected Outputs Financ financing* Total ($) Project Investmen Components t, TA or ing* STA** ($) % ($) % capacity system for PAs assessment launched, and score card personnel qualifications requirements upgraded, - Business and management planning training for PA staff; - Standardized methodologies for inventorying, monitoring and data management at SNR developed, - Operational and enforcement capacity of SNR enhanced. 3. Demonstration TA New - Legal designation of new community- is provided for the conservation owned buffer zone around a management (community- model SNR, approaches (new conserved areas) - Management plan, governance protected areas incorporating a approaches) in established in community 228,500 92 20,000 8 248,500 buffer areas of the buffer area engagement strictly nature of selected conservation reserves in strict natures program is Uzbekistan developed and validated for the buffer zones of SNR. 4. Project management 70,000 35 130,000 65 200,000 Total project costs 975,000 44 1,240,000 56 2,215,000 * List the $ by project components. The percentage is the share of GEF and Co-financing respectively to the total amount for the component. ** TA = Technical Assistance; STA = Scientific & technical analysis.

B. FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT ($) Project Preparation Project Agency Fee Total (pre RAF PDF A)* GEF 25,0001 975,000 100,000 1,100,000 Co-financing 27,000 1,240,000 1,267,000 Total 52,000 2,215,000 100,000 2,367,000 * Please include the previously approved PDFs and planned request for new PPG, if any. Indicate the amount already approved as footnote here and if the GEF funding is from GEF-3. C. SOURCES OF CONFIRMED CO-FINANCING , including co-financing for project preparation for both the PDFs and PPG. (expand the table line items as necessary)

1 A PDF A of 25,000 was approved in GEF 3 for this project. No PPG will be requested.

Sources of Co-financing Type of Co-financing Amount %* Project Government Contribution In-kind 1,040,000 84% GEF Agency Grant 200,000 16% Total co-financing 1,240,000 100% * Percentage of each co-financier’s contribution at CEO endorsement to total co-financing.

D. GEF RESOURCES REQUESTED BY FOCAL AREA(S), AGENCY(IES) OR COUNTRY(IES): N/A E. PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET/COST Estimated GEF Other Project Cost Items Staff weeks Sources Total Locally recruited personnel* 416 60,000 26,8002 86,800 Internationally recruited consultants* Office facilities, equipment, vehicles and 88,200 88,200 communications** Travel** 10,000 10,000 20,000 Miscellaneous 5,000 5,000 Total project management cost 70,000 130,000 200,000  See Annex C for TORs of the respective project management staff. ** Detailed information and justification for these line items is in Annex C.

F. CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS: Estimated Other Project Total Component Staff weeks GEF($) Sources ($) ($) Local consultants* 1320 170,400 5,000 175,400 International consultants* 44 132,000 132,000 Total 1364 302,400 5,000 307,400 * Detailed information regarding the consultants is in Annex C.

G. DESCRIBE THE BUDGETED M&E PLAN: 1. Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures and will be provided by the project team and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) with support from UNDP-GEF. The Logical Framework provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. These will form the basis on which the project's Monitoring and Evaluation system will be built. The following sections outline the principle components of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and indicative cost estimates related to M&E activities. The project's Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be presented and finalized at the Project's Inception Report following a collective fine-tuning of indicators, means of verification, and the full definition of project staff M&E responsibilities. In addition, the project will use the Monitoring of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) to monitor progress achieved in improving the protected area management effectiveness.

Monitoring and Reporting3

Project Inception Phase 2. A Project Inception Workshop will be conducted with the full project team, relevant government counterparts, co- financing partners, the UNDP-CO and representation from the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit. A fundamental objective of this Inception Workshop will be to assist the project team to understand and take ownership of the project’s

2 Including Van Breda insurance for the staff 3 As per new GEF guidelines, the project will also be using the SP1 Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (see Annex 8 for baseline METT). Any new or additional GEF monitoring requirements will be accommodated and adhered to once they are officially launched. 3

goals and objectives, as well as finalize preparation of the project's first annual work plan on the basis of the project's logframe matrix. This will include reviewing the logframe (indicators, means of verification, assumptions), imparting additional detail as needed, and on the basis of this exercise finalize the Annual Work Plan (AWP) with precise and measurable performance indicators, and in a manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project. 3. Additionally, the purpose and objective of the Inception Workshop (IW) will be to: (i) introduce project staff with the UNDP-GEF expanded team which will support the project during its implementation, namely the CO and responsible Regional Coordinating Unit staff; (ii) detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and RCU staff vis à vis the project team; (iii) provide a detailed overview of UNDP-GEF reporting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements, with particular emphasis on the Annual Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) and related documentation, Tripartite Review Meetings, as well as mid-term and final evaluations. Equally, the IW will provide an opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project related budgetary planning, budget reviews, and mandatory budget re-phasings. 4. The IW will also provide an opportunity for all parties to understand their roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The Terms of Reference for project staff and decision-making structures will be discussed again, as needed, in order to clarify for all, each party’s responsibilities during the project's implementation phase. Monitoring responsibilities and events 5. A detailed schedule of project reviews meetings will be developed by the project management, in consultation with project implementation partners and stakeholder representatives and incorporated in the Project Inception Report. Such a schedule will include: (i) tentative time frames for Tripartite Reviews, Steering Committee Meetings; and (ii) project related Monitoring and Evaluation activities. Day to day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project Manager based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators. The Project Team will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion. 6. The Project Manager will fine-tune the progress and performance/impact indicators of the project in consultation with the full project team at the Inception Workshop with support from UNDP-CO and assisted by the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit. Specific targets for the first year implementation progress indicators together with their means of verification will be developed at this Workshop. These will be used to assess whether implementation is proceeding at the intended pace and in the right direction and will form part of the Annual Work Plan. The local implementing agencies will also take part in the Inception Workshop in which a common vision of overall project goals will be established. Targets and indicators for subsequent years would be defined annually as part of the internal evaluation and planning processes undertaken by the project team. 7. Measurement of impact indicators related to global benefits will occur according to the schedules defined in the Inception Workshop. The measurement of these will be undertaken through subcontracts or retainers with relevant institutions or through specific studies that are to form part of the projects activities or periodic sampling. Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the UNDP-CO through quarterly meetings with the project proponent, or more frequently as deemed necessary. This will allow parties to take stock and to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the project in a timely fashion to ensure smooth implementation of project activities. 8. Annual Monitoring will occur through the Tripartite Review (TPR). This is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. The project will be subject to Tripartite Review (TPR) at least once every year. The first such meeting will be held within the first twelve months of the start of full implementation. 9. The Project Manager in coordination with the CO will prepare a UNDP-GEF PIR and submit it to UNDP-CO at least two weeks prior to the TPR for review and comments. The PIR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the TPR meeting. The Project Manager will present the APR to the TPR, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the TPR participants. 10. The terminal tripartite review will be held in the last month of project operations. The Project Manager will be responsible for preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to UNDP-CO. It shall be prepared in draft at least two months in advance of the TTR in order to allow review, and will serve as the basis for discussions in the TTR. The terminal tripartite review considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to whether

the project has achieved its stated objectives and contributed to the broader environmental objective. It decides whether any actions are still necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of project results, and acts as a vehicle through which lessons learnt can be captured to feed into other projects under implementation of formulation.

Project Monitoring Reporting 11. The Project Manager in conjunction with the UNDP-GEF extended team will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of the monitoring process. 12. A Project Inception Report will be prepared immediately following the Inception Workshop. It will include a detailed First Year/ Annual Work Plan divided in quarterly time-frames detailing the activities and progress indicators that will guide implementation during the first year of the project. This Work Plan would include the dates of specific field visits, support missions from the UNDP-CO or the Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU) or consultants, as well as time-frames for meetings of the project's decision making structures. The Report will also include the detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the Annual Work Plan, and including any monitoring and evaluation requirements to effectively measure project performance during the targeted 12 months timeframe. The Inception Report will include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions and feedback mechanisms of project related partners. In addition, a section will be included on progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may effect project implementation. When finalized the report will be circulated to project counterparts who will be given a period of one calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. Prior to this circulation of the IR, the UNDP Country Office will review the document. 13. The UNDP-GEF Project Implementation Review (PIR) report will be prepared on an annual basis prior to the Tripartite Project Review, to reflect progress achieved in meeting the project's Annual Work Plan and assess performance of the project in contributing to intended outcomes through outputs and partnership work. The PIR will include the following: (i) An analysis of project performance over the reporting period, including outputs produced and, where possible, information on the status of the outcome; (ii) The constraints experienced in the progress towards results and the reasons for these; (iii) The three (at most) major constraints to achievement of results; (iv) AWP and other expenditure reports (ERP generated); (v) Lessons learned; and (vi) Clear recommendations for future orientation in addressing key problems in lack of progress 14. Quarterly Progress Reports: Short reports outlining main updates in project progress will be provided quarterly to the local UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF regional office by the project team. 15. During the last three months of the project the project team will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements and outputs of the Project, lessons learnt, objectives met, or not achieved, structures and systems implemented, etc. and will be the definitive statement of the Project’s activities during its lifetime. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure the sustainability and replicability of the project’s activities. 16. As part of the Inception Report, the project team will prepare a draft Reports List, detailing the technical reports that are expected to be prepared on key areas of activity during the course of the Project, and tentative due dates. Where necessary this Reports List will be revised and updated, and included in subsequent PIRs. These technical reports will represent the project's substantive contribution to specific areas, and will be used in efforts to disseminate relevant information and best practices at local, national and international levels.

