UNDP Project Document Section 1

Government of RussiaUnited Nations Development Programme

Other partners:Global Environment Facility

Russian State Fisheries CommitteeKamchatka Oblast/Koryak Okrug

Moscow State UniversityWild Salmon Center

U.S. National Science Foundation/Flathead Biological Station

Project Title:Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wild Salmonid Biological Diversity

in Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula, Phase I

1

The objective of this project is the conservation and sustainable use of salmonid biological diversity in four river systems on Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula. Upon successful completion of the project, stakeholders will devise innovative and adaptive ecosystem management practices to mitigate and prevent threats to river ecosystem integrity and apply new partnerships, conservation tools, information, and sustainable livelihoods to conserve salmonid diversity maintained therein.

The Kamchatka peninsula extends 1,500 kilometers south from Russia’s Siberian mainland, separating the Sea of Okhotsk from the North Pacific Ocean. Designated a World Wildlife Fund “Global 200” ecoregion, the peninsula and its thousands of pristine rivers support one of the world’s most diverse array of salmonid fish species, with tremendous diversity at the species, intra-species (stock), and genetic levels. At least eleven species of salmonids are known to occur in these river systems, more than any other place in the world. Five of these eleven salmonid species are commercially fished; the other six are non-commercial species, one of which is the endangered “steelhead” sea-run rainbow trout.

GEF support will secure the global benefits of conserving salmonid diversity of actual and potential value for food and aquaculture. Russian and international partner co-financing provides the crucial foundation for GEF’s incremental investment by enhancing the sustainability of the existing economic development baseline. This project is designed for implementation in two phases, each with its own distinct achievements; this project document requests GEF funding for Phase I. If supported by an independent results-based evaluation of the Phase I, GEF funding will be requested to support the incremental costs of the second and final phase (Phase II).

Phase I of the project will enable stakeholders to make the financial and policy commitments necessary, protect crucial salmonid habitat by establishing protected areas and participatory management regimes, construct a diversity information baseline by conducting field surveys, lay the foundation for long-term financing of salmonid diversity conservation, pilot diversity-friendly commercial fishing practices and sport-fishing ecotourism, forge new partnerships among local and international stakeholders, and strengthen the capacity of civil society institutions. Phase II would consolidate the achievements of Phase I. Equally important, during Phase II the long-term financing mechanism for salmonid conservation would be permanently established and funded primarily by non-GEF, partner financing.

Part Ia Situation Analysis

The project will conserve and sustainably utilize salmonid biological diversity in four river systems on Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula. The Kamchatka Peninsula harbors the largest grouping of healthy relatively pristine salmon rivers along the Pacific Rim. The salmonid fish in these river systems still exhibit the full range of genetic and life history diversity derived in part from the different physical and bio-chemical characteristics of each river. The Kamchatka Peninsula is home to some of the last remaining healthy assemblages of salmonid fish in the world. The peninsula is a global priority for the long-term conservation of wild anadromous salmon and steelhead and riverine trout and char. An estimated one fifth of the world’s total salmon population spawn in Kamchatka rivers. In addition to diversity at the species level among salmonids there is a tremendous amount of genetic and life history diversity within species and wild populations returning to spawn in a wide array of riverine conditions.

About 60% of the Russian Federation’s fishery resources occur in the waters around Kamchatka, including walleye pollack, crab, cod, herring, halibut and five species of commercial salmonids. Commercial fishing is an economic mainstay in the peninsula, and salmonid fish comprise a significant proportion of commercial and subsistence catches. Having weathered a 50% reduction in economic activity during the past ten years, most of Kamchatka’s rural people survive on the natural capital of the marine, aquatic, and terrestrial environment of which salmon are an important part. In the Sopochnaya and Utkholok site areas salmon support over 2,200 indigenous Itelmen, Koryak and Even people. In the project’s Bolshaya site area salmon are important to the livelihoods of 9,000 people who have remained in the wake of the collapsed agricultural and fishery economy.

Kamchatka’s salmonid diversity remains intact in nearly all of its river systems. Nonetheless, threats to salmonid biodiversity have emerged during Kamchatka’s transition to a market economy and under a baseline scenario will continue to grow. The danger of the international community not acting now is that this globally significant biological diversity important to food and aquaculture will be lost in the face of these growing threats. The project has been designed to effectively mitigate these threats and their root causes in the four river sites. During the GEF-supported PDF-B consultations, stakeholders identified the following threats to Kamchatka’s wild salmon diversity and their root causes: 1. Production-oriented Management of Salmonid Fishery and Genetic Erosion2. Poaching3. Aquatic Ecosystem Degradation

A detailed description of the problem to be addressed is provided in the Baseline Section (paragraphs 26-59) of the attached project brief. The relevant outcome in the Country Programme is SAS:G3 – SGN1 – SASN2.The national institutional and legal framework is described in the Baseline Section (paragraphs 33-39) of the attached project brief. A description of lessons learned that have influenced project design is provided in Paragraph 121 of the project brief. An independent review of the project design is provided in Annex III of the project brief.

Part Ib Strategy

Russia’s approach to sustainable development while conserving biodiversity and its national commitment to these goals are described in the Baseline Section and Paragraph 100 of the project brief. Nude’s programme has generated support for the sustainable development baseline and livelihood development in Kamchatka. The specific activities undertaken through this project in support of policy development and strengthened national capacities are described in Outputs 1 and 2 of the project brief.

2

The overall objective of the proposed project is the sustained conservation of Kamchatka’s salmonid genetic and life history diversity and the maintenance of river ecosystem integrity. Upon completion of the project, Government agencies and local communities and indigenous peoples will be conserving salmonid diversity in the project’s four river sites by applying a new diversity-oriented approach, conservation tools, and sustainable livelihoods. The project will use an adaptive management approach that is designed to respond to emergent threats and orient conservation activities to threat mitigation.

The project activities will be piloted in the four river sites selected during the PDF B phase: Bolshaya Basin, Kol/Kekhta, Sopochnaya River, and Utkholok-Kvachina.

The project will be phased to facilitate measured, accountable implementation and adaptive management. This project document covers Phase I of the project, lasting four years. Phase I will focus on establishing a diversity information baseline, strengthening the underlying policy framework in Kamchatka, building consensus, establishing river ecosystem management, building capacity, articulating the value of salmonid diversity, coalition building, and designing the SDCF. Phase II will consolidate the diversity conservation policies and field applications, livelihood development, partnerships for salmonid diversity conservation, and financing the SDCF’s Bridging Fund. Specific indicators will mark the progress of the project in measurable segments during Phase I.

Phase I outputs and activities are outlined in the Results Framework below. Detailed description of the project logical framework and startegy is provided in the project brief (Section 2

3

Part II. Results Framework A detailed log-frame matrix is provided in Annex II of the project brief (Section 2).Intended Outcome as stated in the Country Results Framework: Improved capacity of national/sectoral authorities to plan and implement integrated approaches to environmental management and energy development that respond to the needs of the poor Outcome indicator as stated in the Country Programme Results and Resources Framework, including baseline and target. A central co-ordinating body for NSSD implementation is operational with high level of political support, participation of local authorities, civil society and the private sector. The target for the outcome constitutes an enhanced national capacity at the federal, regional, and local levels to prepare, implement and coordinate the sustainable environment development strategy.Applicable Strategic Area of Support:

Goal G3: Environmentally sustainable development to reduce povertySubGoal G3-SGN1: Sustainable environmental management and energy development to improve the livelihoods and security of the poor

SAS 02: Institutional framework for sustainable environmental management and energy developmentPartnership Strategy: UNDP builds strong stakeholder coalitions to allow participatory implementation of environment protection and management programmes on a sustainable basis. Such partnerships include UN Agencies, international funds, bilateral and multilateral organizations, Russia's national, regional, and local government bodies, national and international environmental NGOs, academic institutions and universities, local population and private sector. In doing so, the CO launched donor meetings on environment and continues to act as an informal secretariat for these meetings. On the programme level UNDP leads partnerships through Steering Committee meetings, stakeholder consultations, joint missions, etc.

For the purpose of this project the main partners are the Russian State Fisheries Committee, Kamchatka Oblast/Koryak Okrug Administrations, Moscow State University, Wild Salmon Center, KamchatNIRO, U.S. National Science Foundation/Flathead Biological Station, regional environmental NGOs, business and local communities.Project title: “Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wild Salmonid Biological Diversity in Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula”Project Number: RUS/02/G32/A/1G/99 PIMS number: 1288

Intended Outputs Output targets for (Phase I) Indicative Activities Inputs Output 1: Salmonid fishery stewards apply new diversity conservation

1. Complete inventory of aquatic/riparian biodiversity and habitat type, incl. salmonid genetic & life history diversity.

2. Database operational and

1. Field inventories in at least two sites. 2. Develop database that meets international

standards. 3. Link database to GIS in as low cost

manner as possible.

Output 1: Equipment, technical & manpower support from MGU, SRBD, KNIRO, WSC. GEF & other funding per attached budget, BL: 16.02, 17.51, .53, 45.02e. Outputs 2 &3: GEF funding per attached budget, BL: 17.08, 21.01

4

approach in river sites.

information accessible from database beginning year 3.

3. Database tied to GIS by end of year 3.

4. Sustainable research and monitoring program developed and implemented by end of year 2.

5. Training materials prepared by end 2003.

6. Diversity conservation policies developed and approved and applied by year 3;

7. Commercial fishery management regimes adopted emphasize conservation of steelhead/salmonids and ecosystem health in two river sites by year 3.

8. Diversity management principles & protocols developed for two hatcheries in Bolshaya basin.

9. Guidelines for public participation in diversity-management approved by year 3.

10. Poaching prevention efforts for commercial salmonid species are increased by 30%.

11. Legal brief integrating salmonid diversity objectives into draft fishery law under consideration by the Duma.

12. Amended KO’s Aquatic and Marine Fishery Law and KAO’s Fishery Law to recognize diversity inherent in salmonids and require

4. Research priorities finalized, monitoring methods and infrastructure established

5. Develop training materials for diversity conservation.

6. Policy options discussed with main stakeholders, recommendations developed and endorsed.

7. Guidelines for integrating diversity conservation objectives into salmonid fishery operations finished by year 2. 1st draft by e/o year 1; final draft approved and adopted by e/o year 2.

8. Same as #6. Set escapement goals to sustain commercial fishery, and maintain diversity.

9. Same work as #6. 10. Increased patrolling of sites in important

seasons; community involvement.11. Conduct consultations with stakeholder

groups in Moscow as to best legal approach, draft legal brief, openly review, finalize, and circulate for consideration.

12. Support consultations in Kamchatka among key decision makers to lay the groundwork for such amendments.

13. In-country and study tour training for policy makers in how to assess values and services provided by salmonids, and how to use regulatory incentives to promote salmonid conservation.

Output 4. Equipment, technical & manpower support from MGU, SRBD, KNIRO, WSC. GEF & other funding per attached budget, BL 17.53, 45.02f, Output 5. Technical support from MGU, WSC. GEF & other donor funding per attached budget, BL: 21.05, 33.01. Output 6. Technical support from KNIRO, SRBVD, MGU, WSC. GEF & other funding per attached budget, BL:11.01, 17.01 & 02, 21.02, 21.03. Output 7. Technical support from KNIRO, SRBVD, MGU, WSC. GEF & other funding per attached budget, BL: 21.03-05, 33.01Output 8: Technical support from SRBVD, WSC. GEF funding per at-tached budget, BL:21.05. Output 9: GEF & other funding per attached budget, BL: 11.02, 33.03Output 10. Equipment, technical & manpower from SRBD & KNIRO. Output 11,12. Technical support from MGU, WSC. GEF & other funding per attached budget, BL: 11.01, 21.02, 21.03. Output 13. Technical support from WSC. GEF & other funding per at-tached budget, BL: 21.06.

5

proactive management for this diversity.

13. Policy makers trained in ecosystem value assessment and proactive use of fiscal and other policies and regulations for conservation purposes.

Output 2: Salmonid diversity and aquatic ecosystem integrity is maintained by applying a range of resource management and conservation tools in river sites.

1. Legally established PA in U-K and K-K, and Bolshaya by end of year 2, in Sopochnaya by end of year 3.

2. Conservation infrastructure established in each PA. Targeted research and monitoring infrastructure established;

3. Species and habitat conservation plans developed for 2 sites & research/monitoring conducted.

4. Community partnerships established for river site management by end of year 2.

a. Annual State of the River reports produced beginning year 2.

5. Poaching of non-commercial salmonid species stopped in two sites by end of year 4.

6. Environmental mitigation plan for pipeline and best practices in environmental mitigation introduced to key stakeholders at workshop in PK, strengthening environmental mitigation of development activities in Kamchatka.

1. Conduct consultations w/stakeholders and prepare paperwork for PA designation.

2. Demarcate PA boundaries; Establish PA infrastructure/provide modest equipment.

a. Fund modest staffing of two areas through year 3.

b. SRBVD/KO/KoA fund staffing beginning year 4.

3. Identify priority species and habitats and develop conservation plans for them.

4. Establish resource user groups for two areas; hire up to two community members in each area as “riverkeepers” for conducting basic, ongoing monitoring of key environmental parameters.

a. Develop & implement cooperative management agreements/plans with user groups in two areas.

b. Local people prepare simple, practical state of the river reports covering environmental, resource use, and socio-economic conditions.

c. Training for PA managers in

Output 1. Technical/staff support from KNIRO, SRBVD, MGU, WSC. GEF funding per attached budget, BL: 17.52, 33.01Output 2. Technical/staff support from KNIRO, SRBVD, MGU, WSC. GEF & other funding per attached budget, BL: 22.01, 22.02. Output 3: Technical/staff support from KNIRO, SRBVD, MGU, WSC. GEF & other funding per attached budget, BL:22.04Output 4. Staff support from SRBVD, WSC. GEF funding per attached budget, BL: 11.02, 33.03Output 5. Staff/manpower support from SRBVD, KNIRO, WSC. GEF funding per attached budget, BL: 22.05. Output 6. Technical support from KNIRO, SRBVD, MGU, WSC. Other funding to be identified; GEF incremental BL: 22.07.

6

participatory & community-based management and cons biology.

5. Conduct anti-poaching patrols to stop harvest of non-commercial species.

a. Develop community-based enforcement regimes in at least one site. Provide training to this end.

6. Integrate salmonid habitat cons objectives into environmental management plans;

a. Develop plan to mitigate the impact of pipeline construction, including culvert size and scheduling recommendations by end of 1st year.

Output 3: Information shared widely, conservation constituency built and indigenous knowledge conserved.

Indigenous people enabled to preserve and maintain their traditional knowledge of biodiversity resources.

Strengthen international linkages for conservation and sustainable fish management and establish an information exchange network

Interactive education center designed and finalized and displays by end of year 2 with active outreach program w/local schools.a. Salmonid

diversity/ecology/sustainable use curricula developed and adopted by at least 10 middle/high schools by e/o year 3.

b. Field guide and atlas on salmonid diversity.

1. Communities conduct cultural and biodiversity resource assessments and map information in form that can be used and maintained locally in Sopochnaya and UK sites.

a. Oral histories and narratives preserved in a way that is accessible to future generations – young people given training in knowledge.

2. Establish web-based information exchange; print annual newsletter. a.Organize round table discussions/Pacific

basin conference.3. Hire professional interpretive display

design specialist and develop salmonid diversity interpretive and education exhibit in cooperation with SRYBVOD and KNIRO.

Output 1. Technical/staff support from MGU, WSC, PA project. GEF & other funding per attached budget, BL: 23.01. Output 2. Technical input from MGU, WSC. GEF funding per attached budget, BL: 17.05, 33.05. Output 3. Technical input from SRBVD, KNIRO, MGU, WSC. GEF & other funding per attached budget, BL 11.03, 17.07, 23.05, 45.02h:Output 4. GEF funding for translation of existing materials per attached budget, BL 17.97.

7

Synthesis of existing analyses of aquaculture policy, its effects on wild salmon, and the importance of wild salmon to the long term health of the farmed salmon business.

a. Develop curricula and organize field trips/ lectures for two school groups/year by year 2.

b. Develop field guide and atlas.4. Summarize, synthesize and translate

existing analyses of international aquacultural policy and practice for effects on wild salmon.

Output 4: Alternative Livelihoods applied in river site areas

1. Market study clarifies what the viable markets are for local resources.

2. Market links established for local resources.

3. Local communities pursuing sustainable livelihood options (e.g. accessing micro-credit & business training) by end year 3.

4. Eco-tourism demonstration on the Sopochnaya and U-K rivers involves at least 25% of the stakeholders (establishing routes, modest infrastructure, trained guides).

5. Indigenous people strengthen their animal husbandry livelihoods.

1. Conduct small and medium enterprise development training

2. Extend micro-credit program for alternative livelihood investment.

3. Strengthen traditional livelihoods among indigenous groups

4. Develop biodiversity guidelines for eco-tourism enterprise development.

5. Demonstrate diversity-friendly fishing techniques and equipment.

Output 1,2. Program support from WSC/MGU sport fishing. GEF funding per attached budget, BL 17.02, 24.01: CIDA funding from PA project. Output 3. Program support from WSC sport fishing program. GEF & other funding per attached budget, BL 17.02, 45.02g.Output 4,5. CIDA funding from PA project. GEF funding per attached budget, BL: 23.01, 23.02.

Output 5: Salmonid Diversity Conservation Fund (SCDF) supports conservation in perpetuity.

1. SDCF legally established by e/o year 3.

2. Kamchatka-based, sustainable angling funding mechanism established by end of year 3.

3. Preliminary commitment of $1.5 million to the fund by end of year 4.

1. Trust Fund expert conducts stakeholder consultations on fund purpose, design, structure.

2. Devise detailed structure of fund and circulate for review.

3. Fund structure designed/approved. 4. Promotional material produced;

Professional fund raising efforts target

Output 1,2. Staff time from SRBVD, KNIRO, WSC, MGU. GEF funding per attached budget, BL 11.04, 17.54, 33.06: Output 3: Staff time from SRBVD, KNIRO, WSC, MGU. GEF funding per attached budget, BL 11.04, 25.01, 17.54.

8

most promising investors. Project Implementation & Adaptive Management:

1. Regular PSC meetings and guidance

2. Report on Inception report3. Annual Project Report

(APR)4. Annual Tripartite

Reviews (TPR)5. Annual review of

project’s work experiences and assessment of best practices.

6. Second phase of project brief prepared by end of year 3.

1. Conduct regular steering committee meetings;

2. Report on project progress per UNDP requirements;

3. Prepare an Inception report;4. Prepare Annual Project Report

(APR);5. Conduct annual Tripartite Reviews

(TPR);6. Prepare Project Implementation

Review (PIR) reports prior to terminal evaluation for Phase I;

7. Ongoing review and analysis of project’s work and experiences to develop best practices;

8. Organize round table discussions;9. Prepare second phase project brief by

e/o year 3;10. Submit project brief for second phase

by beginning of year 4.

Output 1. Staff time from SRBVD, KNIRO, WSC, MGU, UNDP. GEF funding per attached budget, BL 33.07, 13.01,12.02, 17.01, 52.02Output 2, 3, 4. Staff time from UNDP. GEF funding per attached budget, BL 13.01,13.02, 17.01, Output 5, 6: Staff time from PSC members; GEF funding per attached budget, BL 11.05, 13.01,13.02, 17.01.

9

Cofinancing input budgets:

SevvostRybvod Contribution (part of Government in-kind contribution)Total: $US 4,409,950 (Total 4,746,950 for 2 phases/6 years)

Number Unit Cost US$Personnel: Variable Variable 1,680,000sub-total 1,680,000 Training: 200,000 sub-total 200,000 Equipment: 980,000 sub-total 980,000 Travel: (including helicopter transportation) 1,340,000 sub-total 1,340,000 Miscellaneous

209,950 sub-total 209,950 TOTAL 4,409,950

KamchatNiro Contribution (part of Government in-kind contribution)Total: $US 2,675,250

Number Unit Cost US$Personnel: Variable Variable 1,050,000sub-total 1,050,000 Training: Variable Variable 120,000 sub-total 120,000 Equipment: sub-totalTravel: (including helicopter transportation) NA Variable 1,440,000 sub-total 1,440,000 Miscellaneous

65,250 sub-total 65,250 TOTAL 2,675,250

10

Moscow State University (part of Government in-kind contribution)Total: US$233,180

Number Unit Cost US$Personnel: 19,980sub-total 19,980 Training: 78,500 sub-total 78,500 Equipment: 72,000 sub-total 72,000 Travel: 4,750 sub-total 4,750 Miscellaneous

57,950 sub-total 57,950 TOTAL 233,180 Note: Moscow State University’s co-funding has increased slightly from the figure on the first page of the brief.

Wild Salmon Center Contribution Total $US 2,931,250Number Unit Cost US$

Personnel: Variable Variable 1,027,416sub-total 1,027,416 Training: Variable Variable 366,085 sub-total 366,085 Equipment: NA NA 648,333sub-total 648,333 Travel: NA Variable 889,416 sub-total 889,416 Miscellaneous

0 sub-total 0 TOTAL 2,931,250

11

Part III Management Arrangements

The implementation arrangements for the project have been designed to maximize and balance efficiency, transparency and participatory decision-making.

The UNDP will be the GEF Implementing Agency for this project. The UNDP is one of the formally designated GEF Implementing Agencies and is accountable to the GEF for all aspects of project implementation.

The project will be nationally executed by the State Committee of the Russian Federation for Fisheries with the direct involvement of the KO and the KAO, and will adhere to UNDP “national execution” project implementation requirements. The administration of project funds will be the joint responsibility of the UNDP and the National Executing Agency. The responsibilities of the national Executing Agency will include: 1) certifying expenditures under approved budgets and work plans; 2) tracking and reporting on procurement and outputs; 3) coordinating the financing from UNDP and GEF with that from other sources; 4) preparing and approving Terms of Reference for contractors and required tender documentation; and 5) chairing the Project Steering Committee. The UNDP will be responsible for: 1) facilitating and backstopping financial management; 2) ensuring adequate use of GEF resources and implementation of the project according to the project document, and 3) monitoring, evaluation and reporting to GEF and other donors.

A Project Steering Committee (PSC) will be formed to provide overall guidance, coordination and support to project implementation activities. The PSC will meet semi-annually to review the project and set major policy and implementation directions. The PSC will consist of one member from each of the following organizations: Russian State Fisheries Committee (National Project Director), Sevvostrybvod, MNR, KamchatNIRO, KO, KAO, WSC, UNDP, MGU, an indigenous people’s association, and a local NGO. The PSC will monitor the project’s implementation to ensure timely progress in attaining the desired results, and efficient coordination with other projects. The more specific functions of the PSC are to be found in the Terms of Reference found in Annex 1.1. The GOR and the KO/KAO will also facilitate the implementation of the required reforms.

The National Project Director (NPD) will chair the PSC. The NPD will be designated by the National Executing Agency and will be responsible for carrying out the directives of the PSC and for ensuring the proper implementation of the project on behalf of the National Executing Agency. In doing so the NPD will be responsible to the national Executing Agency and UNDP for management, reporting, accounting, monitoring and evaluation of the project and for proper management and audit of the project resources.

A Project Management Unit (PMU) will provide a coordination and management structure for the development and implementation of the project in accordance with the rules and procedures of UNDP and Russian legislation, and based on the general guidance provided by the Project Steering Committee (PSC). The PMU will be reporting to the National Project Director and will be comprised of the project manager (PM), an Office Manager, a Secretary, and contract personnel as necessary including contractors to assure the overall accounting needs of the PMU. The PMU will be located in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskyi. The PM will be a full time employee of the project and will be chosen in an open and fair competitive basis following UNDP standard hiring procedures. The PM will report to the NPD and UNDP, he/she will be in day-to-day charge of implementing the project and managing project activities. He/she will oversee project staff located in Kamchatka including two site coordinators for the four sites. All staff will be hired using standard UNDP hiring procedures.

12

Two local level Site Advisory Committees (SAC), one for the two sites in Kamchatka Oblast and one for the two sites in Koryak Okrug, will serve as local advisory bodies to provide stakeholder input and support for site-level project activities. The PM will liaise directly with each SAC, which will be comprised of representatives from key stakeholder groups at the local level: one District Administration official, two local community representatives, and one regional NGO, and one private sector representative. Specific SAC membership will be approved by the PSC and will ensure that project implementation activities are open to stakeholder input. Each SAC will approve the annual work plan developed by the Project Manager for their respective site. Government officials or other co-funder representatives from the private or bilateral entities on the SAC will be responsible for ensuring that co-funding support is provided in a timely and effective manner.

The UNDP Country Office will support project implementation by maintaining project budget and project expenditures, contracting project personnel, experts and subcontractors, carrying out procurement, and providing other assistance upon request of the National Executing Agency. Project implementation arrangements will be designed to accommodate the fact that Kamchatka is ten time zones from Moscow and recent lessons learned from UNDP-GEF’s Nepal project highlighted under GEF’s OPS-2 review. This will be done in a way that streamlines and decentralizes UNDP’s normal service delivery procedures in the interest of cost-effective and time-efficient project management. The UNDP Country Office will also monitor project implementation and achievement of the project outputs and ensure the proper use of UNDP/GEF funds. Financial transactions, reporting and auditing will be carried out in compliance with national regulations and UNDP rules and procedures for national execution.

Because the Project Steering Committee contains a significant technical expertise, it has been deemed unnecessary to formally establish a separate Technical Advisory Committee for the project. In its place, the project manager shall seek the advice of experts on an ad hoc basis depending upon the need. The project has significant funding set aside for round table discussions. This mechanism is deemed appropriate for securing technical advice additional to that to be provided by expert consultants, government counterparts, and PSC members.

It is envisaged that advice will be sought from the following fields of expertise: Stream ecology and aquatic biology Protected area operations and management Wildlife biology and conservation Botany and plant conservation Biodiversity data management GIS applications Biodiversity monitoring Environmental education Socio-economic issues Biodiversity and land use policy Law and policy Traditional livelihood development Indigenous peoples culture

Part IV Legal Context

13

This Project Document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article I of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the United Nations Development Programme, signed by the parties on 17 November 1993.

UNDP acts in this Project as Implementing Agency of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and all rights and privileges pertaining to UNDP as per the terms of the SBAA shall be extended mutatis mutandis to GEF.

