|
|
|
Minutes
Second Task Force Meeting |
|
Comments made about the REReP "Quick start projects": 1.1 Possible contribution from Italy for 2001. 1.2 Possible EC commitment for 2002. Contact the EBRD local residents to coordinate the activities and the priority setting 1.3. Partial coverage by EC. 1.5.2. Germany is asking for the budget. The process of implementation of the three projects to be clarified with SEE governments. Croatia: The law on the environmental fund of Croatia will be passed in the coming days, very important for the project, Croatia could be pilot country. Report on the implementation agreements at the next TF meeting. German support depending on the agreements with the governments. 1.5.3. No pledge yet. Greece could be interested after reviewing the proposal. The FYRoM representative indicated that USAID and REC could implement the project. 1.6. EEA to prepare it depending on available funding Meeting of REC+EEA on that project. Croatia: new proposal which has to be reviewed 1.7. Netherlands 100,000 still missing. Final stage of assessment in the Ministry of foreign affairs of Netherlands 1.8. Croatia: the proposal was developed one year ago and is not realistic. There is a new proposal with regional concept. Decision: To be sorted out with the Secretariat. 1.9. Sweden no interest, misunderstanding. Denmark, still interested to fund together with Germany; Belgium 150,000 EUR contribution; The concept paper to be sent to the donors! 1.10. Denmark: close coordination with the Basel Convention, especially the training center in Bratislava as a long term adviser. At the moment the budget covered by the EC. If other institutions involved, the budget needs to be increased. 1.11. Greece is interested to review the proposal. Macedonia: The Macedonian MoE, supported by UNIDO and the Czech Government is establishing a cleaner production center. Maybe there is an opportunity to continue the cooperation arrangement for other countries Albania: has developed regional strategy for cleaner production, interested to be leading country; Decision: Albania integrated in the project 1.12. Netherlands, final review of the proposal UN/ECE: interested in the project, there should be more emphasis on the international waters and accidents conventions. Decision: discuss the issue with REC, if necessary adapt the content. UN/ECE delegated to provide a table with the status of accession and ratification of the conventions for the SEE countries, so that this is taken into consideration in the Kiev preparations. 1.13. EC: Albania and REC to look for "Life" funding. IUCN: ensured 20,000 EUR, details when the contract is available 1.14. UNDP will explore the opportunities with the BiH office 2.1. Final review by Netherlands 2.2. Croatia: a new proposal developed. Not only for the civil society but also for the government. NL final review process. Denmark: pledge 2.3. Final review by Netherlands Denmark: possible support Norway: 100.000 EUR UN/ECE: to improve the proposal, increase the budget, close coordination with REC Send the proposal to Denmark! 2.4. Comments: Not a priority, not good enough, proposal to be improved. Decision: BG +NGOs + Secretariat to discuss again and improve Macedonia: the project provides link between Rio+ 10 process and the REReP, develop common approach and strategy. Opportunity for UNDP/WB to fund that. UNDP: interested to see a copy of the proposal WB: not committing funds, loans to be requested by the governments. NGOs: Important for the governments to prepare for Rio+10, but most of the work to be done by the NGOs, other sectors to be involved, there should be no confusion. EC: Countries to do more for the NGOs, develop strategy for NGO cooperation. 2.5.1.: NGOs: no funds received yet. 2.5.2. Pledge by the USA 3. Projects needed for YU, Montenegro and Albania UNEP: Assessment reports ready by the end of 2000, urgent environmental remediation projects identified. From the needed humanitarian aid of 20 M only 7M received EC: The new EC regulation might be used for YU, Montenegro and Kosovo. YU+ Montenegro+ Albania+ UNEP + Secretariat to discuss Macedonia: no decision till the UNEP reports available 3.2.1. Italy, partial funding. Possibly to split in two projects, BiH + Secretariat to identify donor. 4. ICPDR: support for 4.1.2. and 4.1.4. 4.1.3 proposed directly by BG without ICPDR In 4.1.4. the project should be in Bor, YU, at the source of pollution. BG+ YU to discuss the joint projects. 4.2. Possibly to be merged with 1.12., UN/ECE and REC to improve the proposal, the important thing is to support the countries in the ratification of different conventions Norway interest in 2001 REC: support SEE to participate in the Rio+10, Kiev preparations, the SEE countries without travel funds will be disadvantaged. EC: Separate point at the next meeting discussion of the table from UN/ECE about the status of signing, acceding and ratification of international conventions by the SEE. 4.3.4. UNDP/GEF, Greece, interested Albania+ Macedonia+ Greece + Ramsar Bureau to discuss, increase the budget Greece:will provide matching funding to EC, GEF: Will discuss with Albania about possible project 4.3.5. Switzerland: Extend the project to Stara Planina and Sar Planina, at the moment just first step. Strategic planning workshop on Nov. 18-20 in Szentendre. The sites are at the moment in designation stage YU to designate protected area, lower Danube Discussions necessary between Secretariat + Albania+ YU+ Montenegro and Switzerland 4.3.7, 4.3.9, 4.3.10 EC: investigate the funding opportunities through the Mediterranean programme. 4.3.16: proposal to be ready by the end of 2000, Send information to Greece 4.3.17. US AID establishing biodiversity center, should report the status to REC 4.3.18 BG+YU+REC to clarify 4.3.21. Send information to Greece. 4.3.24.: UN/ECE reported about the Split meeting and the endorsed Joint statement EC: coordination among players necessary, meeting of all interested parties to be organized + Secretariat+ Germany (ToR prepared by EBRD)+ Italy + Adriatic Sea Governments+ European institutions 5. Netherlands possible interest Project preparation and capacity building Sweden: pilot activities, Macedonia+Albania Secretariat+Sweden+NL+ SEE to discuss, WB + UNDP very active 5.3. link to 5.3.1.and 5.3.2. for the second project UN/ECE has send information and proposal Croatia: project preparation capacity building, has prepared proposal REC's proposal should be abolished 5.5.1. and 5.5.4 EC to fund, maybe PHARE 5.5.5. Greece might be interested. Meeting between donors + Macedonia to maximize the use of resources. Denmark: coordination necessary with the associated projects 5.5.6 More information to Germany to be sent. Final deadline to develop the project fiches till the end of December 2000. 3.2.2. the fiche was sent with a different name of the project by Romania The following projects were cancelled: 4.1.1, 4.3.1., 4.3.3. ,4.3.13, 4.3.14, 4.3.16, 4.3.17, 5.5.2. Albania and Yugoslavia have to discuss project 4.3.15. Discussion needed among the countries in 4.3.22 Discussion on new projects There is no problem if the countries would like to join existing projects, they have to discuss this with the Secretariat. 1.6.1. to be merged 1.8.1. to be merged with 1.8. 1.11.1.to be merged 2.2.2. to be merged 3. To be discussed among the countries. Project fiche to be prepared ICPDR: revised original proposals Prepare fiches 4.1.10. OK, include YU 4.1.11. OK, include YU Zeta + Skadar: substitute and revise the existing proposal or goes out 5.2.1., 5.3.1 merge with existing projects 5.3.2. to be agreed between the countries, to be included in the regular list 5.4.1. to be merged YU+ Montenegro to discuss their projects with the Secretariat. In case there is no possibility to merge the proposals, discuss the issue in April. Montenegro to discuss their proposals with the secretariat. Croatia: 12 new project proposals. If it is possible to merge them with the existing proposals discuss this with the Secretariat. If not, the proposals will be discussed at the next REReP TF meeting. EC+ donors look for regional and not for national projects. |
|
    
|
|||
|