Independent Evaluation 17. The project will be subject to at least two independent external evaluations as follows: 18. An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at the mid point of project implementation. The Mid- Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid- term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference

for this Mid-term evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF. 19. An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal tripartite review meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation. The final evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Final Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF. Audit Clause 20. Audit will be conducted in accordance with the agreed and adapted UNDP policies and procedure.”? Learning and Knowledge Sharing 21. Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through a number of existing information sharing networks and forums. In addition, the project will participate, as relevant and appropriate, in UNDP/GEF sponsored networks, organized for Senior Personnel working on projects that share common characteristics. The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. Identify and analyzing lessons learned is an on- going process, and the need to communicate such lessons as one of the project's central contributions is a requirement to be delivered not less frequently than once every 12 months. UNDP-GEF shall provide a format and assist the project team in categorizing, documenting and reporting on lessons learned. To this end around 4% of project resources will need to be allocated for these activities. 22. The Project Implementation Unit, and specifically the Project Manager, will be ultimately responsible for the timely gathering of project implementation data and reporting, as per UNDP-NEX guidelines. The duties inherent in this function will include the preparation and timely presentation of required reports. These will include financial reports, annual project implementation reports, and more frequent progress reports as may be required by project management. 23. The project’s progress will be monitored using annual reviews against a set of implementation milestones. In monitoring the project’s progress in meeting its defined objective and outcomes, the set of indicators provided in the logical framework in Annex 4 will be used. Monitoring will be ongoing, involving data collection and assessment of the project’s field implementation, and will involve key project staff meeting periodically to review operations and field implementation, and assessing whether adjustments should be made to the project’s implementation. Project staff, the hired short-term experts, and other subcontractors will assist in compiling the required data on the indicators. 24. The project will likewise utilize established UNDP evaluation procedures. These will include the annual Tripartite Meeting, Project Evaluation Reports, intermediate or mid-term and final evaluations to be performed by an independent party, and the Implementation Review. The PIU under the supervision of and with support from the UNDP-CO will be responsible for carrying out these reviews and submitting the required reports. 25. The PSC will meet at least twice a year to assess the project’s progress against planned outcomes and outputs, to give strategic directions to the implementation of the project, and to ensure the necessary inter-agency coordination. Implementing agency staff, the National Project Coordinator and UNDP, will undertake regular field visits. Quarterly Progress Reports reflecting all aspects of project implementation will be prepared by the Project Manager (PM) and submitted to the PSC for review and recommendations. 26. Annual Project Implementation Reports (PIR) will be prepared by the PM and submitted to the PSC through the Implementing Agency. The PIRs, prepared in UNDP format, will assess the performance of the project and the status of achievement of project outputs and their contribution to the realization of the desired outcomes. The project will be subject to annual external audit to be conducted by an independent auditor engaged by UNDP in consultation with the Executing Agency. Teams of national and international experts will assess progress against specified outcome indicators. 27. The table below presents the indicative M&E workplan and corresponding budget. Table 8 Indicative Monitoring and Evaluation Work Plan and Corresponding Budget

Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$ Time frame Excluding project team Staff time . Project Coordinator Within first two months of Inception Workshop . UNDP CO 5,000 project start up . UNDP GEF . Project Team Immediately following IW Inception Report None . UNDP CO Conduct METT . Project team None Mid-term and end PIR . Project Team None Annually . UNDP-CO . UNDP-GEF TPR and TPR report . Government Counterparts None Every year, upon receipt of . UNDP CO APR . Project team . UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit Steering Committee . Project Coordinator None Following Project IW and Meetings subsequently at least once a year Periodic status reports . Project team None To be determined by Project team and UNDP CO Technical reports . Project team 10,000 To be determined by Project . Hired consultants as needed Team and UNDP-CO Mid-term External . Project team UNDP CO and 30,000 At the mid-point of project Evaluation UNDP-GEF RCU to prepare implementation. TOR and hire independent evaluation team . External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) Final External Evaluation . Project team UNDP CO and 40,000 At the end of project UNDP-GEF RCU to prepare implementation TOR and hire independent evaluation team . External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) Terminal Report . Project team At least one month before the . UNDP-CO None end of the project

Lessons learned . Project team Yearly 5,000 Audit . UNDP-CO Yearly 5,000 . Project team Visits to field sites (UNDP . UNDP Country Office Yearly staff travel costs to be . UNDP-GEF Regional charged to IA fees) Coordinating Unit (as None appropriate) . Government representatives TOTAL INDICATIVE COST Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses US$ 95,000

PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION A. describe the project rationale and the expected measurable global environmental benefits: 28. The Republic of Uzbekistan is situated in Central Asia within the sub-tropical zone of the northern hemisphere. The territory covers approximately 447,400 km2 and is bordered by Kazakhstan to the north, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan to the south and Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to the West. Uzbekistan is divided into12 main administrative areas and the semi-autonomous republic of Karakalpakstan in the north-western part of the country. Nearly 85% of its territory is occupied by deserts or semi-deserts, including the largest desert in Central Asia, the Kyzylkum. These deserts are flanked by the extensive Tien Shan and Gissar-Alai mountain systems in the east and southeast. The territory of Uzbekistan shelters a number of globally significant flora and fauna species, including snow leopard, saiga antelope, Bukhara urial, Tadjik markhor, lesser Kestrel and others. Uzbekistan has a high level of endemism with several Central 7

Asia species originating in the area between Amudarya and Syrdarya rivers from where they dispersed to the other countries in Central Asia. The endemism rate for vertebrates is 51.7 % for reptiles; 1.8 % for birds and 15.4% for mammals. There are over 4,800 species of vascular plants in Uzbekistan belonging to 650 genera and 115 families and an endemism rate of 9%. The Red Book of Uzbekistan includes 182 animal species. 29. As elsewhere in the region this biodiversity is under severe threat from: (i) fragmentation and loss of important habitats due to agricultural development, logging and overgrazing; and (ii) over-exploitation of natural resources. To buffer against these threats and ensure long-term conservation of its biodiversity, the Government of Uzbekistan has established a system of protected areas which covers 5.57% of the territory. Protected areas represent the primary tool in the biodiversity conservation strategy of Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan’s protected area (PA) estate is composed of: 9 strict nature reserves (zapovedniks), 2 national parks, 9 State reserves for special purposes (zakazniks) and 2 state nature memorials. In the past ten years the total area of PAs in Uzbekistan grew by 5,302.98 km 2, or 1.18% of the country’s territory. The only protected areas with permanent management presence are the strict nature reserves and national parks (IUCN management category I and II) and cover an area of is 8,068.76 km2 (1.8%). The strict nature reserves represent the most important instrument of in situ biodiversity conservation in the country, as they were established to conserve biodiversity of national and international significance and as such they are the main focus of this project. The table below presents the different types of protected area categories in Uzbekistan, the year of establishment, total size and management agency. No Name Year of Area IUCN Management agency establ. (km2) category State Strict Nature Reserves (Zapovedniks) 1 Chatkal mountain forestry reserve 1974 356.8 I Tashkent region administration 2 Gissar mountain archa reserve 1983 814.3 I Goskompriroda 3 Zaamin mountain archa reserve 1926,1960 268.4 I MAWR 4 Badai-Tugai steppe-tugai 1971 64.6 I MAWR 5 Kyzylkum Tugai-sand reserve 1971 101.4 I MAWR 6 Zerafshan lowland Tugai reserve 1975 23.5 I MAWR 7 Nuratin mountain walnut tree 1975 177.5 I MAWR reserve 8 Kitab Geological reserves 1979 53.7 I Goskomgeologia 9 Surkhan Mountain forest reserve 1987 276.7 I MAWR Total area 2,136.9

State National Parks 1 Zaamin National Park 1976 241.1 II MAWR 2 Ugam-Chatkal National Park 1990 5,745.9 II Tashkent region administration Total area 5,987.0

Nurseries for rare animals 1 Ecocenter “Jeyran” (breeding 1976 51.4 III Goskompriroda centre) Total area 51.4

State reserves for special purposes (Zakazniks) 1 Arnasay 1983 633.0 IV MAWR 2 Gurlen 1978 5.87 IV Goskompriroda 3 Saygachy 1991 10,000 IV Goskompriroda 4 Sydochy 1991 500 IV Goskompriroda 5 Sarmysh 1991 25.2 IV Goskompriroda 6 Karakir 1992 300 IV Goskompriroda 7 Karnabchul 1992 400 IV Goskompriroda 8 Koshrabad 1992 165 IV Goskompriroda 9 Dengizkul 1973, 1991 86 IV Goskompriroda 8

10 Nurabad 1992 290 IV Goskompriroda 11 Aktau 1997 154 IV Goskompriroda 12 Murabek 1997 264.7 IV Goskompriroda 13 Sechankul 1998 70.4 IV Goskompriroda 14 Drofiniy 1998 250 IV Goskompriroda Total area 13,144.2

State Natural memorials 1 Vardanzi 1975 3 IV MAWR 2 Yazyavan 1991 31.8 IV Goskompriroda Total area 34.8 Total protected area estate 21,254.3

30. Under current conditions, the National Protected Area System (NPAS) of Uzbekistan does not effectively safeguard its biodiversity against these threats, as it is not ecologically representative. Large number of species, ecosystems and ecological processes are not adequately protected and the management regimes (management objectives, governance types or management effectiveness) of the existing protected areas do not provide full security for particular species or ecosystems. For example, the boundaries of most reserves are ecologically inadequate for the effective conservation of globally significant biodiversity. Currently, many habitats outside and adjacent to the PAs, which are important for conserving species with extensive ranges, such as the markhor and Bukharian urial are not protected. 31. The Government of Uzbekistan has developed an ambitious national programming framework in biodiversity, with the following key objectives: (i) to establish a comprehensive national protected area system based on ecosystem approach; (ii) to optimize and expand the national PA system to comprise 10% of the country territory; (iii) to provide people living around the PAs with economic, social, ecological and esthetical benefits derived from more effective location, zoning, management and functioning of the PAs; and (iv) to secure conservation of the PA biodiversity for future generations. In order to fulfill the requirements of this programming framework, the Parliament of Uzbekistan adopted a new law “On protected areas” in December 2004. This law includes two important provisions for expansion and improving conservation effectiveness: (i) Expansion of the protection coverage is allowed through the establishment of non-state owned PAs and other means of the PAs’ buffer zones expansion and active management. The new law creates a number of opportunities for local population and private agencies to establish protected areas in the buffer areas of strict nature reserves as “non-governmental protected areas” and manage the existing protected areas in cooperation with the Government; and (ii) PAs are given an opportunity to seek additional financing resources. 32. While significant efforts have been undertaken by the Government to safeguard it biodiversity, international assistance is required to facilitate the achievement of the long-term solution which is an ecologically representative and effectively managed protected area system for Uzbekistan. The barriers hampering the achievement of this solution are: (i) Systemic capacity barriers: Even though the government is committed to an expansion of the protected area estate to improve the bio-geographical representation, and the first outline of an Ecological Network was developed there is no comprehensive plan to guide the expansion with associated guidelines at the system level for planning and management. The existing legal framework contains a number of gaps and bottlenecks that constrain expansion and effective conservation management. For examples, although the new Protected Area Law (2004) provides for the expansion of protected areas by the establishment of non-governmentally owned PAs in the buffer zones of strict reserves and for the decentralization of PA financing, the law is new and gives only a general framework allowing such innovations to happen. The community-conserved area is a new type of protected area governance which has never been tested in Uzbekistan and therefore there is no know-how on how to approach this issue. Neither the establishment of community- owned protected areas in buffer areas of existing reserves, nor different types of resource mobilization mechanisms have been tested in Uzbekistan to date. This project presents an opportunity to do so. This would be the first instance in the country in which a buffer zone would be legally established and a community-owned or managed protected area would be created, testing new management approaches for protected area in Uzbekistan. Lessons drawn from this experience would be directly applicable to and replicable in other strict reserves and indeed other types of PAs throughout the country; and (ii) Institutional capacity barriers: The allocation of management responsibilities across and within the protected areas is institutionally fragmented among several government agencies at the national and local level, which makes the coordination extremely difficult on the ground and affects decisions on expansion and management effectiveness. Inadequate management capacity affects all PAs in Uzbekistan. Staff numbers are too low for the needs, 9