The UNDP Resident Representative in the Russian Federation is authorized to effect in writing the following types of revision to this Project Document, provided that he/she has verified the agreement thereto by GEF Unit and is assured that the other signatories to the Project Document have no objection to the proposed changes:

a) Revisions which do not involve significant changes in the immediate objectives, outputs or activities of the project, but are caused by the rearrangement of the inputs already agreed to or by cost increases due to inflation;

b) Mandatory annual revisions which re-phase the delivery of agreed project inputs or increased expert or other costs due to inflation or take into account agency expenditure flexibility

14

Standard UNDP (FIM) Budget -- Kamchatka SalmonidsBL Description (w/

m)Total US$ GEF UNDP Other Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

10 PERSONNEL                 11 International             11.01 Advisor on int'l experience w/environmental

policy1.5 21,000 21,000     10,500 10,500 

 11.02 Community-based Management Expert 3.5 37,500 37,500     10,000 17,500 10,000 011.03 Educational/interactive Exhibit Expert 1.5 21,000 21,000      2,1000   11.04 Salmonid Diversity Conservation Fund

Expert4 50,000 50,000     6,500 14500 14,500 14,500

11.05 Adaptive Management Advisor 3 55,000 55,000     12,500 12,500 17,500 12,500

             11.97 Unspecified expertise 1 16,000 16,000       8,000 8,000  11.99 Sub-total:   200,500 200,500     39,500 84,000 50,000 27,000              13 Administrative Support Personnel                 13.01 Program Officer/Asst – Moscow 48 38,400 38,400     9,600 9,600 9,600 9,600

 13.99 Sub-total 38,400 38,400   9,600 9,600 9,600 9,60015 M&E      15.01 Mid-term evaluation   30,000 30,000      30,000    15.02 Final evaluation   30,000 30,000          30,00015.03 Local Travel   50,000 50,000     12,500 12,500 12,500 12,50015.99 Sub-total   110,000 110,000   12,500 42,500 12,500 42,50016 Travel          16.01 Helicopter time for field surveys   90,000 90,000     22,500 22,500 22,500 22,50016.02 Int'l Travel   40,000 40,000     10,000 10,000 10,000 10,00016.99 Sub-total   130,000 130,000     32,500  32,500 32,500 32,500

15

17 National Professionals                  17.01 Project office manager/Administration 48 33,600 33,600     8,400 8,400 8,400 8,40017.02 Project Manager 48 84,000 84,000   18,000 22,000 22,000 22,00017.03 Re-oriented biodiversity-friendly fishery

officer48 40,000 40,000     10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

17.04 Community participation/Impact assessment officer

48 40,000 40,000     10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

17.05 Website building/management/computer support

24 19,000 19,000     4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750

17.06 Education/Awareness program manager 48 40,000 40,000     10,000 10,000 10,000 10,0001707 Project Accountant (3 mos year) 12 10,800 10,800     2,700 2,700 2,700 2,7001708 River keepers 36 20,000 20,000     5,000 5,000 5,000 5,00017.09 Synthesize data from inventories into

standard format20 20,000 20,000     5,000 5,000 5,000

5,00017.51 Biodiversity field survey team short-term

experts100 100,000 100,000     25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

17.52 Protected area designation expert(s) 20 22,000 22,000     11,000 11,000   17.53 Diversity monitoring/research (experts) 80 80,000 80,000     20,000 20,000 20,000 20,00017.54 Salmonid Diversity Conservation Fund

Expert18 18,000 18,000   6,000 6,000 6,000

               17.97 Unspecified consultants 55 25,000 25,000   6,250 6,250 6,250 6,250                    17.99 Subtotal   552,400 552,400   142,100 146,100 135,100  129,10019 Component Total   1,031,3001,031,300   236,200 314,700 239,700 240,70020 CONTRACTS                 21 Output 1:                                     21.01 Database/GIS design   35,000 35,000       17,500 17,500 

16

21.02 Policy paper on strengthening national fishery law for diversity conservation

  30,000 30,000     20,000 10,000   

21.03 Revision of fishery laws for KO and KAO   15,000 15,000     10,000 5,000   21.04 Sustainable fishery economics study   65,000 65,000       35,000 30,000 21.05 Diversity-friendly hatchery demonstration

program  40,000 40,000       20,000 20,000

 21.06 Develop training materials for diversity-

oriented fishery management  40,000 40,000     25,000 10,000 5,000

 21.99 Subtotal 225,000 225,000 55,000 97,500 72,50022 Output 2:                 22.01 Plan appropriate biostation/protected area

management infrastructure  15,000 15,000     15,000    

 22.02 Construct biostation/protected area management

infrastructure  206,000 206,000         10,6000 100,000

22.03 Construct/rehabilitate appropriate monitoring infrastructure & equipment

  60,000 60,000       20,000 20,000 20,000

22.04 Species and habitat conservation plans   50,000 50,000     10,000 20,000 10,000 10,00022.05 Antipoaching enforcement non-commercial

species  100,000 100,000     50,000 50,000  

22.06 Enforcement tracking database   35,000 35,000     17,500 17,500   22.07 Environmental mitigation plan   5,000 5,000 TBD TBD 5,000     22.99 Subtotal 471,000 471,000 47,500 107,500 186,000 130,00023 Output 3:                  23.01 Conduct cultural and biodiversity knowledge

assessments with indigenous people   60,000 60,000     30,000 30,000    

23.02 Training/outreach for young indigenous people in art of preserving traditional knowledge

  20,000 20,000       7,000  7,000 6,000

23.03 Develop & secure adoption of diversity   35,000 35,000     10,000 20,000 5,000  

17

educational curricula for local middle and high schools.

23.04 Develop field guides & atlas on salmonid diversity

  30,000 30,000       30,000    

23.99 Sub-total 145,000 145,000 40,000 87,000 12,000 6,00024 Output 4:                  24.01 Conduct market study and establish links to

viable markets for local resources.   55,000 55,000       25,000  30,000  

24.02 Demonstrate diversity-friendly fishing techniques/ methods/equipment

  65,000 65,000       25,000 20,000 20,000

24.99 Sub-total 120,000 120,000 50,000 50,000 20,00025 Output 5:                  25.01 Fund raising for Trust Fund   45,000 45,000       15,000 15,000 15,000 25.99 Sub-total   45,000 45,000    15,000 15,000 15,00029 Component Total   1,006,0001,006,000     142,500 357,000 335,500171,000         30 TRAINING               32 Other Training                 32.01 Salmonid value assessment and diversity

management practices  34,000 34,000       17,000 17,000

 32.02 Training in conservation biology   20,000 20,000       20,000   32.03 Protected area establishment roundtables   8,000 8000     4,000 4,000   32.04 Re-orienting fishery management regimes

for diversity management  16,000 16,000     4,000  4,000 4,000 4,000

32.05 Amending Kam and Koryak O's laws on fisheries

  12,000 12,000     4,000 8,000   

32.06 Participatory, community based management training for PA managers/stakeholders

  25,000 25,000     7,500 7,500 5,0005,000

32.07 Environmental mitigation plan workshop   5,000 5,000     5000     

18

32.08 Salmonid diversity conservation conference   45,000 45,000         45000 32.09 Trust fund consulations/workshops   30,000 30,000     10,000 10,000 10,00032.10 Steering Committee Meetings   45,000 45,000     15,000 7,500 7,500 15,00032.11 Lessons Learned Round Table 20,000 20,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,00032.12 Replication knowledge transfer, cross

organizarional learning +2515,000 15,000 7,500 7,500

39 Component Total   273,000 273,000   46,500 89,000 97,500 40,000                    40 EQUIPMENT                 45.01 Expendable Equipment      

a Computers/Printers/Software   15,000 15,000     15,000     b GIS Software   20,000 20,000       20,000   c Photocopier/digital camera/TV   15,000 15,000     15,000     d Office supplies/furniture   24,000 24,000     18,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

                    45.02 Non-expendable Equipment      

a 1 Landcruiser   35,000 35,000     35,000     b 2 Hilux pickup trucks   30,000 30,000     30,000     c Protected area equipment for rangers/field

visits   30,000 30,000     30,000    

 d River boat craft & equipment   40,000 40,000     30,000 10,000   e Field survey equipment   100,000 100,000     40,000 25,000 25,000 10,000f Biodiversity monitoring equipment   35,000 35,000       25,000 10,000  g Biostation/PA equipment   55,000 55,000         55,000  h Interactive salmonid diversity education

exhibit.   65,000 65,000       22,000 22,000 21,000

45.03 Equipment maintenance & insurance   15,000 15,000     3,750 3,750 3,750 3,75045.04 Office Rent   48,000 48,000   12,000 12,000 12,000 12,00045.72 Operations & Admin Support   60,000 60,000     15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

19

45.99 Subtotal                 49 Component Total   587,000 587,000    243,750  134,750  144,750 63,750           50 MISCELLANEOUS      52 Reporting costs                 52.01 Audit   15,000 15,000    4,000 4,000 7,00052.02 Reporting costs   20,000 20,000   5000 5000 5000 500052.03 Awareness materials for media                 53 Sundries                 53.01 Proj office communication

(internet/tel/fax/website)  30,000 30,000   9,000 7,000 7,000 7,000

53.02 Miscellaneous   37,700 37,700     9,175 10,175 9,175 9,175                    59 Component Total   102,700 102,700    23,175  26,175 25,175 28,17590 TOTAL   3,000,0003,000,000     692,125  921,625 842,625 543,625

20

PROJECT CLASSIFICATION AND INFORMATION SHEET

Project Number: RUS/02/G32/A/1G/99Project Title: Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wild Salmonid Biological Diversity in

Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula, Phase IProject short title: Kamchatka Salmon BiodivversityPIMS Number: 1288

Estimated start date: May 2003Duration: 4 years (I. phase)

Project site: Kamchatka Oblast, Koryak Autonomous Okrug, Russian FederationBeneficiary country: Russian Federation

Executing Agency: State Committee of the Russian Federation for Fisheries

Summary of UNDP and cost-sharing inputs [as per attached budgets]UNDP / GEF $ 3,000,000

TOTAL: $ 3,000,000

Co-Financing:National Science Foundation/Flathead Biological Station $ 1,742,000Parallel Financing:

Wild Salmon Centre $ 2,931,250UNDP (in-kind) $ 201,000Government in-kind Contribution (6yrs): $ 7,318 380

$12,192,630GRAND TOTAL $15,192,630PDF B funding GEF: $ 287,000Co-financing $ 207,500GEF PDF A $ 11,000

21

On behalf of: Signature Name/Title Date

UNDP ___________________ _______________________ ___________

State Committee of the Russian Federation for Fisheries ___________________ _______________________ ___________

Classification information SubGoal: G3-SGN1 Environment and energy for LivelihoodSAS: G3-SGN1-SASN2 Institutional Framework

ACC sector and subsector: 20 Environment /30 Environment Enhancement and Management

DCAS sector and subsector: 003 Natural Resources/ 013 Land Use Planning

Primary areas of focus/sub-focus: 03 Promoting Environment and Natural Resources Sustainability / 19 Promotion of Sustainable natural resources management Secondary areas of focus/sub-focus: 03 Promoting Environment and Natural Resources Sustainability / 18 Establishment of policy, strategy, planning and programme

Primary type of intervention: 03 Programme SupportSecondary type of intervention: 10 Programme Technical support

Primary target beneficiaries: Local GovernmentSecondary target beneficiaries: Environmental habitat/nature features

LPAC review date: April 2003Programme officer Elena Armand

22

Annexes to Section 1

ANNEX 1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

Terms of ReferenceProject Steering Committee (PSC)

Duration: Initial appointment for four years

Background:The Project Steering Committee to provide overall guidance and support to project implementation activities. The PSC will be comprised of representatives of GlavRybvod/Sevvostrybvod (Project Director and PSC Chairman), KamchatNIRO, MNR, Moscow State University, the Kamchatka Oblast Administration, Koryak Okrug Administration, the UNDP, the indigenous population, Wild Salmon Center, and one Kamchatkan NGO. The PSC will meet the first month after project commencement and semi-annually for all but the third year, during which time the project will meet once.

The majority of meetings, and certainly the first one, will be in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskyi. If required, an occasional meeting may be convened in Moscow.

More specifically, the PSC shall:

Provide key policy guidance to project manager and to project implementation; Facilitate project work within each member’s respective institution; Annually review and assess the progress of the Project and its components; Annually review and approve the work plan and updated budgets of the Project and its activities; Provide strategic direction on the work plan; Support the cross-sectoral approach of the project by creating mechanisms for interaction with NGOs and

other stakeholders; and, Continue to seek additional funding to support the outputs and activities of the Project beyond the lifespan

of GEF funding. Facilitate the project’s lessons learning processes and replication of best practice efforts within each of the

member’s respective organizations

In addition to the above, the PSC members shall serve with UNDP representatives on a selection committee for the appointment of the Project Manager.

23

Terms of ReferenceUNDP Regional Manager

The UNDP Regional Manager in Kamchatka will be responsible for liaison with the UNDP CO and monitoring of the project implementation including participation in the field missions. He/she will be also responsible for establishing linkages and day-to-day coordination among various UNDP/GEF projects implemented in Kamchatka, as well as contacts with other environmental and development projects in Kamchatka supported by various donors.

Terms of ReferenceLocal Stakeholder Groups

Project work will be facilitated in local areas by two local stakeholder groups (LSG). One LSG will be established for the two sites in Kamchatka Oblast and one for the two sites in Koryak Okrug to facilitate project implementation of project activities. Each LSG will be comprised of representatives from key stakeholder groups at the local level: 1-2 District Administration official(s), two local community representatives, and one regional NGO, and one private sector representative. Specific LSG membership will be approved by the PSC and will ensure that project implementation activities are open to stakeholder input. Each LSG will approve the workplan developed by the PM for their respective site. Government officials or other co-funder representatives from the private or bilateral entities on the LSG will be responsible for ensuring that co-funding support is provided in a timely and effective manner.

Terms of ReferenceUNDP-Moscow Environment Programme Team

The project will also be supported by key UNDP environment program staff in UNDP’s Moscow office. The staff will work closely with the PM in Petropavlovsk as well as with the NPD in Moscow at the State Committee of Fisheries. This unit will assist in the provision of project coordination functions at the federal level, as well as liaison with the Moscow based NGOs and academic institutions (MGU) and the donor community.

In particular, UNDP-Moscow will be responsible for the following activities in support to the project implementation:

1. Management Oversight - Project launching - Steering committee meetings - Monitoring the implementation of the workplan and timetable - Field Visits : Ensuring visits to the project at its site at least once a year; preparing and circulating reports no later than two weeks after the end of the visit. - Trouble shooting - Project document revision - Reviewing, editing, responding to reports - Technical backstopping - Policy negotiations - Operational completion activities: Determining when the project is operationally complete and advising all interested parties accordingly.

24

2. Financial Management and Accountability- Financial mangement (verifying expenditures, advancing funds, issuing combined delivery reports)- Ensuring annual audits of NEX projects are completed- Budget Revisions (1st revision within two months of the signing of the project document; annual revision approved by 10 June of each year to reflect the final expenditures for the preceding year and to enable the preparation of a realistic plan for the provision of inputs for the current year)- Financial completion activities: Ensuring projects are financially completed not more than 12 months after the date of operational completion by ensuring the final budget revision is promptly prepared and approved.

3. Evaluation and Replication - APRs: Ensuring its preparation & completion by the due date, two weeks before the TPR - TPRs (Organizing the meeting, participating and ensuring that decisions are taken on important - issues) - PlRs (Ensuring its preparation & completion by the due date) - Arranging independent evaluations (drafting TOR, hiring personnel, mission planning)- Facilitate replication of project’s best practices among Sevestrybvod and NIRO programs Russia-wide

Upon request of the National Executing Ahency UNDP-Moscow could provide support to the project execution.

25

Terms of ReferenceNational Project Director (NPD)

NPD is a state employee designated by the National Executing Agency and entrusted for the overall guidance and coordination of the project implementation. It is an unpaid position covered by the Government as an in-kind contribution to the project. The NPD is accountable to the National Executing Agency and UNDP for the production of the project outputs, appropriate use of the project resources provided by GEF and other donors, and coordination of the UNDP/GEF project with other programmes and projects implemented in the Russian Federation in the area of salmonid diversity management and conservation.

In particular the NDP will:- approve project work plans, budget revisions and if necessary project revisions;- chair the project Steering Committee;- in consultations with UNDP assign implementing agencies for the project components and

coordinate their work (through the project manager);- ensure that Russian legislation, rules and procedures are fully met in the course of the project

implementation;- approve terms of references, selection of project staff and reports produced by the project manager

and the key experts/contractors;- approve procurement actions;- certify financial reports including reports on the advances and reports on the annual disbursements;- approve/certify project monitoring reports (APRs), audit reports evaluation reports;- facilitate liaison and cooperation with the federal Government authorities in the course of the

project implementation; - report to the National Executing Agency, UNDP/GEF and SC on the use of the project resources

and achievement of the project outputs.- Facilitate the project’s efforts to replicate best practices in other offices of Sevestrybvod.

The work of the NPD will be supported by the project manager and the UNDP office in Moscow. NPD can partially delegate his responsibilities to the project manager or UNDP office per existing agreements unless it hampers smooth implementation of the project.

26

Terms of ReferenceProject Manager (PM)

Duty station: Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskyi, Kamchatka, with travel in the project region as deemed necessary, and travel to other locations consistent with these Terms of Reference.

Background:The Salmonid Diversity Conservation Project is a partnership among several key Russian Government agencies as well as the United Nations and the Global Environmental Facility. The project seeks to conserve globally significant salmonid biological diversity on the Kamchatka Peninsula by implementing a cross-sectoral program of integrated activities that generate specific and meaningful results on the ground. To do this, the project will need to create and to follow successfully a path of coordinated action with two fishery management agencies, an academic institution, an international NGO, two regional governments and at least three local communities. The project manager will be responsible for ensuring that this happens in an effective and lasting manner.

Description of Responsibilities:The PM will be responsible for the overall daily coordination of all aspects of the GEF Project. Under the guidance of the National Project Director and the UNDP, the PM will have the following specific duties:

1. He/she shall liaise directly with designated officials of the Sevvostrybvod, KNIRO, MGU, WSC, MNR, the UNDP, the KOA and KAO, existing and potential project donors, and others as deemed appropriate and necessary by the PSC or by the PM him/herself.

2. He/she shall be responsible for delivery of all substantive, managerial and financial reports from and on behalf of the project.

3. He/she will supervise all project staff in the project office as well as the project budget. 4. Prepare an annual work plan on the basis of the project document, under the general supervision of

the PSC and in close consultation and coordination with the NPD, UNDP;5. Coordinate, monitor and be responsible to the PSC for implementation of the Work Plan;6. Ensure consistency among the various program elements and related activities provided or funded

by other donor organizations;7. Prepare and oversee the development of Terms of Reference for consultants and contractors;8. Coordinate and oversee preparation of the substantive reports from the Project; 9. Foster and establish links with other related GEF programs and, where appropriate, with other

relevant regional programs;10. Provide technical input to project activities where appropriate;11. Work with stakeholders to develop an effective biodiversity field survey program;12. Be an ex-officio member of the PSC and be responsible for the preparation, organization, and

follow-up necessary to the effective conduct of PSC business; 13. Submit quarterly reports of relevant project progress and problems to the PSC.14. He/she will integrate the various co-funded initiatives with GEF funded activities.15. Serve as a fundraiser and lobbyist for activities included in the project but in need of funding from

other partners (e.g. the pipeline and road construction environmental mitigation plan). 16. Organize round table discussions on project successes and failures, per the workplan17. Encourage an atmosphere of adaptive management in the project office, where people focus on

meaningful results “on the ground”, rather than simply the spending of funds or reports. 18. Oversee an effective ongoing project monitoring program and development of a process whereby

the project assesses best practices as it gains experience.

27

19. Ensure an effective replication of best practice cross-sector to other Sevestrybvod offices.20. Identify, analyze and communicate lessons learned that may be useful in design and

implementation of similar projects. The duty of identifying and analyzing lessons learned is an on-going one, and the duty to communicate those lessons is on an as-needed basis, but not less frequently

once every six months according to a reporting format, and system for categorizing of lessons to be provided by UNDP/GEF.21. Ensure that TOR for consultants recruited under the project incorporate mechanisms to capture and

share lessons learned through their inputs to the project, and to ensure that the results are reflected in relevant reporting systems.

Qualifications: post-graduate degree in biodiversity conservation, fisheries management or some directly related field (e.g. wildlife and fisheries management, natural resource management, natural resource economics, etc.); extensive experience in fields related to the assignment. At least seven years experience as a senior project manager. Excellent inter-personal, communication and negotiating skills; familiarity with the goals and procedures of international organizations strongly preferred, in particular those of the GEF and its partners (UNDP, the World Bank, major NGOs, and current and future potential additional donors); well developed English speaking and writing capability an advantage; previous work experience in the region on issues directly related to the project; ability and willingness to travel; and, demonstrable skills in office computer use - word processing, spread sheets, GIS applications.

Reporting requirements:

The PM will submit quarterly progress reports to the National Project Director and UNDP/GEF Programme Coordinator. The PM will be also responsible for preparation of the Annual Project Report and provide his input to the completion of the annual GEF Project Implementation Review.

28

Terms of ReferenceProject Office Manager/Administrative Director

Location: Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskyi, Kamchatka

Description of Responsibilities:

Under the supervision of the PM, the Kamchatka project office manager1. Manage the day-to-day operations of the project office; 2. Assist the PM in ensuring that the proper UNDP procedures are utilized when communicating with

UNDP so as not to lose time in unnecessary delays. 3. Learn UNDP administrative procedures, processes, and requirements and provide administrative

support to project staff; 4. Assure that necessary financial, procurement, disbursement and personnel matters are effectively

addressed. 5. Work closely with part-time project accountant on a continual basis; 6. Prepare internal and external correspondence for the Project Office, maintain files and assist in the

preparation of documentation for meetings;7. Co-ordinate and assist in travel arrangements of project personnel;8. Assist in the preparation of press releases, statements and speeches on the project’s activities;9. Undertake such other duties as may be assigned by the PM.

Skills and Experience Required: Significant office environment work experience; Graduate university education an advantage. Some experience would be helpful working with international organizations/agencies,

governmental offices, research organizations. Speaking and writing proficiency in English; Working fluency in office computer software. Excellent inter-personal skills and obvious ability to work well with others Reliability, initiative, thoroughness and attention to detail. Self-starting and ability to work independently under general guidance. Ability to work under pressure Willingness to work substantial periods of overtime upon short notice.

29

Terms of ReferenceCommunity Participation & Project Impact Assessment Officer

Location: Petropavlosk-Kamchatskyi, with substantial time spent in site areas.

Background: This position was created to take the day-to-day lead for two important tasks: 1) strengthening the participation of communities and civil society in salmonid diversity conservation activities and related programs; and 2) ensuring project activities are implemented in such a way as to establish the ability to assess impact of project activities (comparing the “before” and the “after” for example. The position works closely with and reports to the PM.

Description of Responsibilities:

1. Work with local stakeholders to strengthen the involvement of local community members for the conservation of salmonid diversity values in project sites biodiversity monitoring, enforcement, and protected area management.

2. Work with the PM, project staff members, and expert input to help each one utilize a practical and simple method for helping to determine the impact of project activities – of training activities, of workshops (what do people learn?), the process of developing new laws and policies (how are people changing the way they think or the way they do their jobs?).

3. Fine-tune and coordinate key participation-related activities; 4. Work with the policy makers and partner institutions to ensure the effective development of

participation mechanisms within institutions, policies, and on the ground in the project sites, focusing primarily on the two priority sites – one in the KO and one in the KAO.

5. Serving as the main day-to-day liaison with the local advisory councils in the project sites. 6. Assisting in the preparation of press releases, statements and speeches on the project’s activities.7. Undertaking such other duties as may be assigned by the PM.

Skills and Experience Required: Graduate university education (equivalent experience considered). Several years' experience of work with governmental offices, public organizations, training

organizations or with local communities. English language speaking and writing ability helpful but not required. Demonstrable skills in the office management and reporting including, word processing. Strongly developed inter-personal skills Reliability, initiative, thoroughness and attention to detail. Ability to work independently with general oversight. Ability to work under pressure Willingness to work substantial periods of overtime at short notice.

30

Terms of ReferenceSustainable Fishery and Alternative Livelihoods Development Officer

Location: Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskyi, Kamchatka, with travel in the project region as deemed necessary, and travel to other locations consistent with these Terms of Reference.

This position was established to facilitate the implementation of project activities pertaining to the development of alternative livelihoods. This will entail undertaking all activities listed under Project Output -. The position will involve a significant amount of work with indigenous peoples’ issues: outreach activities, traditional knowledge, training and public awareness.

Description of Responsibilities:1. Support and implement project outreach activities;2. Build linkages with the local communities and local associations of indigenous people living

in and around Kol-Kehta, Utholok-Kavachina, and the Sopochnaya project sites;3. Form a close working relationship with the GEF Protected Areas project Sustainable

Livelihoods Working Team;4. Provide advice to the local and indigenous communities in how to proceed with developing

alternative livelihoods. 5. Collaborate with the UNESCO work under the UNDP/GEF protected areas project and apply

their programs and expertise to the Salmonid project sites where appropriate and possible;6. Work with indigenous communities in project site areas to develop a process whereby they

effectively preserve their traditional knowledge of biodiversity resources; 7. Work closely with community participation counterpart enabling local people to develop

alternative livelihoods living in and around Kol-Kehta, Utholok-Kavachina, & Sopochnaya. 8. Assist the PM in detailing a work plan annually for relevant activities and outputs based upon

the project document;9. Be responsible to the PM for the implementation of the work plan with respect to sustainable

fisheries and alternative livelihoods;10. Be responsible for the timely completion of consulting assignments, as well as control over the

quality of the contractors’ work;11. Foster and establish links with other relevant regional programs as deemed appropriate; and12. Submit quarterly reports of progress and problems to the PM.13. Assist in the preparation of press releases, statements and speeches on the project’s activities;14. Undertake such other duties as may be assigned by the PM.

Skills and Experience Required: Graduate university education (equivalent experience considered). Proven experience in successfully working with local communities in rural areas; well developed leadership, inter-personal, communication and negotiating skills, as well as a

proven ability to work effectively in groups; previous extensive work experience in the region on issues related to the project; extensive knowledge of local socio-economic conditions and aspirations of indigenous peoples; direct experience in the development of economic opportunities at the community level ability and willingness to travel; and, Reliability, initiative, thoroughness and attention to detail. English language ability advantageous (speaking and writing). Ability to work independently with general oversight and guidance. Ability to work under pressure. Willingness to work substantial periods of overtime at short notice.

31

Reporting requirement:

Team Leader will report to the PM on the regular basis concerning implementation of the Outputs 6 of the project. In doing so Team Leader will provide quarterly and annual operational reports, as well as other reporting as requested by the PM.

32

Terms of ReferenceProject Officer /Assistant-Moscow

Location: Moscow

Description of Responsibilities:Under the supervision of the PM and direct guidance of the NPD, the Programme Officer will: Coordinate with the NPD, the PSC, relevant federal agencies, and the Moscow based participating

NGOs, academic community and donor community; Provide technical and administrative support to the NPD with regard to project implementation; Work with the PM to ensure smooth information sharing among PSC members and UNDP. Prepare internal and external correspondence for the Project, maintain files and assist in the

prepare documents for meetings in Moscow; Assist the project manager and NPD in organizing lessons learned workshops and best practice

replication training events. Undertake such other duties as may be assigned by the NPD and PM.

Skills and Experience Required: Graduate university education preferred (equivalent experience considered). Several years' experience of work with international organizations/agencies, governmental offices,

research or training organizations. Proficiency in English (speaking and writing). Demonstrable skills in office computer skills (word processing, spreadsheet preparation, etc). Excellent inter-personal skills Reliability, initiative, thoroughness and attention to detail. Ability to work under general guidance or independently, and to multi-task. Ability to work under pressure Willingness to work substantial periods of overtime at short notice.