and for the most part they do not possess the skills required for planning and effective management. There is no training provided for staff to upgrade their skills. Hiring standards are essentially unrelated to job requirements. There is a low level of accountability for performance among staff. There is no Management Plan to provide a vision for the protected areas and guide their management in a manner that is objective driven and makes best use of scarce available resources. Business planning is entirely unknown within the PA management staff. 33. The project aims to demonstrate new management approaches for the expansion of protected area system in Uzbekistan. One of the planned interventions of the future project is to provide a test ground for the ”buffer zone” provisions of the new Protected Area Law, by adjusting reserves’ boundaries, rezoning and working with local communities for the establishment of the first community – owned and managed protected areas in Uzbekistan. In the international accepted standards for protected area governance types this is considered a community-conserved area. The project will demonstrate these new conservation management approaches at Surkhan Strict Nature Reserve (SSNR), which was selected as a candidate site, due to: (i) the presence of globally significant and threatened biodiversity which is outside of the SNNR territory; and (ii) interest on behalf of communities and government to work together to test the new provisions of the PA law on establishment community owned protected areas in the buffer areas and demonstrate community involvement mechanisms for joint conservation management beyond the PA’s boundary. Thus, in conjunction with the removal of key barriers at the national level, the site level work will provide the basis for up-scaling, dissemination and replication of the best practices and lessons learned throughout the NPAS, the region, and beyond. The proposed project will also build the management capacity of all strict nature reserves across the country, to effectively utilize opportunities that have been opened up by the adoption of the new law. The project has the following three outcomes and associated outputs: Outcome 1. Master Plan for Protected Area System of Uzbekistan is guiding the expansion Output 1.1 Progressive changes in legislation are realized and required implementing regulations are developed: The project will support a series of interventions aimed at reviewing the legal and regulatory framework for strict nature reserves. The areas of intervention will include but will not be limited to the following: (i) Develop secondary legislation related to buffer zone establishment and designation on mechanisms for land allocation and its administration, rights and obligations of the land users in the buffer zone, compensation schemes, tax abatements or other economic incentives necessary in the light of proposed restrictions on the land users residing in the buffer zones, etc; (ii) Develop and submit to the Government a package of legislative norms, justifying and regulating financial commitments from the state budget for sustaining operational capacities of the strict nature reserves; (iii) Legislation on benefit sharing and inclusion of local communities in biodiversity conservation and PA management. The work will built upon the recommendations of the completed GEF – funded Enabling Activity (Assessment of Priority National Capacity Development needs for Implementation of the BSAP and Establishment of CHM Structures) which developed recommendations for adjusting regulations on sustainable hunting that ensure communities receive the majority of revenues from hunting (based on the successful experience of Kyrgyzstan and Pakistan); and (iv) development of a mechanism for receiving additional bonuses for efficient fulfilling of responsibilities and tasks in order to provide rangers with an additional economic incentive.

Output 1.2. Assessment of the representation and ecological gaps: Work under this output will assist Uzbekistan in identifying priority areas required for the long-term survival of its biodiversity features. It will specifically seek to spatially focus, and align, the biodiversity conservation priorities of the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Management, the Ministry of Environment and other institutions. The activities under this output are: (i) Assessing and mapping the types of habitats in Uzbekistan, and the extent to which they are endangered or threatened; (ii) Assessing and mapping the species distributions for endemic and threatened taxa (where practicable); (iii) Assessing and mapping spatial surrogates of ecological and evolutionary processes (such as highland-lowland gradients as a surrogate for movement of biota and response to climate change); (iv) Mapping the different categories of protected areas; (v) Defining and mapping the current, and projected, degree of landscape transformation; and (vi) Setting explicit quantitative conservation targets for habitats and species.

Output 1.3. Development of a PA Expansion Plan: This work will assist the country in developing a strategic national approach in the establishment, management and monitoring of a comprehensive, adequate and representative protected area system for Uzbekistan. The activities under this output include: (i) Describing the current protected area system context and briefly summarizing global reviews of best practice in protected area establishment, planning and management; (ii) Establishing short- and long-term spatial targets for a representative protected area network design 10

that: (a) aims to contain samples of all ecosystems at the appropriate scale; (b) aims to contain areas which are refugia or centers of species richness or endemicity; (c) considers the ecological requirements of rare or threatened species, communities or habitats; and (d) takes account of special groups of organisms (e.g. ranging or migratory species); (iii) developing a standard approach to the establishment of protected areas, including drafting an agreed set of minimum standards which different categories of protected areas must meet to be incorporated in the National Protected Area System. It will also provide protected area establishment guidelines on: (a) the mechanisms to secure the legal conservation tenure of different types of land ownership; (b) mechanisms for the delineation of protected areas; (c) options for delegating management authority (see output 2.1); (d) accreditation of the protected area management institution; (e) the information requirements and flow of relevant PA establishment information; and (f) the participative requirements and processes; (iv) Identifying a set of common broad management principles for protected areas, which embody contemporary thinking on protected area management, to ensure the on-going maintenance and management of their primary biodiversity and heritage conservation values. This will include: (a) requirements for management planning, including for buffer zone management; (b) responses to common management issues such as fire, invasive alien species, neighbor relations, tourism/visitor facilities and services, resource use and stakeholder engagement; and (c) requirements for co-operative governance; (v) Identifying the broad options for the sustainable financing of protected areas; (vi) Identifying the role of the various stakeholders (communities and private sector) in protected area establishment and management; (vii) Identifying the reporting requirements to monitor management effectiveness of protected areas and the protected area system; (viii) Identifying the respective roles and responsibilities of the MoAWM, other ministries, public enterprises and protected area institutions; and (ix) Collating all the information into a ‘Master Plan for Protected Area System of Uzbekistan”.

Output 1.4: PA Financing Plan in place and screening tools for feasibility of financial mechanisms Work under this output is designed to provide the relevant institutions responsible for protected areas with the tools to identify and implement a range of affordable and sustainable financing options and mechanisms that could fund the planning and management of the protected area network. The activities would include: (i) Identifying the current financing mechanisms for protected areas in Uzbekistan and lessons learnt from their implementation; (ii) Identifying the range of appropriate financing mechanisms for the protected area network and individual protected areas; (iii) Analyzing each financing mechanism in terms of: (a) A general description (what is it, how does it work); (b) The affected stakeholders (who pays, who receives); (c) Regulatory requirements (enabling legal requirements); (d) Structural considerations (institutional arrangements and controls for collection and distribution of benefit flows); (e) Optimal pricing and payment systems; (f) Projected operating costs and income flows; (g) Likelihood of acceptance of mechanism (risks, willingness-to-pay, political support); and (h) Possible mitigation measures (to overcome low probability of implementation or acceptance of mechanism); (iv) Development of a broad financing plan for the protected areas network, and a detailed financing plan for individual protected areas (on a piloted, prioritized basis only); and (v) Drafting the secondary legislation required to implement key financing mechanisms.

Outcome 2: Strengthened institutional and individual capacity to enable expansion and improved management effectiveness. Output 2.1: C oordination among agencies responsible for biodiversity and reserves management is strengthened : Work under this output is designed to assess the effectiveness of the current institutional arrangements for protected area management and provide the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Management and the Ministry of Environment with practical, workable options to: strengthen the current protected area institutions; enable better integration of different spheres of governance; optimize opportunities for co-management; develop partnerships; and support co-operative governance structures. The activities under this output are: (i) Reviewing the current institutional arrangements for protected area management; (ii) Reviewing equivalent global best practice in the institutional arrangements for protected areas management, and their efficacy in the Uzbekistan context; (iii) Identifying options for the national planning, coordination, supervision, monitoring and auditing of protected areas, with recommendations for confirming or reforming the current institutional arrangements; (iv) Identifying options for the co-operative governance structures for the protected area network and individual strictly nature reserves; (v) Identifying options for operational partnerships in protected area management (public-private, public-private-community, private-community, etc.) with practical guidelines and tools based on a best practice review; (vi) Projecting the anticipated human resource capacity needs (staffing, skills, competence levels, knowledge) at the different institutional levels and defining the requisite resources (financing), training and development requirements to address the capacity gaps; (vii) establishment of a model National Management Coordination Committee that will include representatives of all relevant governing authorities (Ministry of

Agriculture and Water Resource Management, the State Committee for Nature Protection, the Parliament of the Republic, the representatives of the Cabinet of Ministers and the Academy of Science) and representatives from the NGO sector including a member of a Community Council, local administration, representatives of civil society and private sector. These coordination efforts are also directly in line with the proposed activities under outcome 3 of the project wherein greater involvement of the local population will be obtained via the establishment of a Community Council. It is expected that the final designation of the National Management Coordination Committee will be undertaken through proposed review in the legislation and adoption of a specific governmental resolution within the scope of output 1.1. Output 2.2. Business and management planning for Protected Area staff: The work under this output is designed to ensure consistency across Uzbekistan’s protected areas in the approach to the drafting, and formatting, of management and business plans. The activities under this output will further provide under-capacitated protected area institutions with clear guidelines, templates and tools to enable them to meet their legal obligations for the drafting of protected area management plans. The activities under this output are: (i) Reviewing selected Central Asian and wider regional samples and best practice/lessons learnt reviews of management plan formats and processes, and extrapolating relevant best practice for Uzbekistan’s protected areas; (ii) Developing generic guiding principles for management planning; (iii) Describing the management plan, its component parts (e.g. policies, strategic plan, detailed subsidiary plans, annual work plan, business plan), and the integration of these component parts; (iv) Describing the minimum and optimal stakeholder consultation process in the drafting of the management plan; (v) Describing the formal approval and adoption processes of the management plan; (vi) Describing the adaptive management plan process and the iterative performance monitoring and review mechanisms for the management plan; (vii) Developing detailed generic templates, and guidelines for drafting the component parts of a management plan for the different IUCN management category protected areas; and (viii) Integrating the guidelines into the Uzbekistan’s Protected Area Master Plan. Output 2.3 New staffing and reporting system for strictly nature reserves (SNR) and personnel qualifications requirements upgraded: The work under this output will be based on the activities undertaken in Outputs 1.3, 1.4, 2.1. and 2.2. and will include: (i) definition of the required positions for the organizational structure for SNRs with actively managed buffer zones, including: definition of basic qualifications for staff by position, and the preparation of job descriptions; definition of thematic areas for required training to upgrade staff qualifications and the delivery of training; and institution of annual performance reviews against work plans and standards; and (ii) development and conducting a series of training courses for protected area staff. The project has reached an agreement to cooperate with the US National Park Service in organizing study tours for national PA system personnel, including administration of the governing authorities, SNR managers and rangers. Staff that will undertake the study tour will be requested to systematize the received knowledge and experience through compilation of training materials which will then be delivered to the PA system staff. The study tours will be cofinanced and are planned to be organized in cooperation and with support from the US Embassy in Uzbekistan.