33

Terms of ReferenceProject Accountant (part-time)

Location: Petropavlovsk-KamchatskyiThe purpose of this position is to provide part-time accounting support to the project manager and office manager.

Description of Responsibilities:1. Maintain the project’s financial books2. Work closely with the PM and the Office Manager in maintaining the books. 3. Ensure that the office manger understands how to keep books in order in accountant’s absence4. Learn about UNDP’s and Government’s accounting requirements 5. Support the PM in preparing project reports and related documentation.

Qualifications: Experience with larger budgets and demonstrable, working knowledge of international accounting

standards; Reliability, initiative, thoroughness and attention to detail; Ability to work under general guidance or independently, and to multi-task; Ability to work under pressure; Willingness to work substantial periods of overtime at short notice.

34

Terms of ReferenceWeb Site Designer and Office Computer Support. (shared position with PA project)

Location: Petropavlosk-Kamchatskyi

Description of Responsibilities:Working closely with the PM, the web page builder and computer expert will be responsible for constructing a web page for the project and providing computer support to project office activities. The web page design should be interactive and should facilitate the exchange of lessons learned and disbursement of information. Documents will be uploaded onto the web site regularly and will be available for download. The position will be shared with the Protected Areas project.

1. He/she will be responsible for designing the project’s web page per international standards.

2. He she will work closely with and take guidance from the PM and the education and awareness expert as to the content of the web site.

3. He/she will design a web site that accommodates both the Russian language and the English language.

4. He/she will provide computer support to both project offices on an as needed basis. 5. He/she will work out of each one of the offices and will be based in whichever office

has the most space available. 6. Undertake such other duties as may be assigned by the NPD and PM.

Skills and Experience Required: Proven experience designing high-quality, user-friendly web sites. Several years' experience working with international organizations/agencies, governmental offices

or educational organizations. Must have proven experience in designing an interactive web site. Proficiency in English (speaking and writing) advantageous. Demonstrable skills in office computer skills (word processing, spreadsheet preparation, etc). Excellent inter-personal skills Reliability, initiative, thoroughness and attention to detail. Ability to work independently. Willingness to work periods of overtime at short notice.

35

Terms of ReferenceBiodiversity Conservation Awareness and Advocacy

Location: Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskyi, Kamchatka, with travel in the project region as deemed necessary, and travel to other locations consistent with these Terms of Reference.

Background: This position was created to take the day-to-day lead in implementing project activities aimed at strengthening and promoting the public awareness of biodiversity conservation values and advocacy in support of biodiversity conservation. The position shall be responsible for successfully implementing the activities and achieving the educational outputs as described under Activity and Targeted Output #3 under Output 3 in the Results Framework of the Project Document and under Output 3 in the project main body of the project brief.

Description of Responsibilities:1. Prepare an Annual Work Plan for the Working Team on the basis of the Project Document, under

the general supervision of and in close consultation with the PM and other colleagues;2. Work to develop an appropriate educational exhibit on salmonid species and intra-species diversity

and aquatic ecosystem integrity. 3. Foster and establish links with existing educational center institutions, including museums, where

such an exhibit might find a permanent home; 4. Cultivate and establish contacts with local schools and teachers and develop a salmonid diversity

curriculum for use by middle and high school teachers and students. 5. Provide training to teachers in the use of the materials; 6. Foster strong links with the education and awareness staff from the protected areas project. 7. Be responsible to the PM for the implementation of the Work Plan;8. Ensure consistency among the various component elements and related activities;9. Contribute to the fine-tuning of the Terms of Reference for the international consultant and

contractors to be employed in the education activity area;10. Timely preparation of the substantive and operational reports on work progress; 11. Submit quarterly progress reports to the PM.

Skills and Experience Required: post-graduate degree in environmental education, communication, or a directly related field (e.g.

education program development, public relations, natural resource management); extensive experience in education. At least five years experience as an educator or in the education

field, with some experience managing a program and budget preferred. A solid understanding of the science behind the subject of salmonid diversity preferred. Excellent leadership, inter-personal, communication and negotiating skills Ability to work well in groups & to use communication technology & office software excellent English speaking and writing capability an advantage; previous relevant work experience in the region an advantage; proven experience in the development of environmental education materials. knowledge of the media in the region and the ability and willingness to travel.

36

Working Teams

Duration: Working Teams will be employed for a part-time or seasonal basis for the duration of the project.

Background/Purpose:The formation of two working teams will strengthen the implementation of several key project activities. The purpose of the Work Teams is twofold: 1) to bring to bear the best possible expertise from different sectors on topics that are key to the implementation of the Project; and 2) as a useful mechanism when a group of experts collaborating is preferable to one expert working alone. Members of the working teams will be contracted by the project as individual contractors, but will work as a group in a coordinated fashion. The nomination of working team members will be made by the PM following consultation with UNDP and PSC. The membership of the Working Teams will be approved by the PSC.

Each working team shall make best use of existing expertise on salmonids in Kamchatka and institutional capacity within Kamchatka. Each team will have designated “team leader(s).” Work plans will be prepared by the Team Leaders, and will be approved on annual basis by the PM. Each Team may request assistance from, or assign specific tasks to, any institution or expert that it considers appropriate on the basis of established transparent UNDP contracting procedures.

37

Terms of Reference: Working Team on Salmonid Diversity & Socio-economic Field Surveys and Establishment of Information Baseline

Key stakeholders will establish this working team to conduct field biodiversity surveys of key project sites and to record and synthesize this data in a state of the art database for use by any interested party. The team will be comprised of representatives from Government, academic, and non-governmental organizations. There will be at least one team leader and up to three team leaders of this team. If there is more than one team leader, then the team leaders will be required to collaborate in the planning and conducting of their survey work. The team will be responsible for the first four outputs under Output 1.

Description of Responsibilities:

Baseline Field Surveys: 1. Be responsible for implementing the survey and information base development activities

identified under Output 1 of the project document. 2. Conduct field surveys to inventory breadth and depth of biological diversity in at least two

sites over the course of three years.3. Conduct ecological field surveys within the site areas to determine specific health and size of

key habitats and richness of habitat mosaic; 4. Conduct attitude and awareness level field surveys of key stakeholder groups, from top-level

policy makers to local village level stakeholders; and 5. Conduct economic surveys of local communities around salmonid site areas to quantify their

use of salmonid resources and their current income levels6. Learn from protected area project experience; meet with Protected Area project experts to

listen to their experiences. 7. Ensure effective integration with relevant work underway by the federal government and

Oblast Administration, bilateral aid programs, researchers, NGOs and private enterprises. 8. Assist in the development of terms of reference to contract out specified project activities.

Database design and Data entry:9. Synthesize data from survey results as well as existing information into standard format. 10. Design appropriate database format to maximize exchangeability of information among

institutions. 11. Consult Russian and international standards and design database to accommodate both. 12. Ensure database is easily linked to Geographic Information System software for GIS type of

analysis and map printing.

Research & Monitoring:13. Develop and finalize conservation research priorities and ecosystem quality and biodiversity

indicator monitoring methods for two project sites. 14. Contribute expertise to the establishment of bio-station and monitoring infrastructure. 15. Work with project staff and local communities to devise and implement a sustainable,

appropriate, low-cost monitoring program for key biodiversity and ecosystem parameters. 16. Conduct monitoring and limited targeted research.

Work methods:17. Work with the PM in adaptively managing the Team’s work program; 18. Include and involve experts familiar with the issues being addressed on an as required basis;

38

19. Work closely with other experts, bodies, institutions, NGOs and other interests as they, or the PM, deem necessary; and,

20. Involve relevant NGOs and other stakeholders as deemed necessary as a means of improving public participation and awareness in all of the focal areas they cover.

Team Leader(s) Responsibilities: Prepare and oversee the development of Terms of Reference for consultants and contractors to be

employed under the Working Team;

39

Terms of ReferenceWorking Team on Protected Areas Establishment

Location: Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskyi, Kamchatka, with travel in the project region as deemed necessary, and travel to other locations consistent with these Terms of Reference.

General Description of Team’s Work:This Working Team of two individuals will be established to conduct all the preparatory activities necessary for the legal designation and establishment of three new salmonid protected areas encompassing or within the Utholok-Kavachina, the Kol-Kehta and the Bolshaya basins. This will entail undertaking all activities under Output 2. A Team Leader will be designated to coordinate the team’s work and will report to the PM.

Description of Team Leader/Team Work Responsibilities:1. Prepare an Annual Work Plan for the Team based on the Project Document, under the general

supervision of and in consultation with the PM and other Working Team leaders;2. Conduct consultations with all the appropriate stakeholders, including local communities. 3. Prepare paperwork for Protected Area designation 4. Conduct environmental appraisals/State expertise5. Consulting and securing concurrence from local authorities… 6. Draw up draft proposal, including maps, etc… 7. Secure approval from all relevant ministries. 8. Secure consensus among key stakeholders and secure approval from Oblast

Administration and Okrug Administration. 9. Cooperate with governmental and international institutions, non-governmental organizations, local

communities, and the private sector relevant to the team’s work. 10. Submit quarterly progress reports to the PM.11. Ensure consistency among the various project component elements and related activities;12. Prepare and oversee the development of Terms of Reference for consultants and

contractors to be employed under the Working Team;13. involve relevant NGOs and other stakeholders as deemed necessary as a means of

improving public participation and awareness in all of the focal areas they cover.

Qualifications: post-graduate degree in protected area management, biodiversity conservation, or a directly related

field (e.g. wildlife and fisheries management, natural resource management, etc.); extensive experience in protected area-related work. well developed leadership, inter-personal, communication and negotiating skills, as well as a

proven ability to work effectively in groups; familiarity with the goals and priorities of international organizations strongly preferred; well developed English speaking and writing capability; previous relevant work experience in the region and the ability and willingness to travel; demonstrable skill in information technology (MS Word, Excel, GIS applications).

Reporting requirement:Team Leader will report to the PM on the regular basis concerning implementation of the Activity and Output 1 under Output 2 of the project document Results Framework. In doing so Team Leader will provide quarterly and annual operational reports, as well as other reporting as requested by the PM.

40

Abbreviated Terms of ReferenceShort and Long Term National Consultants

National Consultants, for both short and longer-term assignments, will be recruited from qualified candidates at the national and regional levels. National Consultants will play an important role in project implementation so that the project remains country-driven and local and national capacities are enhanced.

National Consultants will be recruited, as available, to undertake project work in the following areas of required expertise:

Biodiversity Assessments & Field Surveys Biodiversity Monitoring; Participatory monitoring Protected Area Management/Bio-station Planning Demonstration of Sustainable Fishing Techniques/Methodologies Environmental Awareness and Biodiversity Conservation Education Community Involvement Indigenous Peoples Environmental and Ecosystem Monitoring Legislation and Legal Capacity Building Financing Mechanisms Training in Participatory Protected Area Management Other areas as may be deemed necessary by the PSC and PM

The more detailed Terms of References for each required consultancy will be prepared by the PM in the earliest stages of project implementation.

41

INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS – TERMS OF REFERENCE

Terms of ReferenceLong-term Funding Mechanism Experts (One international and one national positions)

This position was created to allow the project to utilize an expert with a professional record of establishing successful trust funds and long term funding mechanisms. As envisioned by the project brief, the Salmonid Diversity Conservation Fund will be an innovative, groundbreaking mechanism in Russia and will require someone with particularly good skills of communication, marketing and persuasion.

This position is responsible for conducting all of the activities and achieving the results described under Output #5.

Description of Responsibilities: 1. Conduct stakeholder consultations on fund purpose, design, structure.2. Consult with protected areas project manager and PSC members, Salmonid project PSC

members and resolve the question of one fund/two funds. 3. Devise detailed structure of fund and circulate for review.4. Work with local Fund structure designed/approved.

Qualification Requirements: Particular attention to detail. Ability to work and communicate well with a diverse group of stakeholders; Proven ability to design practical funding mechanisms that become viable, effective institutions; Detailed knowledge of the international donor/funding arena;

NOTE: The ToR for this position will be finalized by the end of the first six months of the project, pending a discussion with the UNDP-GEF protected areas project regarding the most efficacious way forward for long-term funding of salmonid conservation and PA management. The project implementation support expert will work with the PM and UNDP to develop and finalize these ToR.

Terms of ReferenceAdvisor on Biodiversity Conservation Policy

This position was created to allow the project to bring to the policy table a wide range of international experience and expertise one environmental law questions and best practices worldwide. The position will work closely with national experts in achieving Activities and Outputs 11-13 under Output 1 of the Results Framework.

Terms of ReferenceCommunity-based Management & Monitoring Expert

This position was created to assist project staff and stakeholders in establishing community partnerships for river site management by end of year 2. The position allows the project to introduce

42

the latest in community based natural resource management and government-community partnering in resource management and monitoring. Experience in this area is still quite limited in Russia, while there is a wealth of experience from other parts of the world on this topic. The position will contribute to Activities and Outputs 4 under Output 2 of the Results Framework.

1. Work in close collaboration with project staff person in charge of this issue.2. Review work of project staff person to establish resource user groups for two areas; 3. If appropriate, assist in hiring up to two community members in each area as “riverkeepers”

for conducting basic, ongoing monitoring of key environmental parameters. 4. Develop & implement cooperative management agreements and plans with user groups in two

areas.5. Work with local people to enable them to prepare simple, practical state of the river reports

covering environmental, resource use, and socio-economic conditions. 6. Training for PA managers in participatory & community-based management and cons biology. 7. Develop community-based enforcement regimes and provide necessary training to local

stakeholders and Sevvostrybvod managers. 8. Devise practical public participation in diversity-management guidelines for fish management

agencies and secure their approval by year 3.

Terms of ReferenceEducational & Interactive Natural History Exhibit Expert

This position was created to bring in state of the art expertise in natural history educational exhibit design. The position will contribute to Activity and Output 3 under Output 2 of the Results Framework.

Terms of Reference for this position will be developed by the end of year 1.

Terms of ReferenceAdaptive Management Advisor (AMA)

The position is a key part of UNDP’s and GEF’s approach to strengthening and renewing their emphasis on quality implementation of UNDP-GEF projects. The purpose of this position is to enable the project to maintain strategic direction during implementation by ensuring that the project is an active member of a learning network of GEF projects, to sharpen the project’s focus on quality outputs, and to emphasize a learning and adaptive approach to project management and implementation.

Description of work responsibilities:

1. Facilitate learning and adaptive approach to project management and implementation by asking questions of key project personnel, including: “What are we learning and how are we incorporating it into our project implementation process?” “Are we meeting our indicators of success?” 2. Lead annual internal project management and evaluation exercise.

43

3. Upon request of the NPM, revise, update, and/or prepare detailed Terms of Reference for positions as they come up for hire during project implementation; 4. .Liaise with the UNDP, PCU and monitoring of the project implementation including participation in the field missions.5. Serve as a conduit for ongoing UNDP/GEF best practice input to project implementation, monitoring and evaluation.6. Establish linkages among various UNDP/GEF and other projects with relevant lessons to share.7. Develop and disseminate lessons learned/best practices handbook derived from the project’s8. Assist NPM with the management of the collaborative group of co-funders that is key to the project’s success. 9. Take the lead in preparing the Phase II project proposal for funding by GEF and other investors, to be completed by the middle of year 4.

Qualification Requirements:

Detailed knowledge of project design and implementation arrangements and experience with key stakeholders;

At least five years of experience with UNDP and GEF project development and implementation; Proven experience in successfully working with adaptive management/monitoring & best practice

assessment; Well developed leadership, inter-personal, communication and negotiating skills, as well as a proven

ability to work effectively in groups;Previous work experience in China and Asia;Post-graduate university education.Reliability, initiative, thoroughness and attention to detail.

44

MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) PLAN

This project is designed to integrate M&E into the fabric of project implementation. M&E is a crucial part of the project’s emphasis on knowledge management/adaptive management, as well as its emphasis on lessons learned through the many round table discussions and workshops to be held to discuss and reflect upon lessons being learned.

A detailed Monitoring & Evaluation work plan will be fleshed out at the inception of the project, which will allow for a critical assessment of project performance by showing the schedule of related activities, their cost and the expected outputs and achievements according to the established benchmarks and milestones. The work plan will be the main tool for monitoring and evaluating the progress of the project.

Background on Monitoring, Evaluating and Reporting: Monitoring and evaluation should be interactive and mutually supportive activities. Monitoring is a continuous process of collecting and analyzing information to measure the progress of a project toward expected results. Monitoring provides managers and participants with regular feedback that can help determine whether a project is progressing as planned. Formal evaluations are periodic assessments of project performance and impact. Evaluations also document what lessons are being learned from experience. Generally, individuals involved in managing a project are charged with monitoring. By contrast, individuals independent of project operations conduct evaluations.

Reporting is the systematic and timely provision of essential information. It is an integral part of the monitoring and evaluation function. Monitoring, reporting and evaluation are management functions that could also be described as observing project progress (monitoring), documenting the observed information (reporting) and assessing on the basis of the above (evaluating).

Monitoring. This project has a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program included in its overall design. An information baseline on the level and extent of threats to biodiversity in each site will be established during the first year of the project to provide a basis for future monitoring and evaluation. Project progress will be informally monitored on a continuous basis through a give and take of information among the PMU, working teams, and the AMA and annually through an organized review of progress towards milestones. Indicators of success are included in the project’s Logical Framework and will be utilized on a continuous basis as the project monitors and evaluates its progress.

Baseline surveys will: 1) determine the nature and extent of threats in each site to be reduced; 2) conduct ecological surveys within the site areas to determine specific health and size of key habitats and richness of habitat mosaic; 3) conduct attitude and awareness level surveys of key stakeholder groups, from top-level policy makers to local village level stakeholders; and 4) conduct economic surveys of local communities around site areas to quantify their use of resources and their current income levels.

Specific indicators will be developed during the project’s first year based upon preliminary baseline is established at the end of the first year based upon Block B and first-year surveys. This will include indicators of 1) threat reduction and prevention, and; 2) salmonid ecosystem/biodiversity health.

Specific indicators of will be developed after baseline surveys are completed during the project’s third year, including indicators of: 1) threat reduction and prevention, and; 2) salmonid ecosystem/biodiversity health.

45

Monitoring will be ongoing, involving data collection and assessment of the project’s field implementation and will involve key project staff meeting annually to review operations and field implementation and assessing whether new priorities require a shift in project implementation. In addition to this the project will be subject to standard UNDP/GEF monitoring requirements.

The NPM will prepare and submit quarterly narrative reports to the NPD and UNDP. The project manager will be required to produce an Annual Project Report (APR). The report is designed to obtain the independent views of the main stakeholders of a project on its relevance, performance and the likelihood of its success. The APR then supports an annual Tripartite Review (TPR) meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. Decisions and recommendations of the TPR will be presented to the PSC.

Terms of Reference & Monitoring and Evaluation PlanMid-term and final evaluation for the four-year I Phase of the project

Two external independent evaluations are scheduled in the project’s four year first phase: one in month 22 or 23, and the second in month 40. These independent evaluations of project performance will match project progress against predetermined success/threat reduction indicators. Each evaluation of the project will document lessons learned, identify challenges, and provide recommendations to improve performance.

Evaluation #1: The first evaluation will be conducted in month 24, and the end of year two. This evaluation will assess progress in establishing the information baseline, reducing threats, and identifying any difficulties in project implementation and their causes, and recommend corrective courses of action. Effective action to rectify any identified issues hindering implementation will be a requirement prior to determining whether implementation should proceed.

Project performance will be measured in each of the three evaluations based on the quantitative and qualitative indicators to be finalized during the first year of project implementation. Many of these indicators will relate to the reduction/prevention of the key threats to biodiversity in each of the four sites.

Other indicators to be considered are defined in the Logical Framework and the Results Framework of the Project Document. The logical framework for this project sets out a range of impact/implementation indicators that will be used to gauge impact. Success and failure will be determined in part by monitoring relative changes in baseline conditions established during year one of the project. Baseline conditions will be defined with respect to the nature and extent of threats, as well as habitat size and condition, and population size of indicator species to ensure that viable populations of these species are present in perpetuity. Where possible, indicator species that are sensitive to habitat change and indicative of increased pressure will be identified and monitored. If populations of rare or endangered species are shown to be in decline, measures will be taken to identify the reason for the decline, and alternative management strategies will be developed to ensure the long-term health of populations and incorporated into site management.

Evaluation #2: The second and final evaluation in Phase I will be conducted during our around the month 40 of project implementation, eight months prior to the closing of Phase I. This evaluation will focus upon four concerns: 1) assessing the ongoing impact of the project on threat reduction; 2) consolidating the lessons learned during the first four years of the project; and 3) recommending the most successful

46

experiences for replication and consolidation in other sites in Phase II; 4) assessing the effectiveness of the overall project in attaining its objectives, and on describing and quantifying the overall impact of the project and of GEF’s incremental investment in the project.

Both evaluations should also assess:

(a) Relevance of the project original problem analysis (approach, objectives, modalities of implementation, etc.) with regard to the prevailing context;

(b) Effectiveness of the approach used to produce these results;(c) Efficiency of project management, including the delivery of inputs in terms of quality, quantity and

timeliness; and the monitoring system;(d) Transfer of capacity to the provincial institutions; (e) Views of the direct beneficiaries on the preliminary outcomes and on the consultative process taking

place for the project.

Particular attention should be paid to assessing the following issues in the context of national execution: 1) capacity built within the assisted institution and its staff, and; capacity built within the end-users including specific groups.

Sustainability of the results needs to be reviewed in light of the following considerations:(a) Commitment of the host government to the project targets, and(b) Involvement of the local organizations (participatory process)(c) Management and organizational factors(d) Co-funding actually leveraged for replication of best practices in other sites. (e) Human resources development

Evaluation Expert/Team should inspect the following documents, among others: the Project Document; project files; technical reports; mission reports; monitoring visit reports; Annual Project Reports; TPR reports; PIRs; and other relevant documents; lessons learned round table discussion records and minutes; maps and databases developed under the project and being used in the sites.

Basing on the analysis of the above documentation as well as on interviews with the project personnel, direct and indirect project beneficiaries and project stakeholders. The Evaluator should provide a fair assessment of the project implementation and present his findings and recommendations in the report. Reporting: Evaluation team will be requested to submit the following documents to UNDP and the national Executing Agency:Project Evaluation Information Sheet (PEIS) Evaluation report.

47

Abbreviated Terms of ReferenceShort and Long Term International Consultants

International Consultants, for both short and longer term assignments, will be recruited from qualified candidates to assist in the delivery and implementation of activities for which domestic expertise is lacking or unavailable. Short-term international consultants will provide technical input to specific activities of the project, act as resource persons, and give methodological guidance in organizing meetings and workshops. At the request of the Executing Agency, international consulting expertise will also be used to assist in project supervision and monitoring and evaluation.

International Consultants will be recruited to assist in the following areas:

Design, establishment and management of the Kamchatka Protected Areas Trust Fund Design, establishment and management of a micro-credit facility Development of small business enterprises and their management Training of protected area staff in selected aspects of protected area management and operations Provision of project supervisory assistance to the Project Director, the PSC and Project Manager as (General Project Consultant) Other areas as may be deemed necessary by the PSC, PD or PM

The more detailed Terms of References for each consultancy will be prepared by the PM in the earliest stages of project implementation.

48

III. DESCRIPTION OF WORK FOR PROJECT SUB-CONTRACTS.

OUTPUT 1:

1. Subcontract 1.1: GIS Database Development

1. Digitize maps 2. Link GIS framework to biodiversity database3. Strengthen GIS capacity within most appropriate institution

2. Subcontract 1.2: Develop policy “white paper” on strengthening fishery law for diversity conservation

The purpose of this subcontract is to secure legal expertise in Moscow to provide members of the Duma with a work of high-quality legal analysis that will recommend biodiversity conservation and public participation-related improvements to the existing Draft Fisheries Law currently on hold in the Duma.

Note: this subcontract could also be converted to a contract for one or more individuals.

1. Produce output 11 under Output 1 of the Results Framework. 2. Conduct consultations with stakeholder groups as to best legal approach and key elements

needed in legal brief. 3. Draft legal brief for review 4. Incorporate comments into legal brief and finalize brief. 5. Prepare guidelines on strengthening public participation

3. Subcontract 1.3: Revise Kamchatka and Koryak Okrug Fishery Laws so that they are more salmonid diversity-friendly.

Main Tasks: Conduct consultations in Kamchatka among key decision makers to lay the groundwork for such amendments; Translate existing laws and policies into English; Work closely with international law and policy advisor, SC members, fish management institutions, and the NGO community on options for strengthening existing law; Draft proposed changes and circulate for review and secure preliminary agreement on them; Incorporate changes, stakeholder input and forward revised policies for formal consideration.

4. Subcontract 1.4: Sustainable fishery economics study

Assess values and services provided by salmonids, how to use regulatory incentives to promote conservation. Generate recommendations for strengthened coastal fishery and for strengthening local peoples' stake in sustainable fishery management

49

5. Sub-contract 1.5: Develop training materials for diversity-oriented fishery management & conduct training

Conduct consultations on what “diversity oriented fishery management” means in practical terms and secure consensus on the main points. Identify and describe key fish management actors in need of training Develop simple, practical training materials for these key actors Conduct training for up to 30 individuals per year beginning in year 3.

Details of the sub-contract to be worked out by the PM and the AM/IS Expert, in consultation with the PSC, by the end of year 1.

OUTPUT 2:

6. Subcontract 2.1. Plan appropriate Biostation and Protected Area Management Infrastructure

Secure agreement among key stakeholders as to the most appropriate plans for infrastructure that is good quality but not too expensive to maintain over the long-term.

Details of the sub-contract to be worked out by the PM and the AM/IS Expert, in consultation with the PSC, by the end of year 1.

7. Subcontract 2.2. Construct Biostation and Protected Area Management and Infrastructure

Details of the sub-contract to be worked out by the PM and the AM/IS Expert, in consultation with the PSC, by the end of year 1.

8. Subcontract 2.3. Rehabilitate Appropriate Monitoring Infrastructure & Equipment

Details of the sub-contract to be worked out by the PM and the AM/IS Expert, in consultation with the PSC, by the end of year 1.

9. Subcontract 2.4. Conduct diversity-friendly salmonid hatchery demonstration program

Bring diversity-friendly hatchery expert to Kamchatka and begin a process of collaboration between Kamchatka based hatchery organizations and North American.

Details of the sub-contract to be worked out by the PM and the AM/IS Expert, in consultation with the PSC and WSC , by the end of year 1.

50

10. Subcontract 2.5. Develop species and habitat conservation plans for two sites

Develop species conservation plans and habitat conservation plans for priority species and habitats in the Kol-Kehta and the Utholok-Kavachina sites.

Details of the sub-contract to be worked out by the PM and the AM/IS Expert, in consultation with the PSC, by the end of year 1.

11. Subcontract 2.6. Develop and implement anti-poaching enforcement program for non-commercial species.

Details of the sub-contract to be worked out by the PM and the AM/IS Expert, in consultation with the PSC, by the end of year 1.

12. Subcontract 2.7. Develop and Implement Enforcement Tracking Database

Details of the sub-contract to be worked out by the PM and the AM/IS Expert, in consultation with the PSC, by the end of year 1.