Output 2.4 Standardized methodologies for inventorying, monitoring and data management on SNRs biodiversity are developed. Proposed activities under this output include: (i) Design and implementation of a comprehensive and management needs driven biodiversity monitoring programme to ensure that key information is continuously updated. The current project will complement the results of the UNDP-GEF Biodiversity Enabling Activity Add-on (Assessment of Priority National Capacity Development needs for Implementation of the BSAP and Establishment of CHM Structures) by introducing the monitoring system to the PA System of Uzbekistan and scale-up introduction of the CHM. The project will develop/ codify/compile an appropriate inventorying and monitoring methodology that can be used by staff of SNRs. These interventions will be piloted at SSNR and scaled-up for the rest of the strict nature reserves.

Outcome 3. Demonstration of new conservation management approaches (new governance approaches) in buffer areas of strictly nature reserves in Uzbekistan

Output 3.1. The pilot reserve’s boundary is adjusted to improve its conservation effectiveness: As the country goes through the restructuring of state-owned shirkats and Forest Fund has land that can be transferred under the authority of protected areas, there is an opportunity to adjust the boundaries. The Surkhan reserve has been selected as a model for revising boundaries to improve the reserve’s long-term conservation effectiveness in conserving globally significant biodiversity. The expansion of the SNR coverage is planned to be undertaken at the expense of the lands that are in state ownership. In the case of SSNR, the coverage of the reserve is planned to be expanded by adding Forest Funds land to

the SSNR and possibly part of the land that is currently rented out by the state to the shirkat. No land is planned to be withdrawn from its current private tenure. The project team will conduct consultations with the local administration, geological service of the republic (Uzgeozemcadastre), local population and relevant authorities involved in biodiversity conservation in order to determine ehich areas should be included into the boundaries of the SSNR and to minimize potential conflict over land use. The project will extensively use the data obtained during the regional UNEP-GEF MSP “Development of the Econet for Long-term Conservation of Biodiversity in the Central Asia Ecoregions” on how the protected areas should be enlarged and what territories should be included in the boundaries of the existing protected areas. The project will undertake a comprehensive analysis of the obtained experience and provide detailed recommendations to the Government for future, improved decision making regarding the expansion of the coverage of the NPAS. The newly established GIS center in Goskompriroda will provide its services to the project for preparation of the relevant mapping materials. In addition, the project will support the development of a management plan for the buffer area accoridng to the procedures set out in output 1.3. and 1.4.

Output 3 . 2 Legal designation is provided for the buffer zone around the reserve: this project will undertake a novel SNR management model for the country that will complement other models such as Biosphere Reserves and National Parks, and on the basis of which lessons may be drawn for further replication across the country. This model involves the formal and now legally required establishment of a buffer zone around SNRs, and its active management. While a buffer zone has been designated around the SSNR, it is not yet legally established and there is no actual active management of it with the purpose of reconciling conservation and subsistence use objectives. The current Law “On protected areas” provides for the establishment of non-governmental protected areas, such as special purpose reserves (zakazniks) and nature farms/nurseries. This would be the first instance in the country in which such a zone would be legally established and a community-owned or managed protected area would be created. More, the establishment of an actively managed buffer zone presents an opportunity to raise additional funds for covering financial needs of the reserve itself as well as give additional opportunities to meet the livelihood needs of the local population thus demonstrating to local people that biodiversity can be of direct benefit to them. The project plans to test three approaches for buffer zone management: (i) sustainable game species management within the newly created non-government protected area with fair benefit sharing – community-based hunting scheme; (ii) forestry plantations; and (iii) recreational facilities. Lessons drawn from this experience would be directly applicable to and replicable in other strict reserves and indeed other types of PAs throughout the country. The project will use the lessons learnt regarding buffer zones from the UNDP-GEF project “Establishment of the Nuratau-Kyzylkum Biosphere Reserve as a Model for Biodiversity Conservation in Uzbekistan” and its results under the components “Community Forestry” and “Ecotourism and Hunting” that have identified deficiencies and capacity development needs for undertaking sustainable game species management, reforestation and domestic eco-tourism. The project will ensure that all interests and concerns of the affected population, including relevant tax abatements, land zoning requirements, etc, are reflected in the projected legislation changes that are carried out under Outcome 1 of the project. The project will undertake a comprehensive analysis of the territory in order to identify the most attractive and suitable areas for creating a game species (hunting) reserve, forestry plantations and recreational facilities for domestic eco-tourism. The project will ensure that the model, which will be tested within the SSNR buffer zone, serves the objective of reconciling the interests of local population and biodiversity conservation within the PAs and is sustainable in the long run. After broad consultation processes are held and consensus is reached on the proposed boundaries and potential location of the mentioned zones, the project will assist the executing agency and people who will have expressed their interest and sound commitments to participate in active buffer zone management with preparation of all required legal documents for the buffer zone designation and demarcation. The package of documents will be submitted to the Government for approval. The project will also prepare all necessary GIS layers for future use by the administration of the reserve. Further, in future, the documentation shall be used and disseminated across other SNRs in Uzbekistan with provision of relevant training to the concerned parties.

34. Global environmental benefits: By creating the enabling environment for the expansion of the protected area system to achieve the 10% (4 million hectares) target the project will have a potential impact on extending protection in the future to an additional 2 million hectares sheltering globally significant biodiversity. In addition, by improving management effectiveness of the existing system of strict nature reserves and national parks of Uzbekistan, the project will contribute to securing the globally significant biodiversity on 822,500 ha.

B. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES/PLANS:

35. The Government of Uzbekistan recognizes the importance of biodiversity, as reflected in the adoption of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), which was approved by the Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan on 1st April 1998. The main focus areas of the NBSAP were protected area development and the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Uzbekistan, and the proposed project will directly assist in the implementation of these priority areas. More specifically, the project contributes to the implementation of the following elements of the NBSAP: Section 1 - The System of Protected Areas, subsections 1.2 (Reorganization and Expansion of the Protected Area System), 1.3 (Management of Protected Areas); Section 2.2 - Public Awareness, Education and Participation, subsections 2.2 (Increase in the Level of Public Awareness) and 2.4 - (Public Participation); Section 3 - Sustainable Use of Biodiversity Resources, subsections 3.1. (Sustainable Use for Economic Purposes), 3.2 (Use for Scientific Research and Educational Purposes), and 3.3 (Biodiversity Use for Cultural and Recreational Purposes). The NBSAP was also considered as the first national report to the Convention on Biodiversity. 36. Whereas it is difficult for the Government, in light of the existing socio-economic problems of the country, to allocate sufficient amount of state budget resources for effective operations of the protected areas, the governmental agencies involved in protected areas management seek new approaches to sustain protected areas and their biodiversity protective functions. Recognizing the necessity to protect biodiversity and admitting that biodiversity preservation through protected areas solely funded with state financial support is a costly option, in 2004 Uzbekistan adopted a new law “On protected areas”. This law provides for additional financing opportunities for biodiversity protection. The proposed project targets building the management capacity of strict nature reserves to effectively utilize opportunities that have been opened up by the adoption of the new law. During the discussions of the proposed project’s activities, government counterparts expressed their clear desire to receive UNDP-GEF assistance on strengthening operational capacities of the national strict nature reserves as the main refuges of remaining biodiversity. The commitment of the Government has been also expressed in the endorsement letter of the national GEF operational focal point (attached as a separate file) and evidence of support from key agencies involved in management of the national protected areas system.

C. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GEF STRATEGIES AND STRATEGIC PROGRAMS: 37. This project is compliant with GEF Strategic Objective 1 - Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas/Strategic Program 3. The project addresses barriers to the expansion and effective management of Uzbekistan’s national protected area system by focusing upon the most representative type of protected areas – strict nature reserves. The project will create the enabling environment for improving the bio-geographical representativity of PAs, and will strengthen the institutional capacity of the national stakeholders to expand and effectively sustain the PA system. Over the longer term, the project will have a positive impact on the financial sustainability of the national protected area system. It will also build stakeholder capacities to improve all aspects of protected area management by improving coordination and information sharing among protected areas and responsible government agencies, and by involving local populations and the private sector in conservation activities and the sustainable use of biodiversity.

D. OUTLINE THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER RELATED INITIATIVES: 38. The project will build its strategy upon experiences, lessons learn and strong linkages with other regional/national level initiatives to introduce more integrated and participatory approaches to biodiversity conservation, including the Western Tyan-Shan Trans-boundary Biodiversity Project (World Bank-GEF), the Nuratau-Kyzylkum Biosphere Reserve Project (UNDP-GEF) and Tugay Forests Conservation project (UNDP-GEF). The UNEP-GEF MSP “Development of the Econet for Long-term Conservation of Biodiversity in the Central Asia Ecoregions” has undertaken analysis of protected area systems in Central Asia and proposed a map for the enlargement of protected area system in Uzbekistan. A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed between UNDP and UNEP-GEF project for the purpose of cooperation and ensuring that the current project builds on the work and analysis undertaken by the UNEP-GEF project in the region. These materials will serve as a baseline for the project’s outputs related to adjusting the strict nature reserves’ boundaries to improve its conservation effectiveness and the legal designation of the buffer zone around the reserve. 39. The project has established close links with the on-going GEF – funded Central Asia Countries Initiative on Land Management (CACILM). The information base of the CACILM will be extensively used for developing and initiating resource use activities for the active management of the buffer zones around the strict reserves. On the other hand, the limitations that are imposed on the resource use in the buffer zones of the reserves imply that the resources should be used in the most cost-effective and sustainable manner. Which means that the experience gained during the present project may well become a source of knowledge for the CACILM as well. This information will be shared through the 14

established CACILM mechanism of National Secretariats. In addition, a pilot area of the recently started UNDP-GEF LD MSP “Achieving ecosystem stability”, which is a part of CACILM Phase I in Uzbekistan, surrounds one of the strict nature reserves of the country – Kyzylkum tugay-sand strict reserve. As the present project will be working with the strict reserve and management of its surroundings, close cooperation between the mentioned CACILM project and the present project are essential for meeting the objectives of both projects and therefore two UNDP-GEF projects will be mutually beneficial for each other.

E. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL REASONING OF THE PROJECT: 40. The new framework legislation on PAs in the country opens the door for more ecologically representative and effectively managed protected area system. Under the business as usual scenario the pace of enforcing the new law and developing detailed by-laws for a legal act as innovative as this will be very slow. In addition, as the capacity to understand how these provisions might be translated into new governance structure for protected areas in Uzbekistan is low, the demonstration in the field will also take long time to occur. The level of funding will continue to be inadequate to provide for testing the expansion mechanisms on buffer areas and to ensure the effective on-going management of the existing network. This will result in lack of protection for key habitats and globally significant species, as the planning functions, enforcement, monitoring; engagement of local communities in PA and buffer zone conservation activities will remain very limited. While the status-quo might be sufficient to maintain a certain level of biodiversity within the national PA system, certainly the globally important species and habitats which currently lie outside of the protected area system will remain unprotected and the biodiversity contained in the existing protected areas will slowly start to erode. The alternative scenario incorporates key incremental activities that are designed to generate and secure residual and long-term global benefits. 41. Baseline and incremental costs have been assessed temporally, over the planned 4-year life-span of the project and geographically by the defined scope of the project activities covering the system of strict reserves in Uzbekistan. The project with its activities encompasses institutional and management framework of the national PA system and involved agents, including national and local government agencies, PAs administration, local communities, NGOs, the private sector, tourism companies. The selected area of the SSNR the project will test new approaches on stretches across 245 km2.

F. INDICATE RISKS, INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS, THAT MIGHT PREVENT THE PROJECT OBJECTIVE(S) FROM BEING ACHIEVED AND OUTLINE RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES: Risk Risk Risk Mitigation strategy rating Baseline funding and co- L Constant working contacts with donors and the Government to retain the financing commitments are interest to the project maintained Executing Partner and the L Involvement of the EA and PA staff in any capacity building activities of the administration of the SNRs project; Project Steering Committee to express concrete strategic guidance are cooperative and willing that the project should follow; Conformity of the project activities with the to improve the management National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and obligations of Uzbekistan effectiveness. under the UN CBD. Government is supportive M The project is ground testing innovative approaches for expansion provided by towards changes in the new protected area law at the request of the government. In addition, a reserves’ management series of government oriented events – seminars, workshops; PR campaign of approaches promoted by the project will contribute to improving understanding of the new the project management practices and governance types. Government is supportive M For the legislation changes to take place in a reasonable period of time, the of the proposed innovations project will be constantly following up on the proposed innovations and and respective legislation provide any technical support that may possibly be required for timely (secondary legislation) is processing of the documents in the corresponding governmental structures. timely adopted A misuse of project funds M Prior donor experience, suggests that this is an important risk. This was could undermine the therefore carefully considered during project preparation. The project team achievement of proposed believes the following three aspects will help mitigate these risks: (i) This is a project activities, outcomes TA project with the bulk of resources being spent on harnessing specialist and impacts. expertise to develop capacity to plan an expanded protected areas system and implement new management approaches for expansion. There are no large sub-contracts typical of large investment projects; (ii) UNDP’s strict audit requirements will be carefully observed; and (iii) UNDP-Uzbekistan, has adopted a project execution modality that eliminates the possibility of misuse of funds. This modality is called National Execution with a Direct Payments Option. Essentially, all payments will be made directly by UNDP through its own accounts, and funds will not be transferred to the government. Both government and UNDP must agree on an Annual Work Plan prior to funding any activities in that year. This serves the dual purpose of government not being able to fund activities not approved by UNDP and vice-versa. While this is time and effort intensive, this modality is proving very effective. Climate change M Uzbekistan has experienced an increase in temperature and decrease of precipitation, trends attributed to climate change. As the climate observations show three out of ten years become drought-affected during the last few decades. With the increasing aridity of the climate in Uzbekistan and reliance of the country’s economy on agricultural development, namely on irrigated land cultivation, Uzbekistan uptakes more and more water resources for the sector thus changing both the natural hydrological regime and cycle, and affecting availability of water for the natural ecosystems protected by the strict reserves. Snow cover is an important feeding source for the rivers of Uzbekistan. Currently it contributes to 60-75% of total runoff formation. This contribution is expected to decrease by 15-30% as a result of snow melt. Contrary, the contribution of precipitation from rain might grow from current 12%-15% up to 25%-35%, which will also negatively affect formation of snow reserves and would lead to rain floods, especially in Fergana Valley. The project will consider the climate change impacts on designing the PAS

Risk Risk Risk Mitigation strategy rating Master Plan which will provide recommendations for establishment of new or expansion of existing PAs to provide for protection of key species in new habitat where the species are expected to migrate as a result of changing climate conditions. It will also look at the establishment of new forms and types of protection regime for most vulnerable species (e.g special protection status for forest species/ecosystems threatened by climate change). The project will facilitate the adaptation to climate change by integrate climate resilience into the expansion, consolidation, and operationalization of an effective PA system.

G. EXPLAIN HOW COST-EFFECTIVENESS IS REFLECTED IN THE PROJECT DESIGN: 42. In line with the GEF Council’s guidance on assessing cost-effectiveness of projects (Cost Effectiveness Analysis in GEF Projects, GEF/C.25/11, April 29, 2005), the project development team has taken a qualitative approach to identifying the cheapest way, among competing alternatives, of achieving the project objective. 43. Under current conditions, the National Protected Area System of Uzbekistan does not effectively safeguard biodiversity. Large number of species, ecosystems and ecological processes are not adequately protected and the management regimes (management objectives, governance types or management effectiveness) of the existing protected areas do not provide full security for particular species or ecosystems. In response, the Government has developed an ambitious national programming framework in biodiversity, and one of the key objectives of this is to optimize and expand the national PA system to comprise 10% of national territory (from the current 5.57%). The government is requesting GEF and UNDP assistance for realizing these biodiversity conservation objectives (area expansion and others), expressed in the national programming framework. Achieving this objective, however, by adding on to the current system of state-funded protected areas is not viable. Budget appropriations are insufficient for meeting basic operational needs of protected areas. The system of institutions responsible for protecting biodiversity is seriously under financed on every level. Financial support to the NPAS from the government is ad-hoc and does not rest upon any regulating instruments. This, in turn, undermines operational capacity, effective planning and implementation. Further, existing institutional weaknesses (institutional fragmentation, low levels of skills and capacities) lead to further inefficiencies in utilization of already low funding levels. 44. A more cost-effective deployment of GEF resources to support the government in meeting its objectives would be to demonstrate new management approaches for the expansion of protected area system by capitalizing on new opportunities offered by the law “On protected areas” that was adopted by the Parliament in December 2004. This contains new provisions that aim to partially decentralize financing of the Strict Nature Reserves and to a degree shift the burden of financing biodiversity conservation from the state budget to other sources, including own resource mobilization activities. It also states that lands of buffer zones can be used for the establishment of non-government owned “protected areas”. The law is new and the establishment of community-owned or privately owned protected areas, while expanding the avenues available for promoting conservation, has never been tested in Uzbekistan to date. This provides an entry point and represents the most cost-effective use of GEF resources where viable alternatives for improving representation and management effectiveness, compared to the current system, are demonstrated by removing systemic and institutional capacity barriers. These experiences can then be scaled-up to progressively realize national biodiversity conservation targets. 45. The project will improve enabling environment for extending protection to biodiversity to additional 2 million hectares and enhancing capacities of the protected areas management bodies thus strengthening mechanisms that address existing risks to biodiversity. The project is also designed to achieve the required outcomes while only incurring essential incremental expenses. To accomplish this, the project will build upon the existing baseline activities and national and local capacities, as well as available infrastructure, and will utilize co-financing. The project will also contribute to the on-going government efforts to expand and strengthen the national PA system and make it compliant with legislative requirements and international standards. Thus, costs to be incurred will be only for those additional actions required to provide key incremental assistance to the government in undertaking reforms in order to markedly improve the sustainability and conservation effectiveness of the national protected area system and actions required to provide a practical model of effective PA management. 17

PART III: INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT

A. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS: 46. The project will be executed following established UNDP national execution procedures (NEX). The Executing Agency (EA) will be the Main Department of Forestry under the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Management. The EA will appoint the national Project Coordinator who will be accountable for the project’s delivery. This position will not be paid for from project funds but will represent a governmental in-kind contribution to the project. The Project Coordinator will be supported by a Project Implementation Unit (PIU) which will be established in Tashkent, in the premises of the Department of National Parks, Strict and Game Reserves. The premises will be provided as part of the Government in-kind contribution. The PIU will include the Project Manager and an assistant to Project Manager. The Project Manager will be appointed on a competitive basis and will be responsible for the timely and effective delivery of all project related activities, and the meeting of the project’s objectives. The Project Manager will report to the Head of UNDP Environment and Energy Unit and UNDP-GEF National Projects Adviser in the UNDP-CO in Tashkent. The project will contract national and international consultants upon necessity to assist the Project Manager in achieving the project’s objective through provision of required consultation and technical advice at critical points during the duration of the project. 47. The Executing Agency will establish a Project Steering Committee (PSC) to advise and provide guidance on the project’s implementation. The Minister of Agriculture and Water Management, or more likely a designate, will chair the PSC. The composition of the PSC will be representative of all key stakeholders and will ensure the inclusion of community level interests, as well as the different Ministries relevant to land-use activities and governance in the project territory. Potential PSC participants will be drawn from the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Management, the MAWR’s Main Forestry Department, Department of National Parks, Strict Nature and Game (Hunting) Reserves, the State Committee for Nature Protection, as well as the regional and local governments, landowners, and community interest groups. The Project Steering Committee will monitor the project’s implementation, provide guidance and advice, and facilitate communication, cooperation, and coordination among stakeholders and other project partners. The PSC will convene at least twice yearly. At the initial stage of project implementation, the PSC may, if deemed advantageous, wish to meet more frequently to build common understanding and to ensure that the project is initiated properly. 48. The UNDP-CO will support the project’s implementation by maintaining the project budget and project expenditures, contracting project personnel, experts and sub-contractors, undertaking procurement, and providing other assistance upon request of the National Executing Agency. The UNDP-CO will also monitor the project’s implementation and achievement of project outcomes, and will ensure the proper use of UNDP-GEF funds. Financial transactions, reporting and auditing will be carried out in compliance with national regulations and established UNDP rules and procedures for national project execution.

PART IV: EXPLAIN THE ALIGNMENT OF PROJECT DESIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL PIF:

49. The project is fully in line with the approved PIF. It will generate global benefits through ensuring long-term protection of globally significant ecosystems and species in all strict nature reserves across the country and the realization of Countdown 2010 goals. National benefits will include a strengthened PA management capacity. The national system of PAs will benefit from the development and application of more effective approaches to SNR management, including active buffer zone management, which will make the national system more sustainable. State bodies will benefit from built up internal capacity and improved legislation and coordination of agency activities. Administration and staff of strict reserves and other PAs in the NPAS will benefit from newly acquired management and conservation skills according to contemporary standards. At the site level, the administration and staff of SSNR will additionally gain from improved information on biodiversity for the making of effective decisions, increased effectiveness of the PAs’ operations, improved staff knowledge of biodiversity and resource management issues, and better relationships with local communities. At the local level, nearby communities will develop their internal capacities and will have a basis for establishing more sustainable and less destructive patterns of land and biological resource use. Communities will also develop strong linkages with the reserve, and through involvement in the reserve’s decision- making and operations, will derive direct and sustainable social and economic benefits. Regional bodies and project partners will benefit through built up capacity and the development of initiatives in alternative and sustainable forms of 18

income generation. Likewise, local land use allocations and resource management will be done in a manner that balances biodiversity conservation with economic development. Cofinancing expected at the PIF stage has been confirmed for the large part. Unconfirmed co-financing is under negotiations and continuous efforts to attract more funds to realization of the project are on-going. PART V: AGENCY CERTIFICATION This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for CEO Endorsement.