13. Subcontract 2.8. Environmental mitigation plan

This sub-contract to be funded from non-GEF resources.

OUTPUT 3:

14. Subcontract 3.1. Conduct cultural and biodiversity knowledge assessments with indigenous people

to map and otherwise secure their knowledge for use and preservation.

Details of the sub-contract to be worked out by the PM and the AM/IS Expert, in consultation with the PSC, by the end of year 1.

15. Subcontract 3.2: Training/outreach for young indigenous people in art of preserving traditional knowledge

Details of the sub-contract to be worked out by the PM and the AM/IS Expert, in consultation with the PSC, by the end of year 1.

51

16. Subcontract 3.4: Develop and secure adoption of diversity educational curricula for local middle and high schools.

Details of the sub-contract to be worked out by the PM and the AM/IS Expert, in consultation with the PSC, by the end of year 1.

17. Subcontract 3.5: Develop field guide and atlas on salmonid diversity

Details of the sub-contract to be worked out by the PM and the AM/IS Expert, in consultation with the PSC, by the end of year 1.

OUTPUT 4:

18. Subcontract 4.1: Conduct market study and establish links to viable markets for local resources.

Details of the sub-contract to be worked out by the PM and the AM/IS Expert, in consultation with the PSC, by the end of year 1.

19. Sub-contract 4.2. Demonstrate diversity-friendly fishing techniques/ methods/equipment

Pilot strengthened coastal fishery and strengthened property rights of local people.

Details of the sub-contract to be worked out by the PM and the AM/IS Expert, in consultation with the PSC, by the end of year 1.

OUTPUT 5:

20. Subcontract 5.1: Secure funding for the Salmonid Diversity Conservation Fund

Produce promotional material; Target most promising investors & Secure funding commitments.

Details of the sub-contract to be worked out by the PM and the AM/IS Expert, in consultation with the PSC, by the end of year 1.

52

ANNEX 1.2 OUTLINE WORKPLAN (ANNUAL WORKPLANS TO BE DEVELOPED AT TPR MEETINGS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE VENUES)

Output/ Target Output/Activities Months1-6 7-12 13-

1819-24

25-30

31-36

37-42

43-48

OUTPUT 1: SALMONID FISHERY STEWARDS APPLY NEW DIVERSITY CONSERVATION APPROACH IN RIVER SITES.Target Output 1. Baseline river ecosystem quality described and quantified in project sites by end of year 3. 1.1. Reach consensus on and establish information needs, database design and function

x

1.2. Reach consensus upon inventory methods/specific workplan w/specific responsibilities and outcomes.

x

1.3. Conduct complete inventory of aquatic/riparian biodiversity and habitat type, incl. salmonid genetic & life history diversity in three sites

x x x x x

Target Output 2. Sustainable research and monitoring program developed and implemented by end of year 3. 2.1 Research priorities finalized. x x x x x2.2 Monitoring methods and infrastructure establishedTarget Output 3. Diversity conservation policies developed and approved and applied by year 3;3.1 Policy options discussed with main stakeholders. x x3.2 Recommendations developed and endorsed. x xTarget Output 4. Re-oriented commercial fishery management practices in two sites. 4.1 Develop training materials for diversity conservation by end of year 1 x xTarget Output 5. Escapement goals for each river site enable species and ecosystem health by year 3.5.1 Guidelines for integrating diversity objectives into salmonid fishery operations finished by year 2. 1st draft by e/o year 1; final draft approved and adopted by e/o year 2.

x x x

5.2 Diversity management principles & protocols developed for two hatcheries in Bolshaya basin.

x x x x

5.3 Fishery management regimes adopted emphasize conservation of steelhead/salmonids.

x x

Target Output 6. Guidelines for public participation in diversity-management

54

Output/ Target Output/Activities Months1-6 7-12 13-

1819-24

25-30

31-36

37-42

43-48

approved by year 3.6.1 Develop guidelines and recommendations and secure approval from Sevvostrybvod.

x x

Target Output 7. Poaching prevention efforts for commercial salmonid species are increased by 30%. 7.1 Increase patrolling of sites in important seasons; community involvement. x x x x x x xTarget Output 8a. Kamchatka’s law and policy framework strengthened and expanded. Legal brief integrating salmonid diversity objectives into draft fishery law under consideration by the Duma by middle year 2. Targeted Output 8b. Amended KamO’s and KorO’s Fishery laws recognizing diversity of salmonids and specifying proactive management by end of year 2.8.1 Conduct consultations with stakeholder groups as to best legal approach, draft

legal brief, openly review and finalize. x x

8.1.a. Support consultations in Kamchatka among key decision makers to lay the groundwork for such amendments.

x x x

8.1.b. In-country and study tour training for policy makers in how to assess values and services provided by salmonids, and how to use regulatory incentives to promote salmonid conservation.

x x

8.1.c. Set escapement goals that sustain not only commercial fishery, but also allow for diversity maintenance by middle year 2.

x

OUTPUT 2: SALMONID DIVERSITY AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM INTEGRITY IS MAINTAINED BY APPLYING A RANGE OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION TOOLS IN RIVER SITES. Target Output 1. Legally established PA in Utholok-Kavachina, Kol-Kehta, and Bolshaya by end of year 2. 1.1 Conduct consultations w/stakeholders and prepare paperwork for PA designation.

x x x x

Target Output 2. Conservation operationalized in each PA.

55

Output/ Target Output/Activities Months1-6 7-12 13-

1819-24

25-30

31-36

37-42

43-48

2.1 Establish PA infrastructure and demarcate PA boundaries; (biostations?) x x x x2.2 Provide modest equipment. x x2.3 Establish monitoring infrastructure. x x x2.5 GoR/KO/KoA fund adequate staff beginning year 4. x x2.6 Species and habitat conservation plans developed for 2 sites. x x x xTargeted Output 3: Community partnerships established for river site management by end of year 3. 3.1. Develop & implement cooperative management agreements and plans with user groups in two areas.

x x x

3.2 Establish resource user groups for two areas; hire up to two community members in each area as “riverkeepers” for conducting basic, ongoing monitoring of key environmental parameters.

x x x

3.3. Local people prepare simple, practical state of the river reports covering environmental, resource use, and socio-economic conditions.

x x

3.2.3 Training for PA managers in participatory & community-based management and cons biology.

x x x

Targeted Output 4: Poaching of non-commercial salmonid species stopped by end of year 4 in project sites.4.1 Conduct anti-poaching patrols to stop harvest of non-commercial species. x x x x x x x4.1.a. Develop community-based enforcement regimes in at least one site and train local stakeholders and fishery managers in these methods.

x x x

4.2 Develop and implement violation tracking database by end of year 3 x xTargeted Output 5: Strengthened environmental mitigation of road and pipeline construction and other development activities.a) Environmental mitigation plan for pipeline and best practices in environmental mitigation introduced to key stakeholders at workshop in PK. 5.1 Develop plan to mitigate the impact of pipeline construction, including culvert size and construction scheduling recommendations by end of 1st year.

x x

5.2 Integrate salmonid habitat conservation objectives into environmental management plans;

x x

OUTPUT 3: INFORMATION SHARED WIDELY, CONSERVATION CONSTITUENCY BUILT AND INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE CONSERVED.

56

Output/ Target Output/Activities Months1-6 7-12 13-

1819-24

25-30

31-36

37-42

43-48

Target Output 1. Indigenous people enabled to preserve and maintain their traditional knowledge of biodiversity resources. 1.3 Communities conduct cultural and biodiversity resource assessments and map

information in site areas in a form that can be used and maintained locally. x x x x x x

1.3.a. Oral histories and narratives preserved in a way that is accessible to future generations – young people given training in knowledge.

x x

Target Output 2. Project captures lessons learned and effectively shares them cross-project, cross-agency, cross-country.2.1 Integrate information into national/regional plans and strategies for sustainable

development and use of salmonid diversity. x x

2.2 Strengthen international linkages for conservation and sustainable fish management and establish an information exchange network.

x x x x x x

2.3 Establish web-based information exchange; print annual newsletter. x x x x x x2.4 Share best practices on web-based information exchange and through exchanges x x x x x x2.5 Organize pacific basin conference in collaboration with key national and

international partnersx

2.6 Organize lessons learned workshop xTarget Output 3. Education program developed and implemented. 3.1 Design and construct interactive interpretative exhibit on salmonid diversity by

end of year 2 with active outreach program w/local schools.x x x x

3.1.a. Hire interpretive display design specialist and develop salmonid diversity interpretive and education center in cooperation with SevesRybvod and K-Niro.

x x

3.2 Develop and secure adoption of salmonid diversity/ecology/sustainable use curricula by at least 10 middle and high schools by e/o year 3.

x x x

3.3 Develop field guide and an atlas on salmonid diversity. x x x x3.4 Organize salmonid field trips/lectures for two school groups per year by e/o year 4. x x x x x

57

Output/ Target Output/Activities Months1-6 7-12 13-

1819-24

25-30

31-36

37-42

43-48

Target Output 4. Synthesis of aquaculture policy analyses already available, aquaculture’s effects on wild salmon, and the importance of wild salmon to the long-term health of salmon farming. 4.1 Summarize, synthesize and translate existing analyses of international aquacultural policy and practice for effects on wild salmon.

x x

OUTPUT 4: ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS APPLIED IN RIVER SITE AREASTargeted Output 1. Indigenous people enabled to access markets for natural resources. 1.1 Generate recommendations for alternative livelihood options x1.2 Assess market feasibility for goods and help to establish economically viable

contacts with wholesaling companies or producers - Russian and international;x x x

1.3 Extend micro-credit to viable ideas for marketing and selling of goods (trade posts)

x

1.4 Assess existing fish processing factories for their potential restructuring/use of their assets for establishing new SMEs and devise business plan for one if appropriate.

x

Targeted Output 2. Pilot model alternative livelihood options in priority areas. 2.1 Enable local communities to develop business plans and pursue sustainable livelihood options using micro-credit & business training by e/o year 3.

x x x

2.2 Eco-tourism demonstration on the Sopochnaya or U-K rivers involves at least 20% of the stakeholders, establishing routes, infrastructure, trained guides and service folks.

x x x

2.3 Indigenous people strengthen their animal husbandry livelihoods. x x x2.4 Develop pilot program to strengthen coastal salmonid fishery by increasing quotas for coastal community stakeholders and decreasing quotas for fishing on the high seas.

x

2.5 Develop biodiversity guidelines for eco-tourism enterprise development. x x2.6 Bring in an advisor on traditional/alternative fishery options to work in the SME Fund of the PA project;

x x

2.7 Demonstrate diversity-friendly fishing techniques and equipment. x x2.8 Conduct small and medium enterprise development training x x X

58

Output/ Target Output/Activities Months1-6 7-12 13-

1819-24

25-30

31-36

37-42

43-48

OUTPUT 5: SALMONID DIVERSITY CONSERVATION FUND (SCDF) SUPPORTS CONSERVATION IN PERPETUITY. Target Output 1: SDCF legally established by beginning of year 3.1.1 Trust Fund expert conducts stakeholder consultations on fund purpose, design, structure.

x x

1.2 Draft structure proposed and considered by year middle year 2. x x1.3 Draft structure accepted by Steering Committee by middle year 3. x x1.4 Kamchatka-based sport fishing funding mechanism established by end of year 3. x x x xTarget Output 3: Preliminary commitment of $1.5 million to the fund by end of year 4.3.1 Promotional material produced; Professional fund raising efforts target most promising investors.

x x x x

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES 1: Conduct regular steering committee meetings x x x x x x2. Report on project progress per UNDP requirements. Preparation of an Inception report x x Prepare Annual Project Report (APR) at the end of each year x x x Conduct annual Tripartite Reviews (TPR) x x x Prepare Project Implementation Review (PIR) reports prior to x x x Terminal evaluation for Phase I x3. Ongoing review and analysis of project’s work and experiences to develop best practices.

x x x x x x x x

4. Organize round table discussions. x x x5. Prepare for second phase of the project by drafting project brief by end of year 3. x x6. Submit project brief for second phase by beginning of year 4. x

59

UNDP Project Document - Section II:

Original Project Brief Approved by the GEF Council in October of 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT CONTEXT.......................................................................................................................................1BASELINE SITUATION...................................................................................................................................6THIS PROJECT’S PROPOSED “ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION”........................................................13Output 1: Salmonid fishery Stewards generate and apply new diversity conservation approach in

four river sites.

13Output 2: Stakeholders Maintain Salmonid Diversity and River Ecosystem Integrity in Four

River Sites by Applying A Range of Resource Management and Conservation Tools.

15Output 3: Information is Shared Widely, Stakeholders Build Constituencies for Salmonid

Diversity Conservation & Indigenous People Preserve and Maintain Their Knowledge

16Output 4: Stakeholders successfully apply alternative livelihoods in river site areas.

18Output 5: Salmonid diversity conservation fund support salmonid diversity conservation in

Kamchatka in perpetuity

19EXPECTED BENEFITS...................................................................................................................................21STAKEHOLDERS’ PARTICIPATION..............................................................................................................21ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE CBD...................................................................................................................22IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS.........................................................................................................23PROJECT FINANCING...................................................................................................................................25SUSTAINABILITY OF PROJECT RESULTS.....................................................................................................28MONITORING & EVALUATION...................................................................................................................29LIST OF ANNEXES:......................................................................................................................................31

Mandatory Annexes:

Annex 1 Incremental Cost Analysis

1Annex II: Logical Framework

22Annex III: Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel Review

34

“Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wild Salmonid Biological Diversity in Russia¹s Kamchatka Peninsula”

34& Response to Review

34

Optional Annexes (Available upon request):

Annex IV: Salmonid Diversity Conservation Fund Annex V: “Threats/Root Causes/Activities to Mitigate Threats” TableAnnex VI: Site Biodiversity Value Matrix & Explanation of Life History StrategiesAnnex VII: Stakeholder Participation in Project ImplementationAnnex VIII: Map of Priority SitesAnnex IX: GEF Focal Point EndorsementAnnex X: Project Categorisation Sheet

ii

1. Identifiers Project Title: Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wild Salmonid Biological Diversity in

Russia’s Kamchatka PeninsulaDuration: Phase I: Four (4) yearsGEF IA: United Nations Development ProgrammeExecuting Agency: State Fisheries Committee/KamchatrybvodRequesting Country: Russian FederationEligibility: CBD ratified: May 1995. Notification of Participation in GEF: June 1994GEF Focal Areas: BiodiversityGEF-OP: Operational Program 13: Agricultural Biological Diversity (with secondary

relevance to OP2)

2. Summary. The objective of this project is the conservation and sustainable use of salmonid biological diversity of global importance to agriculture in four river systems on Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula. Upon successful completion of the project, stakeholders will devise innovative and adaptive ecosystem management practices to mitigate and prevent threats to river ecosystem integrity and apply new partnerships, conservation tools, information, and sustainable livelihoods to conserve salmonid diversity maintained therein.

The Kamchatka peninsula extends 1,500 kilometers south from Russia’s Siberian mainland, separating the Sea of Okhotsk from the North Pacific Ocean. Designated a World Wildlife Fund “Global 200” ecoregion, the peninsula and its thousands of pristine rivers support one of the world’s most diverse array of salmonid fish species, with tremendous diversity at the species, intra-species (stock), and genetic levels. At least eleven species of salmonids are known to occur in these river systems, more than any other place in the world. Five of these eleven salmonid species are commercially fished; the other six are non-commercial species, one of which is the endangered “steelhead” sea-run rainbow trout.

GEF support will secure the global benefits of conserving salmonid diversity of actual and potential value for food and aquaculture. Russian and international partner co-financing provides the crucial foundation for GEF’s incremental investment by enhancing the sustainability of the existing economic development baseline. This project is designed for implementation in two phases, each with its own distinct achievements; this project document requests GEF funding for Phase I. If supported by an independent results-based evaluation of the Phase I, GEF funding will be requested to support the incremental costs of the second and final phase (Phase II).

Phase I of the project will enable stakeholders to make the financial and policy commitments necessary, protect crucial salmonid habitat by establishing protected areas and participatory management regimes, construct a diversity information baseline by conducting field surveys, lay the foundation for long-term financing of salmonid diversity conservation, pilot diversity-friendly commercial fishing practices and sport-fishing ecotourism, forge new partnerships among local and international stakeholders, and strengthen the capacity of civil society institutions. Phase II would consolidate the achievements of Phase I. For example, during Phase II stakeholders would consolidate policy and program commitments made during Phase I by adopting participatory approaches to river system management and securing partnerships for cooperative research, salmonid habitat management, and eco-tourism business development. Equally important, during Phase II the long-term financing mechanism for salmonid conservation would be permanently established and funded primarily by non-GEF, partner financing.

In-situ conservation of salmonid diversity is far more cost-effective than ex-situ conservation. Indeed, it is the only known way to maintain such dynamic biological diversity within and among disparate

populations evolving and adapting under unique local conditions. Global environmental benefits include significant option and insurance values, existence values, and direct-use values. For world aquaculture, this genetic diversity preserves options to rebuild, preserve, or augment the genetic vitality of captive broodstocks. It also serves as a global insurance policy against aggressive manipulation of broodstocks for short-term productivity gains. With this safety net in place, managers and policymakers have additional freedom of short-term action while still managing long-term risks consistent with the precautionary principle. For wild salmon fishing, the genetic fund could prove crucial to maintaining the productivity of other salmonid ecosystems exposed to future climate change or other environmental shocks. For the international scientific community, the study of protected salmonid ecosystems holds significant direct-use values related to advancing global understanding of aquatic ecosystems.

A sustainable salmon fishery in Kamchatka is in Russia’s national interest and indeed is part of Russia’s national and Kamchatka’s regional development objective. However no country has ever tried proactively to manage for salmonid biological diversity concurrent with managing for fish production. Diversity oriented management to conserve the broad array of salmonid diversity at the species, stock, and genetic levels will impose incremental learning, management, and opportunity costs relative to those presently incurred in Kamchatka’s existing production-oriented salmon management regime. There is presently little reason for Russia, Kamchatka, or the salmon aquaculture industry to incur these costs because many of the resultant benefits are non-excludable in supply and accrue in large measure to the rest of the world over a long time horizon. For these reasons, in the absence of support from the GEF acting on behalf of the global community, the significant global benefits of conserving salmonid biological diversity important to food and aquaculture are likely to be forfeited.

3. Costs and Financing (US$): GEF: Project Phase I: $3,000,000

Block-A Preparatory Funding $22,000Block-B Preparatory Funding $287,000Sub-total GEF: $3,309,000

Co-financing for 4-year Phase I:Russian State Fisheries Committee: $4,746,950Kamchatka Oblast/Koryak Okrug $450,910Moscow State University $226,460United Nations Development Programme $201,000U.S. National Science Foundation $1,742,000Wild Salmon Center $2,931,250Block-A Preparatory Co-financing $10,000Block-B Preparatory Co-financing $207,500Sub-total co-financing: $10,516,070

Total Phase I Project Cost (excluding Block A & B preparation cost)13,298,570(incl. Block A & B preparation cost): $13,825,070

4. Operational Focal Point Endorsement (see Annex IX):M. E. Yakovenko, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Natural Resources

Date of endorsement: 24 January 2002

ii

5. IA Contacts: Nick Remple, GEF Regional Coordinator, UNDP/GEF, Bratislava, Slovak Republic. Email: nick.remple@undp.org & Elena Armand, GEF National Programme Coordinator, UNDP- Russia, Moscow, Russian Federation. Email: elena.armand@undp.org

iii

Abbreviations

CBD Convention on Biological DiversityCNR (Kamchatka and Koryakia) Committee for Natural ResourcesCIDA Canadian International Development AgencyEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentGEF Global Environment FacilityGEF-OP Global Environment Facility, Operational ProgramGoR Government of Russian FederationIMB Institute for Marine Biology, Russian Academy of SciencesIUCN International Union for the Conservation of NatureKO Kamchatka OblastKAO Koryak Autonomous OkrugKIEP Kamchatka Institute for Ecology and Nature ManagementKNIRO KamchatNIROKRV KamchatRYBVODKK Kol/KekhtaKOIR Koryak Okrug Fishery Inspection ServiceMGU Moscow State UniversityMNR Ministry of Natural ResourcesNGOs Non-governmental OrganizationNSF U.S. National Science Foundation NSF-OPP National Science Foundation Office of Polar ProgramsPK Petropavlovsk-KamchatskiPDF-B Project Development Facility, Block-B (GEF project development grant)RF Russian FederationRFE Russian Far EastSD Salmonid DiversitySFC State Fishery CommitteeSFM Salmonid Fishery ManagementTAC Total Allowable CatchTPR Tripartite Project ReviewTTNRU Territory for Traditional Natural Resource UseUSFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. United StatesU-K Utkholok-Kvachina UNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeWSC Wild Salmon CenterWSDCF Wild Salmonid Diversity Conservation FundWB World Bank WFF Wild Fishes Foundation WWF World Wildlife Fund

iv

PROJECT CONTEXT

Salmonid Diversity’s Importance to Food and Aquaculture and Relevance to OP 13:

Just as traditional agricultural ecosystems and associated wild relatives are important to the long-term health of agriculture, so too are aquatic and marine “aquacultural” ecosystems and the wild diversity they harbor, important to the long-term health of aquaculture. The global benefits of conserving salmonid diversity through a watershed-level, ecosystem-oriented approach in a world where salmon are becoming an important food source are significant.

A recent survey of world food prospects1 noted that as of 1996 the world's oceans are being fully fished for wild species. The most recent FAO statistics show that production from capture fisheries is flat or declining, while aquaculture production has grown by 10% per year during the past half decade. Although low input aquaculture has been practiced for thousands of years in some parts of the world, intensive farming of many fish species is a recent development. Despite this, fish farming is following rapidly down the path of other branches of agriculture, applying advanced breeding and genetic manipulation techniques. The result is the increasing spread of genetically uniform varieties around the world. For example, an article printed in Havbruk Seafood Magazine in January 2001, entitled “Norwegian Salmon - standard issue or tailored?” reported that a Norwegian salmon breeder, AquaGen, had sent a consignment of specially bred Norwegian salmon to Chile, and that this was viewed as a growth industry

With respect to the global production of salmon, the trends toward salmon aquaculture are dramatic. Wild salmon catch levels have remained essentially flat in recent years but farmed salmon production, has more than doubled. In fact farmed salmon production now exceeds wild salmon catch, growing from 2% of global salmon production in 1980, to over 50% in 2000 and the trend shows no sign of abating in the near term.2 As production has increased so too has the number of countries engaged in salmon farming: from one in 1980 to ten in 2000. Salmon is now Norway’s most important seafood product3.

Such developments have a significant bearing on conservation of agro-biodiversity and the successful development of the aquaculture industry. Firstly, the ability to breed new varieties, as in any other branch of agriculture, requires continued access to wild genetic resources and a source of new variation. With the salmon farming industry less than three decades old, the technology is in its infancy and is reliant primarily upon one species of salmonid. Experience with domesticated crops shows that reliance on one domesticated species carries extreme risk of disease or parasite problems. Experience with domesticated crops also proves that the practice of widespread distribution of cultivated varieties poses a threat to genetic variation in wild stock. With salmon farms, escapes occur from even the best-managed farms. While the survival rate of such escapees can be assumed to be low, some will survive in natural conditions, potentially polluting the native gene pool through hybridization and/or extirpating native genetic varieties in the event that escapees prove to have a higher fitness.

In parallel with these developments, there is a rapidly increasing demand for “organically” farmed fish, as part of a general movement favouring organically prepared food. One aspect of organic farming is the reliance on genetic diversity, as opposed to chemicals, to secure high productivity and low rates of disease. Thus, the need for conservation of wild genetic resources that continue to evolve in response to changing environmental conditions will increase rather than decrease over time. However this need is still not tangible to the market, which fails to account for the risk mitigation benefits of conserving the

1 Smil, 2000. Feeding the World. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.2 Kontali Analyse A.S. Monthly Salmon Report, August 2001.3 Institute of Marine Research, Government of Norway. 2000. Annual Report of Aquaculture 2000. website: www.imr.no

1

genetic diversity of wild relatives of cultivated species like salmon. Ex situ conservation is not a viable alternative for salmonid species because the levels of genetic diversity found in wild populations far exceed the diversity in cultivated varieties, and ex situ conservation eliminates the active role played by genetic forces in adaptation to changing environments.

At the same time, there has been a steady decline – a north-south extinction wave -- affecting wild salmonid populations and the biological diversity among them on the northern Atlantic and Pacific rims: from France to Scotland and Norway; from the Northeastern U.S. to southern Canada and from northern California to southern British Columbia. The causes of these dramatic population losses include dam and other infrastructure development which block migration up and down stream, forest harvesting and other operations which degrade the quality of spawning grounds, over-harvesting through increasingly intensive fishing methods, and water pollution from a myriad of different sources. Kamchatka and the adjacent regions of Russia, thus represent one of the sole remaining areas where genetic diversity of Pacific salmonids remains in a virtually pristine state.

Environment & Biodiversity Background & Context:

The Kamchatka Peninsula harbors the largest grouping of healthy relatively pristine salmon rivers along the Pacific Rim. The salmonid fish in these river systems still exhibit the full range of genetic and life history diversity derived in part from the different physical and bio-chemical characteristics of each river. The Kamchatka Peninsula is home to some of the last remaining healthy assemblages of salmonid fish in the world. The peninsula is a global priority for the long-term conservation of wild anadromous salmon and steelhead and riverine trout and char. An estimated one fifth of the world’s total salmon population spawn in Kamchatka rivers, including all six species of Pacific salmon [chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisutch), sockeye (O. nerka), chum (O. keta), pink (O. gorbuscha) and masu salmon (O. masu)]. These rivers are also important spawning grounds for rainbow trout including Russia’s only runs of the endangered, Red Book-listed sea going steelhead trout (O. mykiss or Para salmo mykiss), two species of char [Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) and white spotted char or “kundzha” (S. leucomanis)], and one species of grayling (Thymallus arcticus).

In addition to diversity at the species level among salmonids there is a tremendous amount of genetic and life history diversity within species and wild populations returning to spawn in a wide array of riverine conditions. Salmonid species exhibit a high level of life history diversity in the different seasonal timing of spawning runs in specific rivers, residency time spent in fresh and salt-water, adaptations to up-stream habitat, and the ability to colonize new waters. For example, steelhead trout in Kamchatka are known to have developed six different life history strategies ranging from alpha through iota4 (explanation in Annex VI). The genetic and life history diversity occurring within salmon species has been recognized in North America as evolutionarily significant to the ability of salmon to survive environmental change and maintain population health.

Kamchatka rivers encompass a wide range of natural physical and chemical variability comprised of topographic diversity, dynamic and spatially variable linkages among river channels, riparian forests, and massive alluvial and bedrock aquifers and upstream marine nutrient “pumps” created by huge salmon runs. This ecological diversity in turn nurtures the tremendous genetic and life history diversity within the species of salmonids that inhabit these rivers and makes salmonid diversity practically “river-specific.” Individual streams or watersheds are home to specific, distinct breeding populations or “stocks” with their own unique genetic signature or life history strategy.

Salmon and the nutrients they bring to freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems are the biological cornerstone of aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity in Kamchatka and essential to the ecological integrity of aquatic

4 Pavlov, D.S. and K. A. Savvaitova, K.V. Kuzishchin, M.A. Gruzdeva, S.D. Pavlov, B. M. Mednikov, and S. V. Maximov (2001).  Pacific Noble Salmons and Trouts of Asia. Tikhookeanskie blagorodnye lososi i foreli Azii.  Moscow:  Nauchnyi Mir, 199 pp.

2

ecosystems. Recent studies in coastal watersheds of northwestern North America have shown that salmon and other anadromous fish are a “keystone species,” bringing biomass and nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon and micronutrients) from the sea into freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems.5 Annual nutrient inputs from migrations of spawning salmon and steelhead support riparian vegetation, aquatic invertebrates, juvenile salmonids and large vertebrates at the top of the food chain.

Furthermore, the global benefits of this project are enhanced by a significant number of species and ecosystems that will gain protection as a result of salmon conservation efforts. Large vertebrates that depend on salmon in Kamchatka include the world’s largest population of brown bears (5,000-10,000 individuals), over 50% of the global population of the world's largest eagle, Steller sea eagle, and 1,800 Steller sea lions, a species that has declined 95% worldwide in the last 20 years. Salmonid diversity plays an important contributory role to ecological processes because different species and races 6 migrate at different times and to different locations, providing spatial and temporal variations in food supplies that may be critical to maintaining healthy populations of predators. Clearly, efforts to protect Kamchatka’s biodiversity must include measures to ensure the continued diversity of salmonid fish and integrity of their freshwater and marine habitats outside of existing protected areas. Any sustainable, long-term biodiversity conservation approach for Kamchatka must seek to maintain the interactive ecological linkages among healthy salmon and steelhead stocks, natural river ecosystems and human communities.

Economic Context: Located nine time zones east of Moscow, the Kamchatka peninsula’s 472,000 km2 is divided politically into two regional political entities of the Russian Federation: the Kamchatka Oblast and the Koryak Autonomous Okrug (both oblast and Okrug are regional political entities of the Russian Federation). Extending from 50 –60N latitude, the peninsula and its climate are characterized by sub-arctic conditions. Approximately 72% of Kamchatka’s 386,000 people are concentrated in the city of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski (PK) and surrounding areas, leaving vast areas of the peninsula sparsely populated or uninhabited.

About 60% of the Russian Federation’s fishery resources occur in the waters around Kamchatka, including walleye pollack, crab, cod, herring, halibut and five species of commercial salmonids. Commercial fishing is an economic mainstay in the peninsula, and salmonid fish comprise a significant proportion of commercial and subsistence catches. Having weathered a 50% reduction in economic activity during the past ten years, most of Kamchatka’s rural people survive on the natural capital of the marine, aquatic, and terrestrial environment of which salmon are an important part. In the Sopochnaya and Utkholok site areas salmon support over 2,200 indigenous Itelmen, Koryak and Even people. In the project’s Bolshaya site area salmon are important to the livelihoods of 9,000 people who have remained in the wake of the collapsed agricultural and fishery economy.

Project Sites:During the Block B period, stakeholders carefully applied the following site selection criteria in choosing four river system sites along Kamchatka’s western coast for focused effort under this project: High salmonid species & intra-specific genetic diversity;

5 Over 40 species of mammals and birds in Southeast Alaska forage on salmon eggs, juveniles and adults in freshwater (M.F. Willsonn and K.C. Halupka. 1995) and the growth and reproductive success of young fish have been linked to the biomass of salmon carcasses in the system (M. Bilby et al. 1996). Sockeye salmon runs in Alaska add up to 170 tons of phosphorous per year to Lake Illiamna (Hartman and Burggner 1972 ) and the number of salmon carcasses carried by brown bears to within 100 meters of streams adds phosphorous to terrestrial systems at a rate of 6.77 kg/ha, equivalent to the application rate of commercial fertilizers for evergreen trees (M. F. Wilsonn, et.al. 1998).

6 For example, the steelhead species O. mykiss is comprised of “races” that are defined by the different seasonal timing of their spawning runs (summer & winter steelhead). Each race is comprised of river-specific “stocks” or “aggregate populations” uniquely suited to river-specific conditions.

3

Representative of full range of river ecosystem complexity in Kamchatka; Presence of rare and endangered species; Degree of threats and probability of success in addressing them; and Global demonstration value of solutions to the range of threats to salmonid ecosystem integrity.

The sites encompass a wide geographic area and diversity of conditions under which the full range of wild salmonid diversity can be maintained in-situ. Applying the precautionary principle, this approach maximizes the chance that salmon species could survive rapid climate change that might otherwise eliminate salmon from viable habitat. Located between 54N - 57N latitude along the western coast of Kamchatka, the project site rivers are representative of a continuum of river ecosystems that encompass the greatest diversity of salmonid fish – the full range of known variation in life-history strategies, species diversity and genetic diversity – anywhere on earth. The four project river sites are: 1) the Bolshaya; 2) the Kol/Kekhta; 3) the Sopochnaya; and 4) the Utkholok/Kvachina.

Bolshaya Basin. The Bolshaya is a large complex river system that flows west from central Kamchatka to the Sea of Okhotsk. It is the southern-most of the four project sites. The Bolshaya is different from the other project sites in that it is influenced by more recent volcanic activity, enriching the mineral productivity of its waters. Like the other three project sites, the river harbors a rich diversity of ten salmonid species. Unlike the other sites it is one of Kamchatka’s main producers of commercial salmon, supporting the world’s largest pink salmon runs (50% of the Kamchatka-based catch) and Lake Nachikinskoye’s endemic forms of lake and riverine-lake char (Salvelinus alpinus, Salvelinus malma). The Bolshaya harbors four different salmonid life-history strategies: the lowest of the project sites.

The Bolshaya also differs from other sites because its aquatic ecosystem has been significantly modified by decades of commercial-oriented salmon fishing and the impacts of fish hatcheries. Kamchatrybvod operates two fish hatcheries in the Bolshaya basin, with negative implications for the river’s wild salmon runs. The demonstration value of the Bolshaya site lies in integrating diversity conservation with those of fish hatcheries by instituting diversity-oriented hatchery management and re-orienting commercial salmon fishing to enable sustainable production and sustained globally significant salmonid and non-salmonid biological diversity in the project sites. The lessons learned by project-supported activities in the Bolshaya will provide solutions to threats that are beginning to appear in the other three project sites and throughout Kamchatka and the Russian Far East.

The Kol/Kekhta (K/K) is located 200 kilometers north of the Bolshaya, flowing west from the mountainous spine of Kamchatka to the Sea of Okhotsk. The waters of the Kol/Kekhta flow over a basalt substrate and lack dissolved constituents to such a degree that it may be compared with distilled water. As a result, biotic productivity in rivers like the K/K is different than it is, for example, in the Bolshaya, because it is even more reliant upon the input of marine nutrients derived from salmon runs. This influences the life history strategies developed by the masu salmon, chinook, coho, sockeye, pink, chum, rainbow trout, steelhead, Dolly Varden, and white spotted char resident in the system. Studies on salmonids in this system reveal very high diversity of six life history strategies (alpha-iota), with a unique resident life history strategy (iota) predominating amid equal parts of alpha, epsi, and delta, and a small percentage of beta.

The global demonstration value in the K/K lies in the commitment of the regional government of Kamchatka to establish a watershed-level, headwaters-to-ocean refuge that captures the unusual diversity of salmonid life-history strategies associated with this type of steep, relatively nutrient-poor river system. Accessible via helicopter from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski, the K/K will be a unique and valuable ecological baseline of a pristine, healthy, and diverse salmon ecosystem and a reference point for river ecosystem managers throughout the world.

Kamchatrybvod, the federal agency responsible for fishery management in Kamchatka, monitors the abundance levels of commercial salmonid species in the K/K twice a year in order to establish catch

4

quotas for the year. Fishing takes place at the mouth of the river and in the near-shore marine environment. The project will demonstrate how fishing can be adapted to complement the variability in life-history strategies and ecosystem integrity. A natural gas pipeline and attendant maintenance road will cross the river in the future, but at this time no infrastructure or settlement of any kind exists on the K-K.

The Sopochnaya River is located three hundred kilometers north of the K/K and five hundred kilometers north of the Bolshaya. The Sopochnaya is an enormously dynamic and complex clearwater alluvial river system, with many side channels, braids and spring brooks that support expansive cottonwood-willow gallery forests. Such ecological complexity supports significant populations of various forms of rainbow trout, six species of pacific salmon, two species of char, and a relatively healthy population of endangered steelhead trout. The Sopochnaya captures the steelhead genetic and life history diversity typical of the central part of western Kamchatkan steelhead rivers, such as the estuarine forms of steelhead. Six patterns of life history strategies are found here – two anadromous, one estuarine, one riverine-estuarine, half-pounders, and one resident riverine.

The global demonstration value of the Sopochnaya site lies in the opportunity here to develop a sustainably funded multiple-use approach to salmonid diversity conservation in an aquatic ecosystem. The Sopochnaya has proven ability to attract sport-fishermen and therefore to support the first long-term eco-tourism funded salmonid conservation and management program.

The Utkholok-Kvachina (U-K) is a classic northern-tundra steelhead ecosystem. The productivity of this slow-moving coastal lowland river system is heavily influenced by the complex chemistry of the organic acids contributed from the deep tundra mats overlying glacial and volcanic substrata. Russian and American ichthyologists have been working in the Kvachina/Utkholok river complex for 40 years and consider it to be a global reference site for steelhead trout health and diversity. Recent research by Moscow State University and the Wild Salmon Center has identified the U-K as the northern stronghold for sea-going steelhead trout (O. mykiss or Parasalmo mykiss). The U-K contain some of Russia’s last remaining healthy stocks of steelhead trout and an unusual diversity of steelhead and rainbow trout life history strategies. The U-K site captures the steelhead genetic and alpha life history diversity typical of northern tundra rivers and characterized by multi-year, ocean-rearing populations.

The U-K system also harbors a rich assemblage of 51 species of resident and migratory bird fauna, including the endangered gyre falcon, the peregrine falcon, an estimated 20-25 nesting pairs of Steller sea eagles, and thousands of waterfowl and shorebirds. The bird fauna in these watersheds has an especially close relationship with salmonid fish. Altogether seventeen bird species recorded here are known to feed to varying degrees on salmonid fish or their eggs. The U-K’s salmonid diversity also supports large numbers of Beluga whales and five species of seals that gather at the river mouths to feed. Kamchatka brown bear, otter, and a range of other predators rely on the many salmon spawning runs in the U-K as a crucial food source. The global demonstration value of this site lies in the opportunity to create a watershed-level refuge for steelhead trout. The site offers the project the opportunity to demonstrate participatory management of salmonids as keystone species, ensuring nutrient loading and overall watershed ecosystem integrity.

The Sopochnaya and the U-K river sites are both significant traditional use areas for the Itelmen and Koryak indigenous people. The indigenous population of the area is approximately 2,200 people from three different tribes: the Itelmens, the Koryaks and the Evens. Three villages, Verkhny Khairiuzovo (259 people), Ust Khairiuzovo (158 people), and Kovran (402 people) are home to Itelmens who trace their family roots to these two river systems and consider the area their homeland. These people have claimed fishing, hunting, or reindeer grazing rights in these watersheds under Russian family/clan (obshchina) law. A seasonal reindeer herding station is located on Kvachina. Koryak reindeer herders have herded in the area and consider the Sopochnaya area part of their traditional homeland. Indigenous individuals or families in some way thus claim use rights in much of the territory of both areas.

5

BASELINE SITUATION

Threats to Salmonid diversity and their Root Causes. Kamchatka’s salmonid diversity remains intact in nearly all of its river systems. Nonetheless, threats to salmonid biodiversity have emerged during Kamchatka’s transition to a market economy and under a baseline scenario will continue to grow. The danger of the international community not acting now is that this globally significant biological diversity important to food and aquaculture will be lost in the face of these growing threats. The project has been designed to effectively mitigate these threats and their root causes in the four river sites. During the GEF-supported PDF-B consultations, stakeholders identified the following threats to Kamchatka’s wild salmon diversity and their root causes:

Threat 1: Production-oriented Management of Salmonid Fishery and Genetic ErosionKamchatka’s “production-oriented” approach to salmonid fishery management is common to fishery management worldwide and seeks to maximize the catch of commercial species. Annual catch levels are based on the principle of maximizing sustainable yields of commercial species (pink, chum, sockeye, coho, and chinook) over time. Little emphasis is given to the maintenance of salmonid diversity or protecting river ecosystem integrity. Current fishing gear and timing results in unnecessarily high levels of rare and non-commercial salmonid species by-catch.

In general, diversity management is a new concept and is poorly understood by fishery managers world-wide, including in Kamchatka. Even if the concept was well understood, the lack of basic biological and ecological information and appropriate laws and policies would hamper any such diversity management program. In the existing situation Kamchatka fish management agencies and the KO/KAO are planning to expand their fish hatchery program on some rivers to bolster salmonid numbers, but there is insufficient knowledge as to how this may impact wild populations and their diversity. In North America hatcheries are controversial, blamed for contributing to the genetic erosion of native wild salmonids through the combined effects of intra-specific competition for food and space, hybridisation, out-breeding depression, and over-fishing in the mixed hatchery-wild stocks fishery. Hatchery managers in North America have been developing methodologies to reduce the impact of hatcheries on wild salmonid diversity by reducing genetic erosion in wild populations where hatcheries operate. In the absence of this GEF project, significant knowledge and technology barriers will prevent Kamchatka’s hatchery program from applying these methods.

Threat 2: Poaching of SalmonidsCommercial poaching in rivers and in the near-coastal zone is the most significant threat to salmonid diversity in the project areas. At the mouths of rivers and in spawning habitat upstream, adult salmon and steelhead are poached primarily for their red caviar. Salmon caviar commands high prices, driven by strong demand in both Russia and Japan. Responding to this high demand poaching is carried out by organized poaching operations. Enforcement agencies have sufficient and very committed staff, but insufficient funds to apply staff time, money, equipment, and technology to enforce the laws by monitoring and patrolling rivers. A lack of information on the spatial and temporal distributions of salmonid populations prevents policing and enforcement functions from being effective in particularly ecologically sensitive areas. At the same time, a law and policy framework for market-based fisheries economic development is only partially constructed. For example, no law requires the documentation of legal caviar production which would make it possible to distinguish poached salmon caviar from legitimate caviar at points other than along the rivers where the actual poaching takes place.

Subsistence level poaching is also a threat, albeit a lower level one. Local people have few alternative sources of income and minimal legal access to commercial salmon resources. With no other options, they resort to poaching salmon in order to earn income to feed their families. Many potential local entrepreneurs lack basic business skills and the absence of affordable credit is a significant barrier preventing them from developing alternatives. The existing system for allocating commercial salmon resources allocates most salmon to companies from elsewhere, so that local people perceive little to lose

6

in the destruction of salmonid resources. Under the current system, there is little incentive for salmon fishers to limit their own catch. As a result salmon in many parts of Kamchatka are currently an “open access” resource and open-access fishing leads to a classic "tragedy of the commons" outcome.

Threat 3: Aquatic Ecosystem Degradation Although the ecological integrity of all four of the project’s river ecosystems is intact, they face pollution and exploitation-related threats from proposed development activities. Habitat loss caused by inappropriate methods of road construction and mineral or gas extraction is the most serious imminent environmental threat facing two of the project sites. It could occur as a result of road building to reach new mineral or gas reserves. The regional natural gas authority is building a 414-km pipeline connecting natural gas fields on the west coast of the peninsula with Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski by 2005. The pipeline will cross the Bolshaya and the Kol/Kekhta. Inappropriate development of the pipeline across salmonid river ecosystems could reduce the expression of habitat and salmonid diversity, disrupt the integrity of interacting populations, and lower salmonid productivity and stability (ISG, 1996).

In Kamchatka, environmental approval for development projects is a comprehensive process that considers engineering, environmental, safety, and economic concerns. Mitigation policies provide an adequate level of environmental protection if the measures are implemented effectively. However, they focus too narrowly on payment for damage post-facto, rather than on preventing damage before it happens. Recent experience in Russia shows that implementation of mitigation measures is often inadequate due to this emphasis on payment for damages rather than prevention. Implementation of mitigation measures is also constrained by a lack of information on the distribution of species and stocks in rivers systems. The lack of information and a general under-appreciation of the full value of salmonid diversity are also impediments to environmental regulation in sensitive areas.

The Salmonid Fishery Management baseline situation (what would normally occur w/respect to salmonid fishery management in the absence of the project) is described below.

Institutional, Policy & Programmatic Baseline: Salmon and all other commercially valuable or rare and endangered species in Russia are federal resources, subject to federal management. Kamchatka accounts for over half of Russia’s salmon fishery resources and its sustainable use has always been a stated goal of the Government’s fishery management programs. Clearly, it is in Russia’s own interest to maintain a sustainable fishery and Russia has existing “baseline” programs and institutions to do this.

The baseline fishery management program focuses on producing fish to sell on the international market and supply domestic consumption needs. Kamchatka’s salmon management program is comprised of four main components: research, monitoring, enforcement and artificial production. The goal of the program is to sustain catch levels in order to meet the demands of the market and provide jobs while ensuring a ready supply of fish resources. This has been done to date by relying upon natural regeneration of fish stocks and dividing enforcement efforts between rivers and near-coastal marine areas (territorial sea). Intraspecific diversity management is not an objective of the current program and indeed intraspecific diversity could be reduced by the impacts of production-oriented hatcheries, depending upon how they are managed.

Several regional divisions of federal agencies share responsibility for salmonid management in the two political jurisdictions (Kamchatka Oblast and Koryak Autonomous Oblast) on the Kamchatka Peninsula. The agencies are: 1) Kamchatrybvod (KRV), 2) Koryaksky Okrug Fishery Inspection Service (KOIR), 3) KamchatNIRO (KNIRO), 4) the Committee for Natural Resources (CNR) in KO and KAO, 5) Federal Border Guard Marine Service, 6) the Kamchatka Oblast Fishing Industry Committee, and 7) the KAO Fishing Industry Committee.

7

During the past ten years a great deal of work has been undertaken in the Russian Federation to update Russia’s suite of environmental laws and to integrate environmental objectives into other civil, criminal, and administrative laws as they have been considered and passed by the State Duma. During this time, new laws on Specially Protected Natural Areas (`95), Fish and Wildlife (`95) and Ecological Expert Examination/Environmental Impact Assessment (`95) as well as laws on Water and Forests have all been passed. These laws represent a significant improvement in the level of legal support given to environment protection in Russia. They also represent a good basis from which to begin addressing key questions related to the integration of biological diversity conservation objectives into existing less specific and more general environmental laws. The protection of the full range of biological diversity important to agriculture/aquaculture is one of the central elements of the All-Russian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and National Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan adopted in 2001. Among its many priorities, the National Strategy and Action Plan underlines the need to conserve biodiversity of rare and endangered species, to regulate commercial use of exploited species, to conserve and restore habitats of high biodiversity value, and to conserve unique ecosystems, including aquatic and freshwater ecosystems, for which the conservation of the full range of salmonid diversity will be an important component. In addition, the National Action Plan lists the Kamchatka Peninsula as one of the priority regions for biodiversity conservation.

No federal law on fisheries and/or aquatic and marine resources has been passed in Russia in recent years. In fact KRV derives its management authority from a 42-year old “Resolution on the Protection of Fish Stocks and Regulation of Fishery in Soviet Water Bodies” and related “Regulations on the Internal Waters Fishery in the Far East” issued through the 1980s. A draft “Federal Law on Aquatic and Marine Fishery Resources” is under official consideration, providing an opportunity for recommendations on how to strengthen the diversity conservation aspects of this law.

At the regional level, the KO (1997) and the KAO (1997) passed laws entitled “Law on Aquatic and Marine Fishery Resources.” These local laws partially fill a gap by created by the absence of a federal law on fishery resources. The laws regulate the use of aquatic resources and the protection of aquatic ecosystems and habitats. The laws determine the authority of regional government agencies and community-based fisher groups. The KO law created the Kamchatka Fishery Council to coordinate the fishery management work among federal and regional Government agencies. The laws define the different types of legal uses of Kamchatka’s fishery and aquatic resources and the objectives of aquatic resource monitoring and research. However, the law does not acknowledge the genetic diversity inherent within Kamchatka’s salmonid resource, nor does it offer any specific methods of sustainably conserving and utilizing this diversity. Currently, the salmon fishery in Kamchatka is managed at the species level; present fisheries management does not consider the preservation of genetic and life history diversity.

Management and Enforcement:

Kamchatrybvod (KRV), the federal department for the protection and reproduction of fish resources and fisheries regulations, is responsible for managing fishery resources in all of Kamchatka’s rivers and lakes, with a strong emphasis on commercially valuable species. Established in 1947, KRV manages commercial and sportfishing activities and enforces relevant laws in freshwater and marine waters within a 20-kilometer (12-mile) territorial sea. KRV’s staff of 538 reviews the impacts of new developments upon the fisheries, monitors salmon stocks at ten stations in the KO and KAO, and manages five fish hatcheries. Currently, KRV operates five hatcheries in the Kamchatka Oblast and with support from Japan, is planning to expand its system of fish hatcheries in an attempt to increase salmon numbers in order to bolster salmon production. KRV also monitors and protects marine mammals (sea otters, walruses, and whales). KRV has the lead responsibility for fisheries enforcement within the territorial sea and rivers of Kamchatka. The KRV enforcement infrastructure includes three sea-going vessels and two helicopters, 100 motor vehicles, and over 100 outboard motor boats. Operational funding comes from the federal budget, fines recovered from illegal fishing (60% of total of each fine), and sport fishing license sales. Whereas prior to 1992 the federal government provided virtually 100% of the budget, it now

8

provides no more than 1/2 of KRV’s annual budget. The Koryak Okrug Fish Inspection Service (KOIR) is responsible for the enforcement of fisheries law in the neighboring Koryak Autonomous Okrug.

Fishery law enforcement is cumbersome and inefficient. Civil penalties for over-fishing or harming riverine ecosystems are too low to serve as a disincentive to commercial poachers or companies extracting mineral and timber resources. On the other hand the fine is so high for a subsistence poacher (about 50% of a monthly salary) that inspectors often do not levy these fines on rural residents. The existing legal interpretation of the regulations also hampers their enforcement. An inspector cannot fine a poacher unless he is apprehended in the act of poaching. Criminal penalties may only be levied if the poaching can be proven to be detrimental to the long-term sustainability of the fishery – a standard that is virtually impossible to prove for one incident.

Fish Quotas: KamchatNIRO (KNIRO) is a federally funded fishery research institute that provides stock assessments by species for each fishing area as a unit (not by individual stock). The salmon fishery in Kamchatka is driven by an annual estimate of Total Allowable Catch (TAC). TAC is calculated as the percentage of forecasted run size (by species and, in some cases, seasonal race) that will maximize sustainable fishery yields. A key assumption of Kamchatka fisheries management is the clear relationship between the number of spawners in a particular generation of fish, and the number of “recruits” those spawners will produce. Standard fisheries management assumes a density-dependent relationship on the spawning grounds, where at a threshold value, an increasing number of spawners (i.e., “escapement”) will lead to diminishing returns in numbers of recruits, either due to substandard incubation conditions in marginal spawning habitat, or due to competition for resources. Forecasted returns in excess of the ideal escapement are considered fishingable surplus. Nutrient requirements for lower (e.g., invertebrates) and higher trophic levels (e.g., bears, sea eagles, marine mammals) are not considered in establishing TAC levels. KNIRO, Kamchatrybvod and KOIR statistically sample to monitor juvenile out-migration, predict population structure and develop run forecasts for the major commercial species. KNIRO conducts aerial surveys of spawning grounds to estimate the number of spawning adults on key commercial river systems. Climate parameters reflecting freshwater and ocean rearing conditions may augment forecasts for some fishing areas.

Based upon this information, KamchatNIRO determines the TAC for each of the five commercial salmonid species (pink, chum, sockeye, coho, and chinook) in each river. These figures are then submitted to the State Fisheries Committee (SFC) in Moscow for final approval and review. The SFC then apportions the TAC into quotas for the KO and KAO Administrations. KO and KAO each have a Fisheries Council comprised of representatives of KNIRO, Kamchatrybvod (KRV), SCNR, indigenous peoples’ representatives, commercial fishing enterprises, Oblast/Okrug Administration, and the anti-monopoly committee. The Fishery Councils apportion each region’s quota among Kamchatka fishers operating in freshwater and the territorial sea on the basis of a number of different social and economic criteria. Fishing permits are then issued to each group with a quota. KOIR and KRV enforce the permit requirement and fishery regulations. Current fishery policy gives indigenous people a priority right to annual salmon quotas. Under Russian law, commercial harvest of non-commercial, rare, and endangered salmonid species is illegal. Moscow State University is responsible for regulating any other kind of use of non-commercial, rare and endangered salmonid species such as subsistence or sport fishing.

Monitoring & Research: KamchatNIRO is responsible for monitoring and some applied research of commercial salmon species populations in both the KO and KAO in order to improve stock forecasting, artificial reproduction, and the development of new fisheries. KNIRO and Kamchatrybvod maintain salmon monitoring stations (4 and 10 respectively), where information is gathered on smolt out migrations and estimates of adult returns, spawning fish counts, water flow and quality and meteorological conditions. The most comprehensive studies have been done in the Bolshaya River and its estuary but they have yet to be catalogued and analyzed. Three monitoring stations are located on the Bolshaya counting fish fry, monitoring spawning grounds, and measuring smolt migration. KNIRO utilizes this information as well as information gathered during annual aerial surveys of spawning beds in

9

the headwaters of rivers like the Bolshaya, Kol/Kekhta, Sopochnaya and the U-K to support TAC estimates. The process of monitoring returning fish populations and juvenile out-migration numbers and using those numbers to establish TAC is an example of what has traditionally been thought to be the practice of “adaptive management” for sustaining the commercial salmon fishery. KNIRO and KRV have years of experience doing this.

KNIRO’s current TAC assessment formula does not include criteria for the maintenance of intraspecific diversity among Kamchatka’s salmonid populations. For example, genetic analyses are not conducted on particular populations within and among different river systems. In addition, there has been no real monitoring of biodiversity and river ecosystem integrity (e.g. food web ecology, primary and secondary productivity, and riparian controls on productivity), although this is required to measure future fishing impacts and other threats, including land use changes outside of the priority areas.

Research on commercial salmonids in Kamchatka has traditionally been conducted either by KNIRO as well as the Russian Academy of Science’s Institute of Marine Biology (IMB) in Vladivistok. KNIRO conducts basic research regarding salmon diseases, population structure, and predator-prey relationships, particularly in the estuarine and high seas life history stages. KNIRO also has research programs targeting marine mammals, marine fishes, and other marine resources. Although Russian experts have been studying the diversity of salmonid species and their ecology in Kamchatka for four decades, baseline information about the biodiversity of the four site areas is uneven and comprised of a few particular taxonomic groups and commercial species. The IMB has been conducted research on sockeye salmon since the 1970s in the Kamchatka River system.