John Hough Adriana Dinu, UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor UNDP-GEF Officer-in-Charge Project Contact Person Date: March 11, 2008 Tel. and Email: [email protected] Tel: +421 2 59 337 407

ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK Project Strategy Key Impact Indicators Baseline Target Sources of Verification Assumptions

GOAL: To strengthen Uzbekistan’s protected area system. OBJECTIVE Enabling environment Basic legislation PA Expansion Plan PA Expansion Plan Political stability maintained To demonstrate new in place to facilitate providing for expansion developed and approved management approaches expansion of the PA by the Government PA Financing Plan Social and economic conditions for expansion of protected System of Uzbekistan do not worsen area system of Uzbekistan to cover an additional 2 PA Financing Plan million ha developed and approved Other ministries and other by the Government public agencies do not Improved management Gissar: 51 Gissar: 60 METT scores assessment cooperate to align strategies, effectiveness of Zerafshan: 37 Zerafshan: 50 plans and projects 822,500 ha of protected Baday-Tugay: 34 Baday-Tugay: 48 areas in Uzbekistan Nuratau: 34 Nuratau: 48 Baseline funding and co- (METT scores) Chatkal: 52 Chatkal: 60 financing commitments are Kyzylkum: 34 Kyzylkum: 50 maintained Kitab: 61 Kitab: 70 Zaamin: 36 Zaamin: 50 National, regional and local Surkhan: 33 Surkhan: 50 level support is maintained Legal, regulatory and Score: 14 out of 78 40 out of 78 Financial scorecard The GU does not allocate an institutional annual budget for protected frameworks for Project reports area management financial sustainability Business planning and Score: 9 out of 61 30 out of 61 The GoU not supportive of tools for cost-effective innovations in revenue management in place generation. Tools for revenue Score: 6 out of 57 20 out of 57 generation in place The number of None At least 3 strict reserves in NPAS survey and recorded citations of GoU is supportive of replicates within other NPAS follow their own this project as source of lessons innovations and is willing to strict reserves, of Management Plans for replicate project’s lessons approaches operation and management learned and best practices in demonstrated and of the reserves other PAs lessons learned by the project OUTCOME 1 : Master Plan % contribution of PA <5% >50% PA Expansion plan Other ministries and other for Protected Area System estate to meeting the public agencies do not of Uzbekistan is guiding country representativity cooperate to align strategies, the expansion. targets plans and projects Number of SNRs with 1 9 Management plans GoU is supportive of approved management Monitoring reports innovations and is willing to plan replicate project’s lessons learned and best practices in other PAs

Project Strategy Key Impact Indicators Baseline Target Sources of Verification Assumptions

Percentage of the 0% of the SSNR budget at least 20% of the Budget figures from accounting books The MoAWM does not develop annual SSNR recurrent SSNR’s annual recurrent of the PA controlling authority/letters the enabling regulations for costs received from costs received from from of confirmation protected area agencies to sources other than the income inflows other than implement financing state budget for their the state budget mechanisms annual recurrent costs. Management costs of Available funds cannot Management costs are Financial records of the SNRs the SNRs are in line cover management being covered through management authority with available funds costs of effective revenues and other protection national funding sources OUTCOME 2: Level of the adequate The conservation 90% of the reserve staff Institutional Assessment scorecard Administration of the NPAS is Strengthened institutional professional knowledge management capacity are qualified accordingly supportive to initiatives of the and individual capacity to among the reserve’s of the staff responsible to the contemporary Personnel records and TORs of staff project to raise the professional enable expansion and staff required for for SNRs is very low standards for effective level of reserves’ staff improved management effective reserve’s reserve operation Personnel performance reviews effectiveness management Reserves’ personnel is willing Assessment scores for to improve its professional the staff working in the level SNRs.

Institutional assessment scorecard Increase in number of 0 4 Ministry reports protected areas with an effective and properly Audit resourced management institution Use of business There is no business Business planning is an Business plan methods at SNRs planning and no integral part of PA Monitoring plan level and existence institutionalized PA management, supported of a PA performance by an M&E system at the performance monitoring system PA level monitoring system OUTCOME 3 : Populations of globally Tajik markhor - 150 The population sizes of Population surveys and monitoring Executing Partner and the Demonstration of new significant species in Bukharian urial - 35 Tajik markhor and results administration of the SSNR conservation management SSNR Bukharian urial species reserve are cooperative and approaches (new within the boundaries of willing to improve the situation governance approaches) in the SSNR have remained with biodiversity conservation buffer areas of strictly constant or increased in the system of strict nature nature reserves in compared to the baseline reserves Uzbekistan level

Project Strategy Key Impact Indicators Baseline Target Sources of Verification Assumptions

Government is supportive towards changes in reserves’ management approaches promoted through the project Reserves Administrations are willing to test more effective approaches in a reserve’s management Number of ha under 24,500 ha 430,000 ha of important PA register and legal description of Changes in legislation and new active conservation habitat is included under new boundary regulations for buffer zone management in the SSNR management management endorsed SSNR by government

Competing interests do not preclude expansion of SSNR

Changes in boundary endorsed by government

Collaboration among agencies is forthcoming Legal establishment of None at least 2 buffer zone NPAS register and recorded citations Administrations of other PAs the buffer zones around around strict reserve is of this project as source of lessons are willing to learn more and other protected areas in legally established and improve effectiveness of their Uzbekistan and/or the actively managed Questionnaires of villagers residing conservation works. region around another strict reserve

ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS (from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and Responses to Comments from Council at work program inclusion and the Convention Secretariat and STAP at PIF)

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM GEF SECRETARIAT AT PIF STAGE Comment Response Where is reflected in the Document Please explore potential The project has established close links with the on-going GEF – funded Central Asia Countries Initiative on Section D. Outline linkages with CACILM Land Management (CACILM). The information base of the CACILM will be extensively used for the Coordination in Uzbekistan developing and initiating resource use activities for the active management of the buffer zones around the with other related strict reserves. On the other hand, the limitations that are imposed on the resource use in the buffer zones Initiatives. of the reserves imply that the resources should be used in the most cost-effective and sustainable manner. Which means that the experience gained during the present project may well become a source of Para 39 knowledge for the CACILM as well. This information will be shared through the established CACILM mechanism of National Secretariats. In addition, a pilot area of the recently started UNDP-GEF LD MSP “Achieving ecosystem stability”, which is a part of CACILM Phase I in Uzbekistan, surrounds one of the strict nature reserves of the country – Kyzylkum tugay-sand strict reserve. As the present project will be working with the strict reserve and management of its surroundings, close cooperation between the mentioned CACILM project and the present project are essential for meeting the objectives of both projects and therefore two UNDP-GEF projects will be mutually beneficial for each other. Please provide more info Uzbekistan has experienced an increase in temperature and decrease of precipitation, trends attributed to Section F. Indicate on the issue of climate climate change. As the climate observations show three out of ten years become drought-affected during Risks, including change the last few decades. With the increasing aridity of the climate in Uzbekistan and reliance of the country’s Climate Change. economy on agricultural development, namely on irrigated land cultivation, Uzbekistan uptakes more and more water resources for the sector thus changing both the natural hydrological regime and cycle, and Risk Table. affecting availability of water for the natural ecosystems protected by the strict reserves. Snow cover is an important feeding source for the rivers of Uzbekistan. Currently it contributes to 60-75% of total runoff formation. This contribution is expected to decrease by 15-30% as a result of snow melt. Contrary, the contribution of precipitation from rain might grow from current 12%-15% up to 25%-35%, which will also negatively affect formation of snow reserves and would lead to rain floods, especially in Fergana Valley. The project will consider the climate change impacts on designing the PAS Master Plan which will provide recommendations for establishment of new or expansion of existing PAs to provide for protection of key species in new habitat where the species are expected to migrate as a result of changing climate conditions. It will also look at the establishment of new forms and types of protection regime for most vulnerable species (e.g special protection status for forest species/ecosystems threatened by climate change). The project will facilitate the adaptation to climate change by integrate climate resilience into the expansion, consolidation, and operationalization of an effective PA system. Please provide the BD The BD Tracking Tool for Protected Areas (METT) is attached as separate file, as it is very large Separate File tracking Tool for Also we attached the financial sustainability scorecard. Protected Areas Please submit the PDF A The PDF A review sheet and approval is sent as a separate file. Separate file approval record –

Comment Response Where is reflected in the Document including the old GEF PMIS – as we have no record of the approved PDF A

ANNEX C: CONSULTANTS TO BE HIRED FOR THE PROJECT WITH GEF FUNDING $/ Estimated Position Titles person person Tasks to be performed week weeks For Project Management Local Project Manager 267 208 Under supervision of the National Project Coordinator and Head of UNDP Environment and Energy Unit, the Project Manager will fulfil the following tasks and responsibilities:  Setting up the project co-ordination and implementation mechanism for the achievement of project objectives, including the proper planning of workflow and relevant reporting;  Ensuring that UNDP monitoring and evaluation procedures, such as Annual/Quarterly Work Plans and Reports are implemented timely and effectively;  Deliver results and manage funds in line with the work plan approved by PSC;  Analyze and evaluate achieved results regularly to ensure that the project is meeting the target beneficiaries’ needs, and communicating them to all PSC members;  Report issues to PSC with recommendations for solutions to project issues that exceed the defined tolerance level;  Discuss and deal with local and national authorities on matters pertaining to activities described in the project document;  Ensure timely preparation and submission of yearly/quarterly project work plans and reports;  Lead the recruitment process of the necessary local and international experts in the areas identified in the project document in accordance with UNDP rules and regulations;  Provide general coordination of project experts, including oversight of their technical plans, organization of field work, organization team work of experts, integration their results into unified project development, support for preparing experts and project reports, organization of project events, such as local seminars and workshops;  Lead the meetings of the consultants to ensure effective joint planning of activities and monitor of the implementation of technical tasks described in technical work plans.  Meet periodically with representatives of reserves and stakeholder groups involved in the PA system operation, especially on local level;  Prepare relevant presentations and reports on project technical implementation for PSC’s and other similar events.  Collect, register and maintain information on project activities by reviewing reports and through firsthand sources; and  Advises all project counterparts on applicable administrative procedures and ensures their proper implementation. Assistant to 150 208 Under the direct supervision of the Project Manager, Administrative/Finance Assistant will undertake a Project Manager variety of administrative and financial tasks and fulfil the following tasks and responsibilities:  Prepare all financial, logistical and administrative documents related to the project implementation in accordance with the UNDP rules and procedures for nationally executed projects (RDPs and RPAs 25