Research on non-commercial, rare and endangered salmonid species in Russia is the responsibility of Moscow State University (MGU). Moscow State University, the Wild Fishes Foundation (a Kamchatak-based NGO) and the Wild Salmon Center have been conducting field research on the ecology of the endangered steelhead trout in western Kamchatka for the past eight years. The Wild Salmon Center (WSC) is an international non-profit conservation organization dedicated to research, conservation and sustainable use of native salmonid fish and their ecosystems and is comprised of government and non-governmental experts on salmon conservation and management from Russia, the United States, and Canada. These newly developing partnerships between the public and private sector offer a promising future for conservation of salmonid diversity in Kamchatka. The Kamchatka Oblast and Koryak Autonomous Okrug recognize the importance of conserving biological diversity at the ecosystem, species, and genetic level. However, there is little understanding of the ecosystem concept, how to apply an ecosystem conservation approach, or how to develop a clear program for the conservation of specific and intra-specific genetic diversity.

The Salmonid River Ecosystem Management baseline. Given the obvious commercial importance of salmonid production in Kamchatka, existing river ecosystem management policies focus on protecting commercially exploited salmonid species and their spawning grounds. The Ministry for Natural Resources’ (MNR) Committee for Natural Resources (CNR) is the coordinating body for federal and regional agencies that have responsibilities for environmental management and protection on the Kamchatka peninsula. Existing regulations establish a one-kilometer buffer zone, prohibiting forest clear-cutting on most salmon spawning rivers throughout Russia, and requiring specific exceptions for any development activities within these zones. KRV and the MNR enforce these regulations. This is an enlightened policy to be sure, but it is frequently ignored and a campaign by the mining industry to reduce the width of buffers may weaken it further. In addition, salmonid diversity conservation is not addressed by this buffer policy and higher funding priorities have meant that priority salmonid diversity and river ecosystem habitat on the west coast of Kamchatka are under-represented in the existing network of protected areas.

The participation of a wide-range of stakeholders in salmonid river ecosystem management is a new concept in Kamchatka. A relatively new land-use designation established at the federal level in 1992

10

called the Territory for Traditional Natural Resource Use or “TTNRU” has created new possibilities for participatory management of salmonid resources. TTNRUs exist across the Russian Far East, although implementing legislation and “best practices” experience have yet to be developed for the TTNRU designation, and this has hampered the ability of regional authorities and indigenous people to apply this designation effectively.

In the Koryak Okrug, the government and indigenous groups belonging to the Association of Indigenous Minority Peoples of the North for KO and KAO have been working to empower people to practice their traditional livelihoods and re-vitalize traditional customs. The traditional resource of the area is salmon, and the people who live in this area are keen to develop some sustainable salmonid management regimes, including diversity management following their traditional practices. The Sopochnaya and the U-K project site areas are considered to be traditional use areas by indigenous people and local communities are concerned about the threat posed to salmonids from poaching. In response, local indigenous obshchinas (property groups) have established a nature protection post on the Utkholok River as a first step in a partnership with fish management institutions to prevent poaching. Although little other management is ongoing in the area, budding local initiatives offer opportunities to develop innovative salmonid co-management regimes between the KOIR and indigenous communities.

Environmental Management: The MNR’s CNR coordinates the activities of the array of different agencies that administer Kamchatka’s environmental management policies and programs. The CNR itself is responsible for the protection of air, land and water quality, including both surface and ground water, and subsoil resource use). The CNR monitors compliance with the terms of the water-use licenses by measuring the maximum permissible discharges (MPDs) and maximum permissible concentrations (MPCs) for pollutants in water bodies. Together, these two institutions are responsible for maintaining water quality in Kamchatka. This will be an important role to play in the future as development pressures on rivers increase.

Russia’s Federal “Law on Environmental Protection” requires that environmental impact assessments be conducted prior to any development activities taking place. As part of the assessment process, each state agency has the opportunity, through a “letter of concurrence,” to comment directly on a proposal before it is submitted to the State Expert Commission for final review. Frequently in Russia, however, development activities often begin before the assessments are completed.

The existing regulatory approvals and inspection system is punishment-oriented, rather than prevention-oriented. During the environmental review process, projects are evaluated for compliance with applicable laws, regulations and discharge norms. Unavoidable environmental damage associated with project implementation (habitat destruction, discharge of contaminants, etc.) is estimated using a formula, and a compensation fine is levied. The mitigation measures proposed by Kamchatgazprom in the gas pipeline construction “Feasibility Study” were reviewed during the PDF-B. In general, the mitigation measures proposed will provide an adequate level of environmental protection for aquatic habitats and fish resources. What is lacking is an implementation plan for these measures.

Public Awareness and Support. Public awareness of the values of salmon to Kamchatka’s economy is quite high. Everyone is aware of the importance of salmon to the local economy. What is lacking is an awareness of the diversity of salmonid species and the importance of the intra-specific diversity among different salmon stocks. Kamchatka has five television stations. The station “Kamchatka/STRBC” covers environmental issues most thoroughly with two regular programs. Other stations provide occasional coverage of environmental issues. There are 12 local weekly newspapers in Kamchatka and all cover environmental issues, but their distribution to remote areas is limited. An increasing number of organizations in Kamchatka have access to internet-based sources of information. An internet-based forum for nature protection issues is being created in the region as part of an international network initiated by the Sacred Earth Network, an international NGO. There is one PK-based web-server providing access to ecological information to people from all over Kamchatka. Many web pages on this

11

server are devoted to biodiversity conservation and salmon conservation, while others cover the history of salmon fishing, current problems, and so on.

Environmental advocacy by NGO groups is quite well developed in Kamchatka. The oldest environmental NGO in Kamchatka is the local branch of the All Russia Nature Protection Society (VOOP). Throughout its 40-year history, VOOP has facilitated the establishment of protected areas and natural monuments, organized conferences, meetings and round-tables on conservation in Kamchatka, and organized many outdoor ecological education programs. The Public Fund for the Protection of Kamchatka has also supported the establishment of protected areas in Kamchatka and its experts participate on a volunteer basis in nature protection activities, various conferences and meetings. The Kamchatka League of Independent Experts has organized international support for the establishment of protected areas in Kamchatka, conducted international seminars to discuss potential environmental problems with gold mining and oil extraction, and participated in identifying biodiversity priority areas in the RFE. The Wild Fishes Foundation is an NGO based in Kamchatka and dedicated to the research and conservation of rare, endangered, and non-commercial fish species and their habitats.

In Kamchatka, the school environment curriculum is of a general nature and does not focus on local places or issues. School children are exposed to only a mention of aquatic ecosystems in their current textbooks. There is a real need to develop new teaching materials to teach children about river systems and salmonid diversity in Kamchatka.

In Kamchatka, the level of awareness among native peoples is low, especially among the young, of their own cultural traditions with respect to their use and management of biodiversity. Two generations have been born since native villages were “centralized,” a policy that hampered the transfer of traditional knowledge by distancing people from their home territories. Oral histories regarding hunting, fishing and gathering comprise an invaluable history of a peoples’ knowledge, innovation, and practices relevant to conservation of biodiversity, including salmonid diversity. These community histories do not exist in a form that would ensure the preservation and maintenance of this knowledge for future generations. Indigenous communities are reviving their traditional dance and music, much of which expresses ideas and sentiments about the natural environment. The knowledge contained and expressed in these artistic forms can be used to deepen understanding of biodiversity. There is little existing awareness among ethnic Russians of the native peoples’ knowledge, innovation, and practices with respect to the conservation and use of salmonid ecosystems. While researchers have done much work with indigenous people in Kamchatka, there is still a gap between the scientific and local, indigenous knowledge.

The Alternative Livelihood Support baseline: The KO and KAO are currently focusing most of their financial resources on basic social services and improving the infrastructure necessary for any economic development, such as the energy and power system. Most of the formerly state-supported rural economic entities in Kamchatka have collapsed in recent years, leaving many people forced to illegally catch fish or other wildlife for subsistence and income. In a “business as usual” scenario very little support for new livelihoods in these coastal villages would be forthcoming, and most people who live in the four priority river basins would continue to live a largely self-supporting, subsistence lifestyle that relies heavily upon nature’s capricious bounty. No special programs would be implemented to enable local stakeholders to develop new and alternative livelihoods. Revisions to the current oppressive tax code are being discussed in the State Duma and may help to encourage the development of new small and medium-size enterprises. There is a nascent ecotourism business in Kamchatka, and sport fishing is one of the principal attractions. This industry will continue to grow slowly, hindered by a lack of investment capital, supportive laws and policies, tourism expertise, lack of sufficient infrastructure, and the high cost of travel on the Kamchatka peninsula. Some jobs may be provided to people in the Bolshaya area by the construction of the gas pipeline. Native people in the Sopochnaya and U-K area were removed from their traditional villages during Soviet times and resettled in centralized villages, far from traditional fishing, hunting and grazing territories. This action has thrown the Itelmen, Koryak and Even people out of balance with their social

12

and natural environment. In the absence of this project, native peoples would continue to struggle to revive their traditional way of life but with much less support and assistance. Sustainable Financing: Sustainable sources of funding for fish management in Kamchatka do exist, assuming that the fishery is managed on a sustainable basis. However, this existing financing is tied to a limited number of essential fishery management activities and does not adequately address the full range of needs for in-situ conservation of salmonid diversity in Kamchatka. Despite the promise that salmonid genetic diversity holds for future food security and the health and future sustainability of the salmonid aquaculture industry, there is little discussion anywhere in the world among the key stakeholders about how to finance long-term conservation measures and promote sustainable use.

THIS PROJECT’S PROPOSED “ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION”

Strategy:This project proposes to complement the existing baseline situation in Kamchatka with a GEF-co-financed incremental salmonid diversity conservation program and a non-GEF co-funded sustainable development baseline. The sustainable development baseline activities enable stakeholders to develop alternative livelihoods, and strengthen and re-orient elements of the existing commercial salmonid fishery management program. Incremental activities will focus on the conservation of salmonid biological diversity important to aquaculture.

The overall objective of the proposed project is the sustained conservation of Kamchatka’s salmonid genetic and life history diversity and the maintenance of river ecosystem integrity. Upon completion of the project, Government agencies and local communities and indigenous peoples will be conserving salmonid diversity in the project’s four river sites by applying a new diversity-oriented approach, conservation tools, and sustainable livelihoods. The project will use an adaptive management approach that is designed to respond to emergent threats and orient conservation activities to threat mitigation.

Phased Approach with Indicators of Success:The project will be phased to facilitate measured, accountable implementation and adaptive management. Phase I of the project, lasting four years, will focus on establishing a diversity information baseline, strengthening the underlying policy framework in Kamchatka, building consensus, establishing river ecosystem management, building capacity, articulating the value of salmonid diversity, coalition building, and designing the SDCF. Phase II will consolidate the diversity conservation policies and field applications, livelihood development, partnerships for salmonid diversity conservation, and financing the SDCF’s Bridging Fund. Specific indicators will mark the progress of the project in measurable segments during Phase I. Achieving these indicators is a prerequisite for project implementation moving to Phase II. The indicators are specified in the logical framework, Annex II.

The objective and purpose of the project will be realized through the successful completion of five main outputs.

Output 1: Salmonid fishery Stewards generate and apply new diversity conservation approach in four river sites. [Phase I: GEF -- US$830,000; CO-FINANCING -- US$ 5,260,840]

Activity 1.1 : Establish a comprehensive information baseline.

Salmonid diversity conservation and management requires a great deal of information. An inadequate level of information on salmonid diversity in the project’s four river systems inhibits proactive conservation. Activities under Output 1 will include comprehensive multi-year biological inventories and assessments in each project site to document the composition, distribution and abundance of aquatic and

13

riparian flora and fauna in order to establish a biological baseline for management. This will establish a reference point from which change over time can be monitored and assessed in each site. Field inventories will establish levels of abundance, distribution and intra-specific genetic and life history diversity for endangered steelhead and other salmonid species within the four project sites, as well as on the upper Tigil river, where some basic information on resident trout diversity is needed. Critical spawning and rearing areas will be mapped.

Activity 1.2 : Conduct systematic monitoring and targeted research.

Monitoring and research will be conducted to determine salmonid population structure, life history diversity, spawning escapement, habitat requirements, marine-derived nutrient loading requirements and biotic diversity throughout the year. The project will construct modest field stations for targeted research and monitoring in each of the four river sites with lessons-learned input from the international Organization of Biological Field Stations. The modest field facilities will emphasize the involvement of stakeholders in proactively using science to underpin sustainable resource use. The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) is considering support for longer-term ecological research in these areas.

Activity 1.3: Re-orient commercial fishery management practices in the four sites to reflect diversity conservation objectives.

Diversity management principles, methods and benchmarks will be developed and applied to the existing baseline fishery TAC assessment process in each river site. Utilizing information generated by the strengthened monitoring and research program fishery managers will set escapement goals that allow enough adult salmon, steelhead and char to spawn in order to sustain not only commercial fishin, but to secure intra-species genetic and life history diversity and marine-derived nutrient inputs essential for the viability of the riparian ecosystem. For each site, fishery management regimes will be developed that will emphasize the conservation of endangered steelhead and other salmonid fish. An independent scientific review committee will facilitate and periodically review the progress of the fishery re-orientation work. This committee will submit an annual report to the project steering committee for inclusion in the state of the river reports for each of the project sites. In a new approach for Kamchatka, diversity management principles and protocols will be developed to make the two existing fish hatcheries within the Bolshaya river site more “diversity friendly.” These protocols will govern interactions between hatchery and wild fish and cover diversity friendly guidelines for commercial hatchery operations. Lessons learned could prove valuable to ongoing efforts to make salmon aquaculture more environmentally friendly.

Activity 1.4 : Enable managers to apply new legal & policy tools to salmonid conservation.

Under this activity, Kamchatka’s existing law and policy framework will be strengthened and expanded to support the conservation and sustainable use of salmonid diversity. Project actors will identify management practicies, technologies, and policies that promote the positive and mitigate the negative impacts of existing fishery management and aquaculture on wild salmonid diversity. GEF financing will support the preparation of a legal brief on the integration of salmonid diversity conservation objectives into a new draft federal fishery law currently under consideration by the Russian Duma. Kamchatka Oblast’s Law on Aquatic and Marine Fishery Resources and the Koryak Okrug’s Fishery Law will be amended to recognize the genetic and life history diversity inherent among Kamchatka’s salmonids and require the proactive management of the fishery to support genetic and life history diversity management. Policy experts’ knowledge on how to assess values and services provided by salmonids will be strengthened, as will their knowledge on how to include incentives in the regulatory framework for salmonid diversity conservation. In-country training will be conducted and study tours organized to enable regional environmental law and policy experts to strengthen their capacities through exposure to national and international salmonid diversity expertise and management initiatives.

14

Output 2: Stakeholders Maintain Salmonid Diversity and River Ecosystem Integrity in Four River Sites by Applying A Range of Resource Management and Conservation Tools. [Phase I: GEF -- US$ 1,205,000; Co-financing -- US$ 2,605,630]

Activity 2.1: Establish special management areas in each of the four sites:

Solutions to the full spectrum of salmonid conservation challenges in Kamchatka will be demonstrated by project activities in the four river sites – from making commercial hatcheries more diversity-friendly to establishing a refuge for the endangered steelhead. In the Bolshaya, the project will integrate diversity preservation objectives into the productive sector fish hatchery program and focus on a sub-watershed for conservation management. The Kol/Kekhta will be a model watershed-level program for salmonid sustainable use and conservation where exploitative uses of watershed lands will be forbidden. The Sopochnaya River will be the cooperative, indigenous peoples’ community-based management area that emphasizes capturing revenue from sport fishing to fund long-term management costs. And finally the project will demonstrate full watershed-level protected area-based conservation of salmonid diversity in the Utkholok/Kvachina. The different land-use designations and different stakeholder groupings in each site will enable the project to demonstrate how the management effectiveness can be improved by involving local people, especially from indigenous communities and fishing villages. At the same time, the project will be able to monitor the status of salmonid populations across the range of differently managed sites.

Activity 2.2: Operationalize specially managed areas.

Applying existing protected area law, the project will support a consultative process with stakeholders in order to establish these areas. GEF funds will also establish modest infrastructure, demarcate boundaries of priority habitats for conservation, provide necessary equipment, and support a modest sustainable level of staffing for the first three years after they are established. GoR/KO/KOA funding for adequate seasonal staffing would be phased in after the third year of their operation. Based on information gathered from inventory and monitoring programs, species conservation and habitat management plans will be drafted using the input of local communities. The plans will be implemented for each project site, focussing on the highest priority salmonid species and aquatic/riparian habitats for management. Conservation plans will direct the management of salmonid stocks and associated fauna, the protection and restoration of key habitat for each species, watershed nutrient loading requirements (fish numbers needed to sustain dependent wildlife and riparian plant communities), and recommend how anthropogenic impacts of salmonid biodiversity and associated species can be reduced.

Activity 2.3: Build the capacity of local communities to be important partners in management

Under this activity, local communities and indigenous peoples and their organizations will strengthen their capacity to manage agricultural biodiversity sustainably so as to increase their benefits and promote awareness and responsible action. Cooperative agreements will be developed between local stakeholder groups and the relevant conservation area, clarifying how local communities and KVR/KOIR will work together in managing each protected area. A local resource user committee and a participatory management plan will be developed for each site. Two community members, who will be hired for each site to serve as the local “riverkeepers,” will conduct community-based information monitoring in the project sites. Riverkeepers will represent local communities as the independent caretaker(s) of each river system, working to complement existing government management efforts. Responsible for ensuring that water quality measurements (and other data) are taken on a regular, year-round basis, riverkeepers will add to the local community’s sense of participation and contribution. An annual “state of the river” report will be produced for each project site river by the riverkeepers, providing project management with valuable input from local communities. Training will be provided to protected area/KRV/KOIR staff and local community groups in relevant fields, including conservation biology, species management, and community-based approaches to biodiversity conservation.

15

Activity 2.4 : Strengthen enforcement of fishery laws and regulations.

Organized, commercial poaching is a threat to salmonid diversity and the sustainability of the commercial salmon fishery in each of the project’s four sites. As part of KRV’s and KOIR’s co-financing contribution to this project, the existing commercial salmonid fishery regulations and their enforcement will be strengthened in the four priority areas to enable rangers to more effectively prevent poaching and habitat destruction. Frequency of fishery inspector visits to project sites will be increased. Key fishery and natural resource management agencies will develop cooperative enforcement agreements among themselves to improve the effectiveness of their independent efforts.

GEF funds will support enforcement actions that are focussed on preventing the poaching of non-commercial & rare salmonid species. This would entail some patrolling during seasons of the year when commercial fishery management patrols are not made and to parts of the watershed where they normally do not go. These anti-poaching efforts will seek to improve their effectiveness by involving local communities in conservation partnerships. The project will strengthen KRV and KOIR’s capacity to work together with local communities. KRV and KOIR will develop community-based enforcement regimes with local communities, indigenous groups and fishing enterprises utilizing the riverkeepers for each basin in order to provide incentive to protect and sustainably utilize salmonid diversity. Training will also be provided to enable local stakeholders to prevent poaching of returning steelhead and char in near-shore marine, estuarine, and freshwater areas.

Activity 2.5: Mitigate potential environmental impacts from infrastructure development. Under this co-financed activity, salmonid aquacultural biodiversity conservation and sustainable use objectives will be integrated into environmental management plans. A conservation and environmental management plan will be developed to provide an implementation schedule for the road building mitigation measures, monitoring procedures, and training for road builders and pipeline inspectors for the Bolshaya and Kol/Kekhta river sites. Flood water level analyses will be done in the Kol/Kekhta rivers site to prevent potential impacts from underestimating the size of culverts needed when crossing streams.

Output 3: Information is Shared Widely, Stakeholders Build Constituencies for Salmonid Diversity Conservation & Indigenous People Preserve and Maintain Their Knowledge [PHASE I: GEF -- US$ 620,000; CO-FINANCING -- $102,510]

Activity 3.1: Enable indigenous people to preserve and maintain their traditional knowledge.

The project will support activities conducted by indigenous people to preserve and maintain their knowledge of salmonid diversity and river ecosystems. The project will enable indigenous people to establish databases for continued use by the community in conserving their biodiversity resources in the U-K and Sopochnaya sites. Information from cultural and traditional biodiversity resource assessments conducted by indigenous communities will be mapped in a form that can be read and maintained by local groups in the Sopochnaya and the U-K sites. Co-funded research on past and traditional inhabitance will make use of project-funded biological inventories and assessments to provide a historic and contemporary view of the human uses of river resources and provide a basis for defining sustainable levels of those uses. Extension of this monitoring and information management activities under Output 1 to neighboring communities, in collaboration with co-funded work,7 will provide communities with the means to better manage their immediate resources, including those within the project sites.

Indigenous youths’ knowledge of their own cultural traditions with respect to their use and management of biodiversity will be strengthened. Oral histories and narratives of hunting, fishing and gathering 7 NSF-OPP funded research

16

comprise an invaluable record of a peoples’ knowledge, innovation, and practices relevant to conservation of biodiversity, including salmonid diversity. The project will support the preservation and maintenance of this knowledge in a form that would ensure its accessibility and use by future generations. The project will support the revival of those traditional expressive art forms like dance, song, and basket-making that specifically involve relationships with and knowledge of biological diversity and river ecosystems. Awareness among ethnic Russians of the native peoples’ knowledge and practices with respect to the conservation and use of Kamchatka’s biodiversity will also be raised. The project will support targeted research and the development of a dialogue designed to bridge the gap between the scientific knowledge of biologists and the practical knowledge of the native people.

Activity 3.3: Enable information to be shared widely and used for mainstreaming into sectoral plans and programmes.

The sharing of information is an important element in a sustainable salmonid conservation program in Kamchatka. People-to-people and institution-institution linkages will be established among Russian and international salmonid conservation and management experts, government agencies and academic centers. From a global scientific perspective, Kamchatka is the only large area in the temperate to sub-arctic regions of the world where natural controls on the distribution and abundance of biota can be firmly documented because the human footprint is so insignificant and the natural biophysical setting is so complex. Exchanges of data, management information and technology through existing systems like the NSF’s “Long Term Ecological Research Site Network” will help Kamchatka capture the best available technology, information, management practices, and funding opportunities for research and conservation. At the same time, the global community will benefit from the chance to observe and study healthy, species-rich salmonid ecosystems, and to better understand how to protect and restore ecologically damaged river systems in other parts of the world.8 Best practices for salmonid conservation and management will be developed through ongoing review and analysis of project experiences and distributed widely. A key element to successful sharing of information is to empower people to think outside of the sectoral “box.” Under this activity, the project will support the mainstreaming of information and experience from this project into the development of national plans or strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity.

Activity 3.4: Stakeholders build a local constituency for salmonid diversity conservation and empower informed decision-making.

Under this activity, the project will expand knowledge, understanding and awareness of the multiple goods and services provided by the different levels and functions of aquacultural biodiversity. This will be done at different levels of civil society, from local communities and schools to regional government officials, to the international aquaculture industry. The awareness program will also stress the importance of salmonid diversity to a healthy salmon population and thus to a healthy salmon fishery and the economic benefits of managing salmonid resources in a sustainable fashion.

A survey will be conducted with each target group prior to the implementation of awareness raising or education programs. In this way, a baseline level of awareness will be established from which the project impact can be measured. Approximately 30 environment and education NGOs are registered entities in Kamchatka. Existing NGO expertise will be utilized by the project to implement many of the project’s awareness and education activities. NGO strengthening will be co-funded in part by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The project will develop education and outreach programs to build upon existing regional support for salmonid diversity conservation and sustainable development. School children will be involved in applied learning programs in the field. This program will include the development of teaching aids and training of schoolteachers and volunteers involved in non-formal ecological education. 8 In 1999 and 2000, data showing the interaction of juvenile salmonids with complex floodplain channels in western Kamchatka were collected and are now being used by the US Forest Service and other salmon and land management agencies in the Pacific Northwest to set goals for floodplain habitat restoration.

17

This will include expert input from international experts experienced with non-formal ecological education. Study groups will be created to involve students in salmonid site conservation activities. Study groups will be taken on field trips to site areas by KOIR/KRV staff and involved in habitat management and conservation activities.

The project will build upon the existing KRV internet presence and utilize the power of the internet to improve the effectiveness and scope of public awareness and education efforts while making information easily available to local and global community alike. Web pages on salmonid diversity and ecosystem integrity will be developed and established on a Kamchatka-based web server. A newsletter will be printed semi-annually and distributed in site areas. Easy to understand field guides for salmonid ecosystems and a color atlas on the salmonid diversity and river ecosystem integrity will be produced and distributed through stakeholder organizations and other channels. Interpretation and visitor facilities will be developed in two site areas. Round table discussions on important issues related to maintaining the diversity of salmon in Kamchatka will be organized to reach out to decision makers, policy makers, NGOs and the media.

Activity 3.5: Stakeholders build an international constituency for salmonid diversity conservation and sustainable use.

Global private sector stakeholder policies and practices will also be considered. Existing aquaculture industry policies and practices will be analyzed for their positive and negative impacts on wild salmonid diversity and a dialogue established with key actors in this arena regarding how the positive effects can be strengthened and the negative effects mitigated. Areas of further cooperation between productive use of salmonid diversity and its conservation will be highlighted through targeted surveys of key issues. The trends in use of salmonid diversity in the productive sector by broodstock companies and fish capture entities as well as the in-situ conservation of wild salmonids will be surveyed. The potential impact of regulatory change, fiscal, incentive, marketing and capacity building on the market share of aquacultural products produced by sustainable aquacultural systems that promote aquacultural biodiversity will also be analyzed.

Output 4: Stakeholders successfully apply alternative livelihoods in river site areas. [Phase I : GEF -- US$200,000 Non-GEF -- US$ 2,162,090]

Salmonid management is people management. One of the most pervasive threats to salmonid biodiversity in Kamchatka is the overfishing of salmonid resources. The lack of alternative livelihood options is one root cause of this threat. The project is designed to address directly the threats to salmonid diversity and their root causes by enabling local people to develop alternative livelihoods, demonstrating new technologies to minimize by-catch, and strengthening the ability of salmonid fishers to enforce fishing rules among themselves

Activity 4.1: Stakeholders develop sustainable alternative livelihoods.

Under this activity, community and regional authorities will improve their well being by building their expertise and capacity to develop and implement sustainable socio-economic development initiatives. At the individual or group level, the project will enable stakeholders develop and undertake income generating activities that are viable alternatives to existing unsustainable practices. These activities will be financed largely by non-GEF sources. GEF funds will support activities designed to modify existing harmful uses of biodiversity.

Sport fly-fishing tourism will be developed in three of the four sites (the U-K, Sopochnaya and K-K) to generate alternative incomes for local people, and funding to support management and monitoring of salmonid diversity. This will be done in a way that seeks to equitably share the economic benefits of

18

tourism by hiring local people and using local suppliers to the extent possible. Based upon existing eco-tourism fishing operations undertaken by the Wild Salmon Center, sport-fishing tourism on the Kvachina/Utkholok and the Sopochnaya will generate conservatively US$200,000 annually in conservation revenues from 200 fishermen and women for use in underwriting training programs for local stakeholders and the operation of research stations.

The project will enable local stakeholders in the priority river systems, especially women, to undertake sustainable alternative livelihood options by providing them with training and access to micro-credit and small business development advice. Co-funding will support ecotourism guide service training for local candidates chosen on a competitive basis with the goal of training 100 such individuals across the three project sites. In a cooperative arrangement with the UNDP-GEF protected areas project, co-funded partnerships will support a micro-credit program in two project sites to enable local stakeholders to access capital in helping them to adopt sustainable alternative livelihoods.

Activity 4.2: Stakeholders adopt new fishing techniques to minimize by-catch of rare salmonids.

A second threat to salmonid diversity is the high level of non-commercial salmonid by-catch at the mouths of the project’s priority rivers. The main root cause of this threat is a lack of appropriate technology that prevents commercial fishing operations from catching rare and endangered species as well. PDF-B consultations with stakeholders revealed a ready willingness to abandon harmful activities if appropriate alternatives were available. To catalyze this transition to less harmful net sizes, the project will leverage GoR/KO/KAO resources to “re-orient” existing fishery resource management, improving it by changing the timing of fishing operations to limit more effectively the by-catch of non-commercial, rare salmonid species. GEF will provide incremental funding to facilitate adequate consideration of biodiversity issues in sustainable fishery resource management activities conducted by KRV/KOIR and local indigenous groups and to demonstrate new diversity-friendly use of various net-mesh sizes to limit by-catch of rare species.

Activity 4.3: Stakeholders strengthen existing livelihood practice at the local level.

The project is supporting the development of alternative livelihoods through eco-tourism in these remote river systems. At the same time, a practical and realistic assessment of the economic situation in these project sites concluded that for the foreseeable future, people will continue to rely upon natural resources, including salmonid resources, for sustenance. This means that in order to reduce pressure on salmonid resources, stakeholders need to change the way local fishery resources are managed. The project will also enable stakeholders to develop effective informal management regimes for fish resources in the four river sites. This initiative would develop model protocols for establishing quotas, quota compliance.

Output 5: Salmonid diversity conservation fund support salmonid diversity conservation in Kamchatka in perpetuity[Phase I: GEF --US$145,000; CO-FINANCING -- US$380,000]

The assumption underlying the design of this financial mechanism is that the significant value of the salmonid-use activities in Kamchatka and worldwide makes it feasible eventually to create a long-term “re-investment,” or revolving fund mechanism, to channel revenue from salmonid-use activities back into salmonid diversity conservation. In the meantime, Russia is a country “in-transition” from a centrally planned economy to a market-based economy. This transition has meant significant budget shortfalls in all Government programs and especially dramatic funding cuts in conservation programs. Despite the Government’s policy goals and existing baseline funding, there remains a considerable unmet, annual funding need for salmonid diversity conservation (Table 1, Annex IV). It is reasonable to expect that this conservation-funding gap will hamper salmonid conservation for the next 15-20 years. Recognizing this reality, the project will establish a Salmonid Diversity Conservation Fund (SDCF) to bridge the funding

19

gap, and secondly, to establish a revolving fund to support the re-current costs of salmonid diversity conservation programs operationalized by the GEF project.

Activity 5.1: Develop the Bridging Fund (BF) of the SDCF

In Phase I, GEF funds will support stakeholder consultations and expert input to the SDCF design process. The SDCF concept utilizes a two-step approach to securing long-term financing for salmonid diversity conservation in Kamchatka, beginning with a BF phase and segueing to a revolving fund. The BF will be designed to provide sufficient funding in the short-to-medium term (seven years beyond the project’s lifespan) to cover the re-current costs of conservation activities. An innovative public private partnership among the regional and national government agencies in Russia, UNDP-GEF, and the Wild Salmon Center (non-profit international charitable organization) will enable the establishment and operation of the SDCF’s Bridging Fund during the first eighteen months of project implementation. The BF will be registered under Russian law as a tax-free, non-governmental organization, but will be located offshore for best investment returns. The Wild Salmon Center (WSC), an organization with extensive experience operating in Kamchatka, will raise 90% of the funds for the BF beginning in Phase I and extending into the first year of Phase II. The BF will be established as a restricted account under the auspices of the WSC. The WSC will perform the role of trustee, under a tripartite agreement with the GoR and UNDP describing the various roles and responsibilities.

Administrative and operational costs, as well as the SDCF’s organizational requirements, will be met by the WSC, relieving the project of the burden of establishing a separate administrative entity. During Phase I, the UNDP’s neutral auspices and GEF resources will support the development of BF operational structure, eligibility criteria for grantees, disbursement procedures, reporting requirements, asset management arrangements, appointment of board members and good fiduciary management (disbursement procedures, reporting requirements, and fund procurement mechanisms) in a trust-building way, drawing upon recommendations from the GEF Evaluation of Conservation Trust Funds and relevant “best practice” experiences.

Activity 5.2: Develop the Revolving Fund of the SDCF.

During Phase II, much of BF’s operational and structural design will be easily re-oriented to fit the Revolving Fund’s (RF) needs. Modifications to the BF structure will enable the RF to harness angler user fees, river lease concession fees, and commercial fish landing fees on an annual basis and direct them to support conservation activities in the longer term to cover the re-current costs of salmonid diversity conservation.

The RF will be endowed with funds remaining from the bridging period, providing a crucial corpus that RF revenue generating mechanisms will “top-up.” Much of the work to capitalize the RF will involve negotiating agreements with Government and private sector organizations to earmark a percentage of the revenue from salmonid-use activities for the RF to support salmonid diversity conservation and establishing the mechanisms whereby this can be achieved. Currently, revenues are projected to come from fishing license fees (both commercial and sport), eco-tourism revenues from sport fishing operations in Kamchatka, and other rental and concession fees such as genetic insurance premiums from aquaculture and fishing industries.

EXPECTED BENEFITS

20

Expected Benefits. The global community will benefit significantly from the total economic value (TEV) of salmonid diversity maintained in Kamchatka. Within the TEV framework, both indirect use (insurance) and passive use (existence) values are likely to be far greater for the rest of the world than for Russia itself. The project will spearhead the enumeration and conservation of intraspecific genetic diversity both between and within identified salmon runs. The value of this genetic insurance accrues largely to other regions with major fisheries and will likely increase as world climate change continues and/or accelerates. For example, recent research strongly suggests that much of the variability in Alaska’s salmon runs over the past 300 years is due to climate fluctuations.9 In the future, the potential acceleration of such climate shocks due to greenhouse gas forcing could abruptly destroy the viability of large salmonid populations previously adapted to that region. Salmonid stocks from Kamchatka could easily provide the best option for rebuilding these depleted runs. Just as Russia benefits from the insurance value of the vast genetic diversity within North American salmonid populations, the rest of the world benefits from the protection of similar resources in Kamchatka. Turning to existence value, the project sites will preserve an important repository of globally important flora and fauna, including the rare and endangered species at risk in other parts of Russia and the world. It is well known that the passive use (existence) values of these species are nontrivial on a per capita basis, at least to people of reasonably high income and education.10 Because the population and income per capita of the developed economies outside of Russia far exceed the levels within, there are two logical conclusions with respect to the global benefits of this project: 1) there is a large total existence value associated with Kamchatka’s overall biodiversity; and 2) the vast majority of that value accrues to the global community.

Local communities -- in two of the four sites they are indigenous -- constitute the primary domestic beneficiaries. These communities receive a number of ecological goods and services from river ecosystems. As economic and demographic changes in these communities have outpaced their ability to adapt livelihoods to engender ecological sustainability, they have become locked in a cycle of degradation. The project will provide these communities with the technologies, know-how and inputs to adapt their resource use in ways that optimize their economic welfare while preserving the river ecosystem. KRV and KNRO staff will also benefit directly through exposure to new ecosystem management approaches, training opportunities and improvement in relations with local communities. Secondary beneficiaries—intermediaries in the delivery of project related services— include several non-government organizations, and government agencies, which will benefit from financial support and capacity building.

STAKEHOLDERS’ PARTICIPATION

Stakeholder Participation in Project Design: This project is the product of extensive consultations with stakeholders undertaken during a nine-month PDF-B project development process. The development of this project benefited from the active participation of Government, non-profit organizations, indigenous people’s representatives, academic institutions, and leading Kamchatka-based experts contributed to the development of the project through five steering committee meetings and three stakeholder meetings. Several organizations have supported project preparation work in what is a promising start to international cooperation on salmon diversity conservation in Kamchatka. UNDP-GEF and the Government of the Russian Federation executed a PDF-B preparatory grant from GEF that supported most of the project preparation work undertaken. However, significant support was also provided by KRV in the form of generous office space and all amenities as well as significant amounts of staff time. The Kamchatka Oblast Administration has also supported development of the project in the form of assistance provided by the Governor and his staff. Co-funding support was also provided by the Wild

9 B.P. Finney, et. al, 2000. “Impacts of Climate Change and Fishing on Pacific Salmon Abundance Over the Past 300 Years,” Science 290:795-799 (October 27)10 See, e.g., Pearce, 1993. Economic Values and the Natural World. Cambridge MA, USA: MIT Press.

21

Salmon Center in the form of significant staff time, travel expenses, and expert input for stakeholder consultations, site selection work and direct funding in the form of grants.

The PDF-B steering committee comprised of representatives from key stakeholder groups (national government, KO and KAO government, Kamchatka-based NGOs, indigenous groups, an international NGO, and UNDP oversaw the entire process. All together over 500 people in Kamchatka and Moscow were consulted during the PDF-B process. A detailed consultative process involving nearly twenty experts was held during the PDF-B to select the four priority river sites. Government stakeholder institutions under the PDF-B process gathered detailed information on current and existing activities relative to the project. Socio-economic surveys and community consultations were conducted in site areas. A stakeholder meeting was held for government and non-government institutions to finalize roles and responsibilities for project implementation. Russia’s GEF focal point supports this project as one of the country’s top biodiversity priorities. Russia has long recognized the importance of Kamchatka’s river systems for salmon production. Federal laws have been passed to protect river ecosystem integrity. One of the top development priorities for the Kamchatka Oblast is the sustainable development of its salmonid fishery.

ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE CBD

Eligibility under the CBD: This project is designed to support the primary objectives of the CBD: the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable-use of its components, and the equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of these components. In two of the four project sites, sustainable, consumptive use of biodiversity (the 2nd major objective of the CBD) will be demonstrated. In the other two projects sites, non-consumptive sustainable use of biodiversity will be demonstrated. By integrating conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into relevant plans and policies, the project will fulfil the requirements of Article 6: General Measures for Conservation and Sustainable Use. Article 7: Identification and Monitoring and Article 8: In-situ Conservation will be supported through the strengthening of salmonid diversity management in priority river systems. Article 10: Sustainable Use of Components of Biological Diversity will be furthered through the development and demonstration of alternative, sustainable livelihood options that avoid or minimize adverse impacts on biological diversity, providing incentives for sustainable use (Article 11: Incentive Measures). The project also supports Article 12: Research and Training by promoting targeted research on how to effectively manage salmonids for their inter- and intra-species diversity, providing training in technical and managerial areas, and developing linkages for exchange of information (Article 17: Exchange of Information). Education and awareness raising is also a project priority (Article 13).

GEF’s Operational Programme #13 was developed in response to decisions of the CoP of the CBD, in particular, decisions III/11, IV/6, and V/5. Decision V/5, entitled “Agricultural biological diversity: review of phase I of the programme of work and adoption of a multi-year work programme”, identifies the dimensions of agricultural biodiversity as being: “Genetic resources for food and agriculture, including: … Animal genetic resources, including fishery genetic resources … These constitute the main units of production in agriculture, including cultivated species, domesticated species and managed wild plants and animals, as well as wild relatives of cultivated and domesticated species”

As OP13 notes, “[d]omesticated crops and animals result from human management of biological diversity, and their continued evolution through improvement by breeders and farmers constantly responds to new challenges to maintain and increase productivity.” Furthermore, “…genetic variability of the landraces and wild relatives of domesticated plants and animals are essential breeding sources.” Consequently the scope of OP13 is defined as including “both genetic resources for food and agriculture (plant, animal and microbial).”

22

Eligibility for GEF Financing: The project is eligible for GEF assistance under Operational Program #13 Agricultural Biological Diversity, and will generate substantial global benefits. Russia is a recipient of UNDP technical assistance and a participant in the restructured GEF as of June 1994. Consequently, it is eligible according to the article 9(b) of the GEF instrument.

Country Driven: This project development effort has been country driven and is consistent with relevant National Policies and Strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Both the All-Russian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (2001), the National Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan (2001) and the National Environmental Protection Action Plan (1999) note that the conservation and sustainable use of salmonid ecosystems is a priority.

IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

The implementation arrangements for the project have been designed to maximize and balance efficiency, transparency and participatory decision-making. The project will be executed by the GOR through the State (federal) Fisheries Committee with the direct involvement of the KO and the KAO, and will adhere to UNDP nationally executed project requirements. The administration of project funds will be the joint responsibility of the UNDP and the GOR. The GOR’s responsibilities will include: 1) certifying expenditures under approved budgets and work plans; 2) tracking and reporting on procurement and outputs; 3) coordinating the financing from UNDP and GEF with that from other sources; 4) assisting in preparing Terms of Reference for contractors and required tender documentation; and 5) chairing the Project Steering Committee. The UNDP will be responsible for: 1) financial management; and, 2) the final approval of payments to vendors, and the procurement of goods in excess of US$10,000, the approval of Terms of Reference and recruitment of consulting services, and sub-contracting.

A Project Steering Committee (PSC) will be formed to provide overall guidance and support to project implementation activities. The PSC will meet semi-annually to review the project and set major policy and implementation directions. The PSC will consist of one member from each of the following organizations: Kamchatrybvod, MNR, KamchatNIRO, KO, KAO, WSC, UNDP, MGU, an indigenous people’s association, and a local NGO. The PSC will monitor the project’s implementation to ensure timely progress in attaining the desired results, and efficient coordination with other projects. The GOR and the KO/KAO will also facilitate the implementation of the required reforms.

The National Project Director (NPD) will chair the PSC. The NPD will be designated by the Government and will be responsible for carrying out the directives of the PSC and for ensuring the proper implementation of the project on behalf of the Government. In doing so the NPD will be responsible for management, reporting, accounting, monitoring and evaluation of the project and for proper management and audit of the project resources. The Project Manager (PM) will be a full time employee of the project and will be chosen in an open and fair competitive basis following UNDP standard hiring procedures. The PM will report to the NPD and UNDP will be in day-to-day charge of implementing the project and managing project activities. He/she will oversee project staff located in Kamchatka including two site coordinators for the four sites. All staff will be hired using standard UNDP hiring procedures.

Two local level Site Implementation Committees (SIC) will be established (one for the two sites in Kamchatka Oblast and one for the two sites in Koryak Okrug) to facilitate project implementation of project activities. Each SIC will report to the PSC and will be comprised of representatives from key stakeholder groups at the local level: one District Administration official, two local community representatives, and one regional NGO, and one private sector representative. Specific SIC membership will be approved by the PSC and will ensure that project implementation activities are open to stakeholder input. Each SIC will approve the workplan developed by the project Project Manager for their respective site. Government officials or other co-funder representatives from the private or bilateral entities on the SIC will be responsible for ensuring that co-funding support is provided in a timely and effective manner.

23

The UNDP Country Office will support project implementation by maintaining project budget and project expenditures, contracting project personnel, experts and subcontractors, carrying out procurement, and providing other assistance upon request of the National Executing Agency. Project implementation arrangements will be designed to accommodate the fact that Kamchatka is ten time zones from Moscow and recent lessons learned from UNDP-GEF’s Nepal project highlighted under GEF’s OPS-2 review. This will be done in a way that streamlines and decentralizes UNDP’s normal service delivery procedures in the interest of cost-effective and time-efficient project management. The UNDP Country Office will also monitor project implementation and achievement of the project outputs and ensure the proper use of UNDP/GEF funds. Financial transactions, reporting and auditing will be carried out in compliance with national regulations and UNDP rules and procedures for national execution. The UNDP Country Office will carry out its day-to-day management and monitoring functions through the UNDP Regional Programme Manager in Kamchatka, who will be also responsible for the day-to-day coordination of the on-going UNDP/GEF projects in Kamchatka, including the UNDP-GEF protected areas project. The UNDP Regional Programme Manager will report to the UNDP/GEF National Programme Coordinator based in Moscow.

Stakeholder input to project implementation: The following is a summary description. A more detailed description of stakeholder involvement in project implementation is provided in Annex VII. The project is designed to utilize a participatory process of fine-tuning and implementing effective solutions to salmonid conservation problems. Stakeholders will have direct input to the project’s implementation at the national and oblast level through the PSC, which will meet semi-annually to review project progress. The regional office will also establish and refine mechanisms to solicit and encourage public commentary, including, e.g., sponsorship of radio talk programs, a letters column in the newspapers, public office hours and a toll-free number. At the site level, stakeholders will have direct input to the project’s implementation through the SICs and the community-level SPCs that will be established for each of the priority sites. The monitoring and evaluation process (including the APR and TPR) will provide opportunities for stakeholder feedback via the periodic surveys that will be conducted.

24

PROJECT FINANCING

Incremental Costs: The total cost of Phase I of the project (not including project preparation costs) is US$ $13,298,704 of which 23% will be funded by GEF. The Government of Russia, the Kamchatka Oblast and Koryak Okrug, the private sector, and bi-lateral agencies will fund 77% of the total cost of the project: twenty percent is targeted to match GEF’s incremental financing for the incremental costs of salmonid diversity conservation and the remaining 57% covers the sustainable development-related costs of biodiversity conservation that will result primarily in national benefits.

PROJECT BUDGET

     

Project Outputs GEFCo-

financingTotal (US$)

  Phase I Phase I Phase I Subtotal 1: Salmonid Diversity Conservation Program 830,000 5,260,840 6,090,840Biotic inventory of priority sites 335,000 738,340 Diversity monitoring and research 220,000 1,447,200 Integrate diversity objectives into existing laws 45,000 67,000 Develop & apply diversity mngmnt principles to salmonid mngmnt 150,000 12,730 Bolshaya salmon hatchery demonstration program 45,000 687,420 Re-oriented commercial fishery practices/integration of escapement goals 35,000 374,530 Anti-poaching for commercial species of salmonids   1,933,620        Subtotal 2: River ecosystem integrity is conserved in four sites 1,205,000 2,605,630 3,810,630Establishment of salmon protected areas/Demarcate boundaries 40,000 52,260 PA infrastructure/Monitoring stations 310,000 227,800 Biocomplexity research and monitoring 0 1,742,000 PA management for four years 277,000 73,700 Conservation plan development 218,000 241,200 

25

Cooperative management plans 175,000 670 Anti-poaching enforcement for non-commercial species 185,000 201,000 Strengthened environmental mitigation & oversight in project sites   67,000        Subtotal 3: Information sharing, Indigenous knowledge, Awareness 620,000 102,510 722,510Community-level information management (3 sites) 75,000 0 International linkages & technology transfers 151,000 0 Salmonid diversity ed. program for teachers/students 104,000 18,760 Facilitation of TV/Radio coverage 47,000 38,190 Awareness materials on salmonid ecosystems 44,000 9,380 Web-based salmonid diversity information exchange 22,000 14,070 Round table discussions/Pacific basin conference 56,000 20,100 Securing indigenous knowledge of salmon & ecosystems 74,000 2,010 Increase recognition of sustainable aquaculture techniques 47,000          Subtotal 4: Stakeholders developing alternative livelihoods 200,000 2,162,090 2,362,090Small and medium enterprise development training 24,000 28,810 Micro-credit program/alternative livelihood investment 20,000 201,000 Strengthening traditional livelihoods among indigenous grps 31,000 153,430 Biodi guidelines for eco-tourism enterprise development 47,000 1,728,600 Demonstrating diversity-friendly techniques/equipment 78,000 50,250               Subtotal 5: Wild Salmonid Diversity Conservation Fund 145,000 167,500 312,500Expert input/Stakeholder Consultations 65,000 67,000 Design of Structure/Promotional efforts 80,000 100,500 Capital investment 0  0 Sub-total (minus Block-B cost)  3,000,000   10,298,70 

26

4Block A Preparatory Financing 22,000 10,000Block-B Preparatory Financing 287,000 207,500 Total: 3,309,000 10,516,070 13,825,070

27

Cost Effectiveness: The overall approach of this project is designed to be cost-effective and produce project outputs for the least amount of money possible. The project’s proactive, in-situ conservation approach and the fact that it is intervening at this time, before long-term impacts on salmonid biodiversity have taken hold, is particularly cost-effective when compared to costs incurred in other parts of the world for ecological restoration. Working in four different sites, the project has been designed to achieve some economies of scale with respect to developing and implementing various management programs in the four sites. GEF’s PDF-B investment has leveraged substantial co-financing, including co-financing of incremental costs. The project will implement several demonstrations in sustainable and biodiversity-friendly practices in the productive landscape. These initiatives cost-effectively demonstrate long-term sustainability of salmonid diversity conservation and management in and beyond the specific areas when replicated. Initiatives established under this project will be appropriate to the abilities of key players to sustain them over the long-term. The project will also establish cost-effective partnerships among key stakeholders, spreading responsibilities for addressing conservation needs among a range of actors. For example, project activities in the public awareness and environmental management areas will be conducted jointly with the GEF co-financed protected area project, with resulting savings and increased effectiveness. The participatory approach taken by the project should be cost effective in that it will engender greater stakeholder “ownership” of conservation efforts, improving the chances of successful outcomes.

SUSTAINABILITY OF PROJECT RESULTS

Project Risks: One risk facing the project is that macro economic factors could worsen, increasing the pressure on salmonid resources for short-term commercial gains rather than long-term and partially non-commercial ones. While current trends do not point in this direction, the project is designed to anticipate these risks and proactively mitigate them by dealing directly with the social and economic factors behind salmonid degradation and improving the livelihoods of local people. Annex II provides additional information on project risks.

Another risk is the potential for a sudden shift in governmental priorities with a change in government. The project is designed to maximize sustainability in the face of rapid change in governmental priorities. The potential for this risk scenario is low, in light of the commitment of the federal and oblast governments as indicated through their significant financial commitment. The project mitigates this risk by strengthening existing laws and policies, making diversity conservation practice more resilient to rapid change. Stakeholder support is also a good buffer against shifting political winds; the project will require the active involvement of all relevant stakeholders, including Federal, oblast and local government agencies, commercial and industrial enterprises and local communities in the site areas.

The project has been designed to minimize risk. Risk reduction in conservation and sustainable use activities has been a key consideration in the design of the project, from the management structure to the strategic approach, to the integration of best practices. Lessons learned from other projects have been brought to bear on the design of this project and best practice reviews have been consulted11 to improve the effectiveness of the project’s design and reduce risk. These include many lessons highlighted in GEF’s recent OPS-2 report and discussed under “Lessons Learned” below.

Kamchatka’s inherent funding limitations rule-out any long-term support of an overly expensive salmonid conservation program. Sound methods for resolving conflicts, together with strong institutions

11 Nakashima, S. 1997. Integrated Coastal Management as Best Practice in GEF Project Development: Lessons from Biodiversity Projects in Marine, Coastal and Freshwater Ecosystems. Unpublished. UNDP-GEF, New York, New York, USA.

28

and human resources for the planning and management of salmonid conservation activities, are also important. This project has therefore been designed to maximize the long-term institutional and financial sustainability of project-inspired activities. Existing institutional capacity to implement project activities will be strengthened through training and partnership building. The ability to implement these activities sustainability will be ensured by building the capacity of a cross-section of civil-society (government departments, village institutions, and NGOs). Over the life of the project, partnerships among the government, NGOs, scientific community, private sector, and local communities will be an important element in ensuring sustainability. Partnerships will strengthen the capacity of existing institutions to sustain integrated conservation efforts over the long-term.

In addition to capacity building, the project intentionally inspires activities with low or no recurrent costs. Many of the activities proposed to counter specific threats, such as biodiversity overlays and innovative policy tools, involve low or no recurrent costs. The alternative livelihood activities, such as the development of micro-credit facilities, will also be self-financing. The project will focus on helping people develop sustainable livelihoods by providing business training and empowering people to access micro-credit support and small loans. With the support of this GEF intervention, biodiversity-friendly fishing methodologies will be demonstrated to be no more expensive than existing practice. In general, the project will avoid creating systems requiring expensive maintenance and upkeep, and establishing new, expensive institutions. The only new institution created by the project will be the Board of Trustees established to oversee the long-term funding mechanism to be established by the project.

There will invariably be new and additional costs associated with the long-term conservation of salmonid diversity and the project is designed to establish the Salmon Diversity Conservation Fund to cover those recurrent costs, estimated to be US$320,000/year. Legal mandates must be clear in order to successfully integrate the activities of diverse sectors. By the end of the project, the regular KRV/KNIRO/KOIR budgets will absorb the sustainable development baseline costs. The project will work with government, other donors, and the private sector to mobilize resources to finance sustainable alternative livelihood options.

MONITORING & EVALUATION

Monitoring. This project has a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program included in its overall design. An information baseline on ecosystem structure and function and sustainable use will be established during the first year of the project to provide a basis for future monitoring and evaluation. Project progress will be monitored using annual reviews and implementation milestones following UNDP rules and procedures. Specific indicators of salmonid ecosystem/biodiversity health will be developed after baseline surveys are completed during the project’s third year. Baseline surveys will: 1) conduct ecological surveys within the site areas to determine specific health and size of key habitats and richness of habitat mosaic; 2) conduct attitude and awareness level surveys of key stakeholder groups, from top-level policy makers to local village level stakeholders; and 3) conduct economic surveys of local communities around salmonid site areas to quantify their use of salmonid resources and their current income levels. Monitoring will be ongoing, involving data collection and assessment of the project’s field implementation and will involve key project staff meeting annually to review operations and field implementation and assessing whether new priorities require a shift in project implementation.

In addition to this the project will be subject to standard UNDP/GEF monitoring requirements. The UNDP-CO/UNDP Regional Coordinator in Kamchatka will conduct monitoring field visits at least twice per year. The PM will prepare and submit bi-monthly narrative reports to the NPD and UNDP. The project manager will be required to produce an Annual Project Report (APR). The report is designed to

29

obtain the independent views of the main stakeholders of a project on its relevance, performance and the likelihood of its success. The APR then supports an annual Tripartite Review (TPR) meeting -- the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. Decisions and recommendations of the TPR will be presented to the PSC.

Evaluation: Outcomes will be evaluated by measuring indicators of ecosystem integrity and function, threat reduction, and sustainable use. In addition, annual participatory evaluation exercises will be undertaken with key stakeholders, including local communities, NGOs, and partner organizations. UNDP will report on project performance to the GEF at the annual Project Implementation Review (PIR). The project will document the lessons learned, and make it available to stakeholders over the worldwide web.

Three external evaluations are scheduled in the project lifetime, one in year two, one in year four and a final review near the end of the project. Ex-post evaluation will be conducted three years after completion of the project. These independent evaluations of project performance will match project progress against predetermined success indicators. Each evaluation of the project will document lessons learned, identify challenges, and provide recommendations to improve performance. The logical framework for this project sets out a range of impact/implementation indicators that will be used to gauge impact. Success and failure will be determined in part by monitoring relative changes in baseline conditions established in the biological, ecological and economic arenas at the beginning of the project. Baseline conditions will be defined with respect to salmonid habitat size and condition and population size of indicator species to ensure that viable populations of these species are present in perpetuity. Indicator species that are sensitive to habitat change and indicative of increased hunting pressure will be identified and monitored. If populations of rare or endangered species are shown to be in decline, measures will be taken to identify the reason for the decline, and alternative management strategies will be developed to ensure the long-term health of populations and incorporated into site management.