$/ Estimated Position Titles person person Tasks to be performed week weeks together with relevant supporting documentation) and ensure their timely submission to UNDP CO for further processing;  Maintain programme’s expenditure & commitments shadow budget through regular reconciliation with UNDP CO’s financial records and advise the Project Manager on project budget and funds availability;  Prepare proposals for budget revisions and progress reports on quarterly project’s work plans;  Draft project reports in English and Russian;  Perform Cash Custodian’s duties being primarily responsible for project’ cash disbursements and payrolls;  Arrange tendering, shipment and receipt of the project supplies;  Maintain and update the inventory of the project’s non-expendable equipment;  Perform tasks related to logistics and administrative issues of organizing seminars and workshops, including rent of conference hall, arranging coffee breaks, procurement of stationary, travel of participants etc;  Compile the required documents for RAP review and short term recruitments and ensure timely submission;  Follow up on vacancy announcements for different positions and register them with UNDP Personnel Unit;  Perform day-to-day translation of project related documents from English to Russian and vice versa;  Brief international experts/consultants on general administrative matters relating to visas, provide advice and ensure administrative support as required and provide oral translations for them during missions, meetings, etc.  Draft correspondence and reports in accordance with the standard procedures;  Perform other duties related to administrative and financial issues of the project as may be required. Technical consultants Local Consultants Legal expert 120 300 The legal expert will review the existing legislation on protected area management in Uzbekistan and the wider Central Asian region and will lead the process of: (i) Development of secondary legislation related to buffer zone establishment and designation on mechanisms for land allocation and its administration, rights and obligations of the land users in the buffer zone, compensation schemes, tax abatements or other economic incentives necessary in the light of proposed restrictions on the land users residing in the buffer zones, etc; (ii) Development and submission to the Government a package of legislative norms, justifying and regulating financial commitments from the state budget for sustaining operational capacities of the strict nature reserves; (iii) Legislation on benefit sharing and inclusion of local communities in biodiversity conservation and PA management; and (iv) will propose a mechanism for receiving additional bonuses for efficient fulfilling of responsibilities and tasks in order to provide rangers with an additional economic incentive.

$/ Estimated Position Titles person person Tasks to be performed week weeks PA Specialist 120 308 The local consultant will support the international PA Specialist in the development of a Protected Area Master Plan for Uzbekistan and will work together with other local consultants – PA governance. Main tasks will include:  Describing the current protected area system context;  Provide info for the establishing of short- and long-term spatial targets for a representative protected area network design;  Support the development of a standard approach to the establishment of protected areas, including drafting an agreed set of minimum standards which different categories of protected areas must meet to be incorporated in the National Protected Area System.;  Identifying the role of the various stakeholders (communities and private sector) in protected area establishment and management;  Identifying the reporting requirements to monitor management effectiveness of protected areas and the protected area system; (viii) Identifying the respective roles and responsibilities of the MoAWM, other ministries, public enterprises and protected area institutions. PA Finance 180 200 The local consultant will support the international PA Finance expert on:  Identifying the current financing mechanisms for protected areas in Uzbekistan and lessons learnt from their implementation;  Identifying the range of appropriate financing mechanisms for the protected area network and individual protected areas;  Analyzing each financing mechanism in terms of: (a) A general description (what is it, how does it work); (b) The affected stakeholders (who pays, who receives); (c) Regulatory requirements (enabling legal requirements); (d) Structural considerations (institutional arrangements and controls for collection and distribution of benefit flows); (e) Optimal pricing and payment systems; (f) Projected operating costs and income flows; (g) Likelihood of acceptance of mechanism (risks, willingness-to-pay, political support); and (h) Possible mitigation measures (to overcome low probability of implementation or acceptance of mechanism);  Development of a broad financing plan for the protected areas network, and a detailed financing plan for individual protected areas (on a piloted, prioritized basis only); and  Drafting in collaboration with the legal expert the secondary legislation required to implement key financing mechanisms. PA Governance 120 200 The consultant will support the work of the international consultant and will provide advice on different types of governance structures for protected areas in Uzbekistan and Central Asia. Will assess the Information 120 100 Assist the international consultants (PA specialist) to design a comprehensive and management needs management driven biodiversity monitoring programme to ensure that key information is continuously updated. This will be based on the results of the UNDP-GEF Biodiversity Enabling Activity Add-on (Assessment of Priority National Capacity Development needs for Implementation of the BSAP and Establishment of CHM Structures) by introducing the monitoring system to the PA System of Uzbekistan and scale-up

$/ Estimated Position Titles person person Tasks to be performed week weeks introduction of the CHM. The consultant will develop/codify/compile an appropriate inventorying and monitoring methodology that can be used by staff of SNRs and based on that develop a more general system to be scaled-up for the other reserves. Sustainable 120 200 Take lead responsibility for project outcomes and activities relating to building capacity of community livelihoods representatives and local NGOs on sustainable management of natural resources in the buffer zone. The expert will also provide advice on increasing access to credit for villagers for sustainable livelihood activities. He/she will help designing models for buffer zone management, such as sustainable game species management; and forestry plantations. Evaluation (mid- 120 12 The role of the national project evaluation consultant(s) will be to participate, alongside with the term and final) international consultants, in the mid-term and final evaluation of the project, in order to assess the project progress, achievement of results and impacts. The project evaluation specialists will develop draft evaluation report, discuss it with the project team, government and UNDP, and as necessary participate in discussions to realign the project time-table/logframe at the mid-term stage. The standard UNDP/GEF project evaluation TOR will be used. International PA Management 3,000 10 The consultant will lead the process of development of a Protected Area Master Plan for Uzbekistan and expert will work together with the local consultants – PA specialists and PA governance. Main tasks will include:  Describing the current protected area system context and briefly summarizing global reviews of best practice in protected area establishment, planning and management;  Establishing short- and long-term spatial targets for a representative protected area network design that: (a) aims to contain samples of all ecosystems at the appropriate scale; (b) aims to contain areas which are refugia or centers of species richness or endemicity; (c) considers the ecological requirements of rare or threatened species, communities or habitats; and (d) takes account of special groups of organisms (e.g. ranging or migratory species);  developing a standard approach to the establishment of protected areas, including drafting an agreed set of minimum standards which different categories of protected areas must meet to be incorporated in the National Protected Area System. It will also provide protected area establishment guidelines on: (a) the mechanisms to secure the legal conservation tenure of different types of land ownership; (b) mechanisms for the delineation of protected areas; (c) options for delegating management authority; (d) accreditation of the protected area management institution; (e) the information requirements and flow of relevant PA establishment information; and (f) the participative requirements and processes;  Identifying a set of common broad management principles for protected areas, which embody contemporary thinking on protected area management, to ensure the on-going maintenance and management of their primary biodiversity and heritage conservation values. This will include: (a) requirements for management planning, including for buffer zone management; (b) responses to common management issues such as fire, invasive alien species, neighbor relations, tourism/visitor

$/ Estimated Position Titles person person Tasks to be performed week weeks facilities and services, resource use and stakeholder engagement; and (c) requirements for co- operative governance;  Identifying the broad options for the sustainable financing of protected areas;  Identifying the role of the various stakeholders (communities and private sector) in protected area establishment and management;  Identifying the reporting requirements to monitor management effectiveness of protected areas and the protected area system; (viii) Identifying the respective roles and responsibilities of the MoAWM, other ministries, public enterprises and protected area institutions; and  Collating all the information into a ‘Master Plan for Protected Area System of Uzbekistan” PA Financial 3,000 10 The local consultant will support the international PA Finance expert on: expert  Identifying the current financing mechanisms for protected areas in Uzbekistan and lessons learnt from their implementation;  Identifying the range of appropriate financing mechanisms for the protected area network and individual protected areas;  Analyzing each financing mechanism in terms of: (a) A general description (what is it, how does it work); (b) The affected stakeholders (who pays, who receives); (c) Regulatory requirements (enabling legal requirements); (d) Structural considerations (institutional arrangements and controls for collection and distribution of benefit flows); (e) Optimal pricing and payment systems; (f) Projected operating costs and income flows; (g) Likelihood of acceptance of mechanism (risks, willingness-to-pay, political support); and (h) Possible mitigation measures (to overcome low probability of implementation or acceptance of mechanism);  Development of a broad financing plan for the protected areas network, and a detailed financing plan for individual protected areas (on a piloted, prioritized basis only); and  Drafting in collaboration with the legal expert the secondary legislation required to implement key financing mechanisms. PA Governance 3,000 12 In consultation with key stakeholder groups and with the local PA governance consultant, the international specialist will:  Review the efficacy of the current institutional arrangements for the different categories of protected areas;  Identify and review different institutional options for planning, management, co-operative governance and monitoring of protected areas at the different spheres of planning and operations;  Make recommendations on the preferred institutional option for protected area planning and management for different categories of PAs;  Identify the human resource capacity needs;  Propose models for comanagement for the buffer areas;  Identify options for optimizing operational partnerships in protected area management; Evaluation 3,000 12 The international evaluation consultant will chair the group for the final external project evaluation.

$/ Estimated Position Titles person person Tasks to be performed week weeks He/she will work with the local evaluation consultant in order to assess the project progress, achievement of results and impacts. The project evaluation specialists will develop draft evaluation report, discuss it with the project team, government and UNDP, and as necessary participate in discussions to extract lessons for UNDP and GEF. The standard UNDP/GEF project evaluation TOR will be used.

Contractual Services – Individual:

Field Coordinator 115.4 104 Under direct supervision of the Project Manager, the Field Coordinator will fulfil the following tasks and responsibilities:  Setting up the co-ordination and implementation mechanism for the achievement of project objectives on the testing site – Surkhan Strict Nature Reserve, including the proper planning of workflow and relevant reporting;  Liaison with the Project Manager in Tashkent, direct contacts with the administration of the Surkhan Strict Nature Reserve, other SNRs as may be required to implement the Project Work Plans;  Financial and administrative oversight of project activities on the project site in cooperation with the project head office;  Provide assistance to the efforts of the project head office in activities related to strengthening national PA system capacity in accordance with the project objectives;  Support resource mobilization efforts for the project activities on the ground. National 161.5 208  Provide general coordination of project experts, including oversight of their technical plans, organization of field Technical work, organization team work of experts, integration their results into unified project development, support for Coordinator preparing experts and project reports, organization of project events, such as local seminars and workshops, and act as project representative in local level in absence of Project manager (PM)  Regularly meet with PM and inform him/her about progress achieved and problems the project faces;  Lead the regular meetings of the project experts to ensure effective joint planning of activities and monitor of the implementation of technical tasks described in technical work plans.  Meet periodically with representatives of reserves and stakeholder groups involved in the PA system operation, especially on local level (when necessary but not less than once a quarter);  In consultation with the PM, meet with representatives of donor organizations and UNDP programmes and projects with regard to possible joint activities and resource mobilization;  Prepare relevant presentations and reports on project technical implementation for PSC’s and other similar events.  Collaborate with the PM in the preparation of Annual and Quarterly technical work plans  Coordinate project public awareness activity, including preparation of fact sheets, leaflets, brochures, update of 30

project web-site et al.  Collaborate with the PM and Admin-Financial Assistant (AFA) in the preparation of the Annual Project Report (APR), Report for TPR, Project Implementation Report (RIR), Project Progress Report (on a quarterly basis);  Assist project experts in preparation of reports.  To be responsible for undertaking specific technical tasks on the project, that will be described in details in the advertised ToR

ANNEX D: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES AND THE USE OF FUNDS

A. EXPLAIN IF THE PPG OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED THROUGH THE PPG ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN. The PPG objective has been achieved fully. The baseline assessment was done and wide consultations with all possible stakeholders conducted. In fact, thorough assessment and consultations helped to sharpen and rectify the design of the project: the similarity of the threats and issues in management of the national strict nature reserves urged the developers to focus on all strict reserves of the national PA system rather than focusing on a specific site – Surkhan reserve although with globally significant biodiversity. The project design is now targeting the entire system of strict nature reserves with specific set of interventions peculiar to all terrestrial PAs in Uzbekistan. As the final output of the consultation processes and other PPG activities, the MSP project brief is developed.

B. DESCRIBE IF ANY FINDINGS THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE PROJECT DESIGN OR ANY CONCERNS ON PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION. The only obstacle that may impede the project implementation (in regard to its timeframe) is the very long process of decisions’ co-ordination and taking in the national Government authorities.

C. PROVIDE DETAILED FUNDING AMOUNT OF THE PPG ACTIVITIES AND THEIR IMPLEMTATION STATUS IN THE TABLE BELOW: GEF Amount ($) Project Preparation Implementatio Amount Amount Amount Uncommitted Co-financing Activities Approved n Status Approved Spent To- Committed Amount* ($) date Conduct baseline Completed 25,000 24,714 0 286.5 26,420.69 assessments, consultation and initiate the collaboration for integrated planning of activities with other relevant regional and international partners; log frame exercise (project elaboration and design) and stakeholder consultation; and incremental cost analysis as well as identification of co- financing. Prepare GEF Project Brief. Total 25,000 24,714 0 286.5 26,420.69 * Uncommitted amount should be returned to the GEF Trust Fund. Please indicate expected date of refund transaction to Trustee.

ANNEX E. TOTAL BUDGET AND WORK PLAN

Award ID: 00049503 Award Title: PIMS 2111 BD MSP Uzbekistan: Strengthening Sustainability of the National Protected Area System by Focusing on Strictly Protected Areas Business Unit: UZB10 Project ID: 00060412 Project Title: PIMS 2111 BD MSP Uzbekistan: Strengthening Sustainability of the National Protected Area System by Focusing on Strictly Protected Areas Implementing Partner (Executing Agency) Ministry of Agriculture and Water Management

Responsible Atlas GEF Party/ Budgetary Amount Amount Amount Amount Outcome/Atlas Implementing Donor Account ATLAS Budget Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 See Budget Activity Agent Fund ID Name Code Description (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) Total (USD) Note: 71200 International Consultants 24,000 24,000 12,000 - 60,000 1 71300 Local Consultants 21,240 30,240 21,240 12,240 84,960 2 Contractual services- 71400 Individual 9,125 9,125 9,125 9,125 36,500 3 7,00 71600 Travel 7,000 7,000 0 7,000 28,000 4 37,40 32,40 62000 GEF 72100 Contractual services 0 0 - - 69,800 5 6,24 3,00 3,00 OUTCOME 1: 72200 Equip 0 0 0 3,000 15,240 6 Master Plan for Audio Visual& Print Prod 5,00 10,00 10,00 Protected Area 74200 Costs 0 0 0 10,000 35,000 7 System of UNDP 1,00 1,00 1,00 Uzbekistan is 74500 Miscellaneous 0 0 0 1,000 4,000 8 guiding the 111,00 116,76 63,36 expansion. sub-total GEF 5 5 5 42,365 333,500 6,00 6,00 6,00 72100 Contractual services 0 0 0 6,000 24,000 5 Audio Visual& Print Prod 6,00 6,00 6,00 74200 Costs 0 0 0 6,000 24,000 7 4000 UNDP 50 50 50 74500 Miscellaneous 0 0 0 500 2,000 8 12,50 12,50 12,50 sub-total donor UNDP 0 0 0 12,500 50,000 123,50 129,26 75,86 Total Outcome 1 5 5 5 54,865 383,500 OUTCOME 2. UNDP 62000 GEF 6,00 24,00 6,00 Strengthened 71200 International Consultants 0 0 0 18,000 54,000 9 institutional and 37,44 12,00 12,72 individual capacity 71300 Local Consultants 0 0 0 6,000 68,160 10 to enable 10,00 10,00 10,00 expansion and 71600 Travel 0 0 0 10,000 40,000 4 improved 33,00 33,00 27,00 management 72100 Contractual services 0 0 0 16,000 109,000 5 effectiveness 72200 Equip 12,00 12,00 12,00 12,000 48,000 11 33

0 0 0 Audio Visual& Print Prod 5,00 5,00 5,00 72400 Costs 0 0 0 5,000 20,000 12 1,00 1,00 1,00 74500 Miscellaneous 0 0 0 840 3,840 8 104,44 97,00 73,72 Total Outcome 2 0 0 0 67,840 343,000 9,00 9,00 71200 International Consultants - 0 0 - 18,000 13 11,40 15,00 12,60 71300 Local Consultants 0 0 0 9,000 48,000 14 Contractual services- 3,32 3,32 3,32 71400 Individual 5 5 5 3,325 13,300 15 5,00 8,00 8,00 71600 Travel 0 0 0 8,000 29,000 4 12,00 21,00 14,00 OUTCOME 3: 72100 Contractual services 0 0 0 - 47,000 5 Demonstration of 62000 GEF 6,00 6,00 6,00 new conservation 72200 Equip 0 0 0 5,000 23,000 16 management Audio Visual& Print Prod 2,50 2,50 2,50 approaches (new 72400 Costs 0 0 0 2,500 10,000 17 governance UNDP 8,00 8,00 8,00 approaches) in 72600 Grants 0 0 0 8,000 32,000 18 buffer areas of 74100 Audit 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 5,000 strictly nature 80 80 80 reserves in 74500 Miscellaneous 0 0 0 800 3,200 8 Uzbekistan 50,02 74,62 65,22 sub-total GEF 5 5 5 38,625 228,500 2,50 2,50 2,50 71600 Travel 0 0 0 2,500 10,000 4 2,50 2,50 2,50 4000 UNDP 72100 Contractual services 0 0 0 2,500 10,000 5 5,00 5,00 5,00 sub-total donor UNDP 0 0 0 5,000 20,000 55,02 79,62 70,22 Total Outcome 3 5 5 5 43,625 248,500 OUTCOME 4: UNDP Contractual services- 15,00 15,00 15,00 Project 62000 GEF 71400 Individual 0 0 0 15,000 60,000 19 management 2,50 2,50 2,50 budget/cost 71600 Travel 0 0 0 2,500 10,000 4 4000 UNDP 17,50 17,50 17,50 sub-total GEF 0 0 0 17,500 70,000 Contractual services- 6,70 6,70 6,70 71400 Individual 0 0 0 6,700 26,800 19 38,20 5,00 5,00 72200 Equipment and Furniture 0 0 0 2,000 50,200 20 72400 Communic&Audio Visual 5,00 4,00 4,00 5,000 18,000 21

Equip 0 0 0 5,00 5,00 5,00 72500 Supplies 0 0 0 5,000 20,000 22 2,50 2,50 2,50 71600 Travel 0 0 0 2,500 10,000 4 1,00 2,00 1,00 74500 Miscellaneous 0 0 0 1,000 5,000 8 58,40 25,20 24,20 sub-total donor UNDP 0 0 0 22,200 130,000 75,90 42,70 41,70 Total Management 0 0 0 39,700 200,000 GEF TOTAL 282,970 305,890 219,810 166,330 975,000 UNDP TOTAL 76,700 41,100 41,100 41,100 200,000 PROJECT TOTAL 359,670 346,990 260,910 207,430 1,175,000

Amount Amount Amount Summary of Amount Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 funds (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) Total (USD) GEF 282,970 305,890 219,810 166,330 975,000 UNDP in cash 76,700 41,100 41,100 41,100 200,000 Project Government Contribution in-kind 260,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 1,040,000 TOTAL: 619,670 606,990 520,910 467,430 2,215,000

Budget notes: 1. Consultancy fee to international consultants: PA system Design and PA financial expert 2. Consultancy fee for local consultants: Legal expert, PA specialist and PA financial specialist 3. Fee to National Technical Coordinator 208 weeks*161.5$ per week plus VB insurance 50$ per 1 month 4. Expenses for travel for Inception Workshop, round-tables, workshops, trainings, international consultant travel, etc 5. Service Contract for the conservation assessment and PA gap analysis, etc 6. Various equipment for the strict nature reserves to create and adjust the diversified revenue flows, geographical positioning equipment to assess and process ecological gaps of the reserves boundaries, demarcations and surveillance equipment for the reserves, etc. 7. Publication of various manuals, guidelines, etc on creating Management Plans, management planning, financial managements, buffer zones operations, etc. 8. Bank charges, claims and adjustments, sundry 9. Consultancy fee to international consultants: PA governance expert and evaluation (mid-term and final) 10. Consultancy fee for local consultants: PA governance, PA specialist, information management and system design, evaluation; 35

11. Travel for international and local consultants; 12. Service Contract for PA management training; 13. Equipment for strengthening operational capacities of the reserves, that will be purchased based on the needs assessment for individual reserves

14. Printing costs for publishing training materials for upgrading the reserves’ staff qualifications and skills 15. Consultancy fee to international consultant of PA governance (community-managed PAs) 16. Consultancy fee for local consultants: Legal expert, PA specialist, Alternative livelihoods; 17. Fee to Field Coordinator 18. Service Contract on developing alternative livelihoods 19. Purchase of equipment for testing active management of the buffer zone and establishing community-owned PA in it 20. Various training materials and publications devoted to active management of the buffer zone for dissemination among all strict reserves across the country 21. Micro capital grants to local residents, households and CBOs that will be engaged in active management of the buffer zone around the reserve(s) 22. Salary to project management staff 23. Purchase of project equipment 24. Acquisition of communication equipment& audio visual equipment, courier ,land telephone, mobile, internet, postage and pouch charges 25. Purchase of stationery and other office supplies, publications, periodicals

ANNEX F. MANAGEMENT EFFECYTIVENESS TRACKING TOOL AND THE FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY SCORECARD

Attached as separate files.