Further monitoring of the sites will be carried out through the use of modern technological means. New satellite imaging technologies will enable salmonid diversity managers to detect changes at a much higher resolution than previously possible. This information will be compared with the existing salmonid habitat map that will be refined as ground-truthing data is collected over the course of the project. Periodic comparisons over time (initially every 1.5 years) will be carried out to see what kinds of changes may have occurred. If changes are identified, a plan will be developed to deal with them.

Lessons Learned: UNDP will require the project to apply adaptive management techniques to project implementation. Double-loop learning is crucial in order to “close the loop” of the project cycle (design, implementation, evaluation, review, design) and steadily improve the quality of GEF and UNDP project design. Sound methods for resolving conflicts, improved management of protected areas, strong institutions for the planning and management of salmonid development activities, and clear legal mandates are important in order to successfully integrate the activities of diverse sectors. This project has been designed to capture these lessons and share them with other, future project development and design work. Lessons learned suggest that a two-track approach be used to build capacity at the national and regional policy level (regulations and institutions) while at the same time integrating implementation activities at the local and community level. This project will work to secure a supportive policy framework while focusing most of its efforts at the local, site level. Effective public-private partnerships have been found to be a strategic component of biodiversity projects. These partnerships are crucial to the strategic approach and practical viability of this project’s design. A lengthy and sustained process was found to be necessary to achieve biodiversity conservation. This project projects long-term funding out to 24 years from the beginning of the project. GEF’s OPS-2 review uncovered the following lessons learned from GEF biodiversity project experience. 1) Basic implementation capacity should be in place prior to the project being launched. There is no question that implementation capacity, within

30

Government institutions, UNDP and the project’s NGO partners, is in place. 2) Funding should be compatible with the absorptive capacity of the target areas and implementation organizations. This project’s main partners are large, productive sector fishery institutions or academic institutions in Russia and well staffed NGOs – all with much higher absorptive capacity than required by this project. 3) Objectives should be realistic and time and funding allocated should be adequate to achieve the intended changes. This project’s objectives have been carefully conceived, based upon a thorough evaluation of the situation.

Replication. This project has been designed to apply significant effort in developing lessons learned and facilitating the sharing of information and replication of successful salmonid diversity conservation methodologies. Many of the project’s activities are designed to strengthen linkages between experts on Kamchatka salmonids and the international research community. For example, a regional conference on salmonid conservation will be organized towards the end of the project to share lessons learned. Project activities in these two sites will empower local indigenous people to preserve and maintain their traditional knowledge of biodiversity and to incorporate it into community-based co-management regimes. These kinds of activities are replicable throughout Russia, as indigenous people secure official recognition of their rights to restore their traditions and manage their own resources.

Linkage with other GEF Initiatives: The World Bank – GEF “Russian Federation Biodiversity Conservation Project” provides assistance to existing protected areas in the Russian Federation to secure their globally significant biodiversity value. That project does not include any sites on the Kamchatka Peninsula itself. Several other UNDP-GEF projects are currently under preparation in other regions of the Russian Federation. Of particular direct relevance to this project is the project entitled: "Demonstrating sustainable conservation of biological diversity in four protected areas in Russia’s Kamchatka Oblast: Phase 1." It was developed concurrently with this project and particular identified linkages that will be exploited include: strengthening of salmonid anti-poaching measures, institutional strengthening and capacity building in biodiversity conservation including at the community level, increasing biodiversity awareness, and improving the information base for biodiversity conservation through joint activities such as monitoring of fish populations. Communication and coordination with the other initiatives will be pursued throughout the life of this project to ensure the optimization of synergy and the realization of efficiencies in their implementation.

LIST OF ANNEXES:

Mandatory:Annex I: Incremental Cost AnalysisAnnex II. Logical Framework/Project Planning MatrixAnnex III: Scientific Technical Advisory Panel Technical Review and Response to Review

Optional Annexes (Available upon request):Annex IV: Salmonid Diversity Conservation Fund Annex V: “Threats/Root Causes/Activities to Mitigate Threats” TableAnnex VI: Site Biodiversity Value Matrix & Explanation of Life History StrategiesAnnex VII: Stakeholder Participation in Project ImplementationAnnex VIII: Map of Priority SitesAnnex IX: GEF Focal Point EndorsementAnnex X: Project Categorisation Sheet

31

Annex 1 Incremental Cost Analysis

Broad Development Objectives:

1.1 An estimated 50% of Kamchatka’s population lives under the poverty level and poverty alleviation is the top priority of the two regional governments in Kamchatka. The rich fisheries of Kamchatka’s marine and aquatic ecosystems make it an important vehicle for this. Commercial fishing is an economic mainstay in Kamchatka, and salmonid fish comprise a significant proportion of commercial and subsistence catches. At the same time, the Government has been committed to utilizing this resource wisely and has supported a strong institutional capacity to oversee this for the past 40 years. Russia is committed to protecting the global environment and particularly its biological diversity, having ratified the CBD in 1995.

2. Global Environmental Objectives:

2.1 Global environmental benefits include significant indirect use (option and insurance) and passive use (existence) values, as well as the immediate direct use value of the protected ecosystems as scientific laboratories. The global option and insurance values spring from Kamchatka’s large number of disctinct species and stocks and the large amount of intraspecific genetic diversity. For world aquaculture, this genetic diversity preserves options to rebuild, preserve, or augment the genetic vitality of captive broodstocks. It also serves as a global insurance policy against overly aggressive manipulation of broodstocks for short-term productivity gains. With this safety net in place, managers and policymakers have additional freedom of short-term action while still managing long-term risks consistent with the precautionary principle.12 For wild salmon harvest, the same genetic fund could prove crucial to maintaining the productivity of other salmonid ecoregions after future environmental shocks from climate change or other sources. The global existence value arises from nontrivial per capita existence values multiplied by the hundreds of millions of developed country citizens who hold these values and live outside of Russia.

2.2 These global values will be preserved by integrating diversity management objectives into existing commercial fishery management programs and by conserving the full range of salmonid species and habitats in a representative sample of four globally significant river ecosystems. The project will integrate global environmental objectives into Kamchatka’s commercial fishery management by operationalizing a salmonid diversity conservation approach that is complementary to existing fishery management. Diversity conservation policies, programs and practice will be developed for eventual application across the whole fishery in Kamchatka. The project will demonstrate them under a range of management regimes in four river ecosystems encompassing a representative sample of the full spectrum of salmonid diversity at the species, genetic and life-history levels.

3. Baseline.

3.1 Poaching, production-oriented fishery management and habitat destruction constitute the principal threats to salmonid diversity and aquatic ecosystem integrity. These threats are in turn caused by an inadequate level of information to target enforcement actions and guide proactive management, a lack of alternative livelihood options for local people, incremental learning and management costs associated

12 As stated in Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the precautionary principle says that, "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

1

with diversity management, an inadequate level of local support for sustainable river management, and finally, inadequate preventative mechanisms in current environmental control policy. These problems are leading to the depletion of salmonid diversity and degradation of salmonid aquatic habitat. Given the economic significance of the fishery, in the baseline scenario absent the project, Government would act in Russia’s own short-term interest and strive to manage Kamchatka’s commercial salmonid fishery to maximize short-term production, with little regard for diversity conservation.

The programmatic baseline is described below:

Salmonid Fishery Management. The baseline fishery management program focuses on producing fish to sell on the international market and supply domestic consumption needs. Kamchatka’s salmon management program is comprised of four main components: research, monitoring, enforcement and artificial production. The goal of the program is to sustain harvest levels in order to meet the demands of the market and provide jobs while ensuring a ready supply of fish resources. This has been done to date by relying upon natural regeneration of fish stocks and dividing enforcement efforts between rivers and near-coastal marine areas (territorial sea). Intraspecific diversity management is not an objective of the current program and indeed intraspecific diversity could be reduced by the impacts of production-oriented hatcheries, depending upon how they are managed.13

During the past ten years a great deal of work has been undertaken in the Russian Federation to update Russia’s suite of environmental laws and to integrate environmental objectives into other civil, criminal, and administrative laws as they have been considered and passed by the State Duma. However, the law does not acknowledge the genetic diversity inherent within Kamchatka’s salmonid resource, nor does it offer any specific methods of sustainably conserving and utilizing this diversity. Currently, the salmon fishery in Kamchatka is managed at the species and seasonal race level. Preservation of genetic and life history diversity is not considered in present fisheries management.

River Ecosystem Habitat Protection & Management. Given the obvious commercial importance of salmonid production in Kamchatka, existing river ecosystem management policies focus on protecting commercially exploited salmonid species and their spawning grounds. Existing regulations establish a one-kilometer buffer zone, prohibiting forest clear-cutting on all salmon spawning rivers throughout Russia, and requiring specific exceptions for any development activities within these zones. This is an enlightened policy to be sure, but it is frequently ignored and a campaign by the mining industry to reduce the width of buffers may weaken it further. In addition, salmonid diversity conservation is not addressed by this buffer policy and higher funding priorities have meant that priority salmonid diversity and river ecosystem habitat on the west coast of Kamchatka are under-represented in the existing network of protected areas.

The participation of a wide-range of stakeholders in salmonid river ecosystem management is a new, untested concept in Kamchatka. In the Koryak Okrug, indigenous groups are working to empower people to practice their traditional livelihoods and re-vitalize their traditional customs. This awareness offers an opportunity for developing innovative salmonid co-management regimes between the KOIR and indigenous communities.

The existing regulatory approvals and inspection system is punishment-oriented, rather than prevention-oriented. During the environmental review process, projects are evaluated for compliance with applicable laws, regulations and discharge norms. Unavoidable environmental damage associated with project implementation (habitat destruction, discharge of contaminants, etc.) is estimated using a formula, and a

13 See, eg, National Research Council, 1996 Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest, pp 305-310 for a cogent review of the importance of hatchery management in determining ecological spillover effects.

2

compensation fine is levied. Little emphasis is placed on or incentive given for prevention or minimization of pollution before it occurs.

Information sharing, Preservation of Indigenous Peoples’ Knowledge and Awareness Raising: Public awareness of the values of salmon to Kamchatka’s economy is quite high. Everyone is aware of the importance of salmon to the local economy. What is lacking is an awareness of the diversity of salmonid species and the importance of the intraspecific diversity among different salmon stocks. Kamchatka has five television stations. Among the native peoples of Kamchatka, and especially among young native people, there is a low level of awareness of their own cultural traditions with respect to the use and management of biodiversity. Two generations have been born since native villages were “centralized,” a policy that hampered the transfer of traditional knowledge by distancing people from their home territories. Oral histories regarding hunting, fishing and gathering comprise an invaluable history of a peoples’ knowledge, innovation, and practices relevant to conservation of biodiversity, including salmonid diversity. These community histories do not now exist in a form that would ensure the preservation and maintenance of this knowledge for future generations. Indigenous communities are reviving their traditional dance and music, much of which expresses ideas and sentiments about the natural environment. The knowledge contained and expressed in these artistic forms can be used to deepen understanding of biodiversity. There is little existing awareness among ethnic Russians of the native peoples’ knowledge, innovation, and practices with respect to the conservation and use of Kamchatka’s salmonid ecosystems.

Alternative Livelihood Support for People in Site Areas. The KO and KAO are currently focusing most of their financial resources on basic social services and improving the infrastructure necessary for any economic development, such as the energy and power system. Most of the formerly state-supported rural economic entities in Kamchatka have collapsed in recent years, leaving many people forced to illegally harvest fish or other wildlife for subsistence and income. In a “business as usual” scenario, very little support for new livelihoods in these coastal villages would be forthcoming and most people who live in the four priority river basins would continue to live a largely self-supporting, subsistence lifestyle that relies heavily upon nature’s capricious bounty. No special programs would be implemented to enable local stakeholders to develop new and alternative livelihoods.

Long-term Funding: Sustainable sources of funding for fish management in Kamchatka do exist, assuming that the fisheries from which the funds are derived are managed on a sustainable basis. However, this existing financing is committed to a limited number of essential fishery management activities and does not adequately address the full range of needs for in-situ conservation of salmonid diversity in Kamchatka. In addition, the long-term secular decline in wild salmon prices is likely to put economic pressure on commercial producers. Management revenue streams may suffer as these producers struggle to cut costs in order to compete in world markets dominated by farmed salmon.

4. GEF Project Alternative

4.1 The costs of the project are shared by the GEF and other financiers, with the GEF financing the agreed incremental costs, over and above the baseline of sustainable salmon management, of protecting salmonid diversity and generating global environmental and agrobiodiversity benefits.

4.2 The overall objectives of the proposed project are the sustained conservation of Kamchatka’s salmonid genetic and life history diversity and the maintenance of river ecosystem integrity. Upon completion of the project, government agencies, indigenous peoples, and local communities will be conserving salmonid diversity in the project’s four river sites by applying a new diversity-oriented approach, using conservation tools, and pursuing sustainable livelihoods.

3

4.3 To accomplish these overall objectives, the project proposes to complement the existing baseline situation in Kamchatka with a GEF-financed incremental salmonid diversity conservation program and a co-financed sustainable development baseline. The sustainable development baseline activities enable stakeholders to develop alternative livelihoods, and to strengthen and re-orient elements of the existing commercial salmonid fishery management program. GEF-funded incremental activities will focus on the conservation of globally significant salmonid diversity that supports long-term global agroecosystem productivity and provides other environmental benefits to the global community outside of Russia.

4.4 Salmonid Diversity Management Approach. The goal of Kamchatka’s salmonid management program is to contribute to the region’s development through the sustainable production of fish. While this emphasis on commercial sustainability is an important step, historical experience from around the world shows that it is not sufficient to achieve the conservation of diversity among these salmonid species. In the short term, the national benefits of this diversity conservation approach are not sufficient to cover its costs. These costs, or constraints on diversity management, are associated with additional information gathering, learning, outreach, and management effort. In addition to these management costs, the required reduction in bycatch that might be necessary for effective maintenance of biodiversity could impose opportunity costs in the form of real reductions in commercial harvests. These constraints will be removed by the project’s co-financed alternative. The lack of information on salmonid diversity in the project’s four sites inhibits proactive conservation. Comprehensive multi-year biological inventories and assessments will be conducted in each project site to document the composition, distribution and abundance of aquatic and riparian flora and fauna in order to establish a biological baseline for management.

4.5 Once the biological baseline has been established, systematic monitoring and targeted research activities will be conducted to determine salmonid population structure, life history diversity, spawning escapement, habitat requirements, and marine-derived nutrient loading requirements. Commercial fishery management practices in the four sites will be re-oriented to reflect diversity conservation objectives. Diversity management principles and benchmarks will be developed and applied to the existing baseline fishery “total allowable catch” assessment process in each site. The existing law and policy framework will be strengthened and expanded to support the conservation and sustainable use of wild salmonid diversity.

4.6 River Ecosystem Habitat Protection & Management. River ecosystem integrity will be preserved in the four project sites using a variety of conservation management regimes. The different land-use designations and different stakeholder groupings in each site will enable the project to demonstrate how the management effectiveness can be improved by involving local people, especially from indigenous communities and fishing villages. At the same time, the project will be able to monitor the status of salmonid populations across the range of differently managed sites.

4.7 A local resource user committee and a participatory management plan will be developed for each site. Riverkeepers will represent local communities as the independent caretaker(s) of each river system, working to complement existing government management efforts. Responsible for ensuring that water quality measurements (and other data) are taken on a regular, year-round basis, riverkeepers will add to the local community’s sense of participation and contribution. An annual “state of the river” report will be produced for each project site by the riverkeepers, providing project management with valuable input from local communities. In order to preserve and incorporate indigenous knowledge and foster communication with local indigenous communities, riverkeepers will also be hired using co-financing for inhabited rivers between project sites. Their collaboration with project site riverkeepers will help in monitoring the entire ecosystem and human activities in relation to it.

4

4.8 Organized, commercial poaching is a threat to salmonid diversity and the sustainability of the commercial salmon fishery in each of the project’s four sites. Cofinancing will strengthen the existing commercial salmonid fishery regulations and their enforcement in the four priority areas in order to enable rangers to more effectively prevent poaching and habitat destruction. GEF funds will support enforcement actions that are focused on preventing the poaching of non-commercial & rare salmonid species.

4.9 I nformation sharing, Preservation of Indigenous Peoples’ Knowledge and Awareness Raising . Linkages will be established among Russian and international salmonid conservation and management experts, government agencies and academic centers. International experts will benefit from the chance to observe and study healthy and species-rich salmonid ecosystems, and to better understand how to protect and/or restore damaged river systems elsewhere along the Pacific Rim and in other parts of the world. Co-funded work will enable local communities to participate in the sharing of information by preparing reports of recorded indigenous knowledge and helping to maintain channels of communication. The project will support indigenous peoples’ efforts to preserve and maintain their knowledge of salmonid diversity and river ecosystems and to raise the level of awareness among the indigenous youth of their own cultural traditions with respect to their use and management of biodiversity.

4.10 Stakeholders Developing Alternative Livelihoods in Site Areas. Salmonid management is really people management and this project is designed to work with people as much as it works with fish. One of the most pervasive threats to salmonid biodiversity in Kamchatka is the poaching of salmonid resources. The lack of alternative livelihood options is one root cause of the poaching threat. Another is the lack of a salmonid management regime that effectively limits the number of resource users in order to increase the incentives for self-control and individual responsibility of these users. The project is designed to address directly the threats to salmonid diversity and their root causes by enabling local people to develop alternative livelihoods, strengthening the ability of salmonid fishers to enforce fishing rules among themselves and demonstrating new technologies to minimize by-catch.

4.11 Wild Salmonid Diversity Conservation Fund. The assumption underlying the design of this financial mechanism is that the significant value of the salmonid-use activities in Kamchatka and worldwide makes it feasible eventually to develop a long-term “re-investment,” or revolving fund mechanism, to channel revenue from salmonid-use activities back into salmonid diversity conservation. However, Russia is a country “in-transition” from a centrally planned economy to a market-based economy. This transition has meant significant budget shortfalls in all Government programs and especially dramatic funding cuts in conservation programs. Despite the Government’s policy goals and existing baseline funding, there remains a considerable unmet, annual funding need for salmonid diversity conservation (Table 1 in Annex IV). It is reasonable to expect that this conservation-funding gap will hamper salmonid conservation for the next 15-20 years. Recognizing this reality, the project will establish a Salmonid Diversity Conservation Fund (SDCF) to bridge the funding gap, and secondly, to establish a revolving fund to support the re-current costs of salmonid diversity conservation programs operationalized by the GEF project. GEF funding is requested to support the development of the mechanism and the first year of the bridging period. Co-financing will fund 90% of the Bridging Fund.

1.15. Scope of Analysis

5.1 Baseline and Incremental costs have been assessed temporally, over the planned seven-year time frame of the GEF intervention, and geographically by the watershed boundaries of the four project sites and by the administrative borders encompassing those sites. The scope of analysis covers two regions and five municipalities. Thematically, the analysis covers the range of interventions necessary to

5

ameliorate the proximate threats to salmonid diversity, based on the diagnostic assessments performed during project formulation. Finally, the analysis captures the expenditures of nine government and non-government institutions.

6. Incremental Cost and Benefits

6.1 Economic Dimensions of Salmonid Biodiversity. Much intellectual effort has gone into defining economically useful concepts of biodiversity. Unfortunately, these efforts have met with mixed success (Weitzman 1993).14 The issue is particularly difficult in the salmonid case because much, if not all, of the relevant diversity occurs at the subspecies level, while academic economists have generally assumed that each species is genetically homogeneous for purposes of economic valuation.

6.2 The following table illustrates two dimensions along which to measure salmonid biodiversity. One dimension is the geographic universe over which biodiversity is measured, which may range from an individual river system to the globally distributed aquaculture industry to the entire planet. The nature of the benefits of biodiversity, and to whom they flow, vary depending on this universe. Preserving multiple species or stocks within a single river is quite a different matter from preserving the equivalent biological portfolio within a system of multiple rivers.

1.1.1.1.1 Dimensions of Salmonid Biodiversity

Species Diversity Stock Diversity Genetic Diversity

River System

Kamchatka

Russia

Global Aquaculture Industry

World Ecosystems

6.3 Another dimension is how coarsely or finely biodiversity is measured. In increasing order of sophistication, the following three types of biodiversity may be usefully distinguished:

Species diversity: The number of species for which viable populations return to spawn. Stock diversity: The number of different stocks of each species for which viable populations return

to spawn. The term "stock" refers to a distinct "race" of a given species, which is adapted to local conditions in the river in which it spawns. Within a region such as Kamchatka, there are many different stocks of any given species, which return to different rivers at different times. Less

14 Weitzman, Martin. 1993. "What to Preserve? An Application of Diversity Theory to Crane Conservation." Quarterly Journal of Economics. CVIII: 157-183. Weitzman begins his paper by noting: "Conservation Policy often appears to take place in an analytical vacuum. Frequently, it is not clear what we are supposed to be conserving or what are the relevant trade-offs. The lack of a coherent operational framework seems especially acute when it comes to issues concerning the preservation of biodiversity...." (p 157).

6

commonly realized is the fact that there is also stock diversity within a given river--salmon of the same species return to different parts of the river system at different times of the year.

Genetic diversity: The genetic diversity within and between stocks returning to spawn. Within any given stock, there is genetic diversity among individuals (which may be reflected, for example, in size differences as well as in many other less obvious ways.) It is generally accepted that genetic diversity relates directly to the number of specific environmental niches occupied.15 A small area with a wide range of diverse ecosystem properties is likely to harbor more genetic diversity than a large area with homogenous environmental characteristics.

6.4 The benefits of biodiversity, and to whom they flow, clearly vary depending on the type being considered. For example, only species diversity may matter for some kinds of short-term economic benefits. Sockeye salmon are valuable to the commercial fishery. Steelhead are valuable to sport fishing. There will be greater economic potential for a given river system if both species are present. However, in the short term it may not matter very much for the commercial fishery if different stocks of sockeye are preserved, or if there is genetic diversity within the sockeye runs. However, from a longer-term perspective, both stock diversity and genetic diversity are increasingly important and may have significant benefits. For example, the ability of salmonid populations to withstand disease shocks or rapidly-changing climate conditions depends upon both stock diversity and genetic diversity. This resilience in the face of environmental shocks could be particularly important to salmon aquaculture, which currently relies upon essentially one species and is, according to the industry’s own analysts, increasingly at risk for disease “as production and the density of facilities increase.”16

6.5 Another dimension of biodiversity--not directly shown in the table above--is the absolute numbers of fish of different species, stocks, or genetic characteristics. For certain kinds of benefits, relatively small numbers of fish may be sufficient to generate large economic values. For example, relatively small numbers of fish of a given species, stock or genetic makeup may be sufficient for that group to survive disease or climate change. Other kinds of benefits – such as commercial harvest benefits -- are proportional to the absolute number of fish. Moreover, maintaining significant absolute numbers of one stock may be the only practical way to ensure that the genetic diversity within that stock is being maintained.

6.6 Benefits of Kamchatka Salmonid Biodiversity. There are a wide variety of benefits provided by biodiversity of Kamchatka salmonids. The following table summarizes some of these benefits. As shown in the table, these benefits differ in several important ways. First, they differ with respect to the type of biodiversity from which they are derived. Some types of benefits derive primarily from species biodiversity, while others derive more from within-species or within-stock genetic diversity. The categorization suggested by the table is of course very rough, as these three types of diversity overlap. Second, some benefits are directly proportional to total population levels (for example the benefits derived from commercial harvests). Other benefits depend primarily upon the genetic diversity within the population--so that what matters is maintaining a "healthy" population rather than a large population. Third, the locus of benefits varies widely. Some benefits flow almost entirely to Russia, such as the benefits of commercial harvests. Other benefits flow only minimally to Russia, such as the existence value that accrues to people outside Russia from the mere knowledge that diverse salmonid populations are thriving in Kamchatka.

15 See, eg. Wilmot, Richard, R. Everett, W. Spearman, R. Baccus, N. Varnavskaya, S.V. Putin, 1994. "Genetic Stock Structure of Western Alaska Chum Salmon and a Comparison with Russian Far East Stocks." Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51(1994): 84-9416 Danske Securities, personal communication with authors, September 2001.

7

Economic Benefits of Kamchatka Salmonid Biodiversity

Type of Benefit Description of Benefit Levels of Salmonid Biodiversity

Needed

Locus of Benefit

Direct Use Values

sustained commercial salmon harvests species, stock Kamchatka & Russia

sustained personal use & subsistence harvest of salmonids and dependent species

species, stock Kamchatka

sportfishing and direct sport harvest of other species (eg, sport hunting of bears) dependent on ecosystem integrity

species, stock Russia, plus some consumer surplus to foreigners

scientific understanding of salmon and salmonid-based ecosystems

species, stock, genetic

Mostly global

Indirect Use and Option Values

Option to rebuild, preserve, or augment the genetic vitality of captive aquaculture broodstocks

Species, genetic Almost completely global

Genetic insurance for wild salmon stocks

species, genetic Mostly global

Genetic insurance for stocks of other, dependent rare species

species, genetic Mostly global

Existence Value

Existence value of salmonids, salmonid ecosystems, and other species dependent on salmonid ecosystem integrity

species, stock, genetic

Almost completely global

6.7 Fundamental Economic Rationale for GEF Intervention. Diversity oriented management to conserve the broad array of salmonid diversity at the species, stock, and genetic levels will impose incremental learning, management, and opportunity costs relative to those incurred in a production-oriented management regime. There is presently little reason for Russia to incur these costs because many of the resultant benefits are non-excludable in supply, and accrue in large measure to the rest of the world over a long time horizon. This conclusion is developed in the paragraphs that follow.

6.8 Ecological Basis of Incremental Global Benefits. In addition to providing direct economic benefits and ecosystem services to Russia, the Kamchatka salmonid resource provides significant additional global benefits. These benefits accrue from the globally significant attributes of the resources to be protected. These attributes can be summarized as:Salmonid species diversity – 13 species, all with large and currently healthy stocksSalmonid intraspecific genetic and life history diversityUnadulterated instream and riparian ecosystems, with large populations of globally significant salmonid-dependent species such as Brown bears, Sea eagles, Steller Sea Lions, seals, and birds.

6.9 Economic Basis of Incremental Global Benefits. From an economic perspective the significant global benefits stem directly from the fact that these ecological characteristics of the salmonid resource are abundant within the project area but extremely scarce on a global scale, much like a concentrated deposit of a rare mineral. The standard economic approach when a resource is locally abundant but globally rare is to sell that globally rare resource into the world market and use the proceeds to procure the locally rare food, clothing, and energy that the people of Kamchatka need. However, it is not possible for the people

8

of Kamchatka or for the Russian government to sell many of the globally rare biodiversity benefits to the rest of the world. Moreover, much of the benefit of biodiversity can be “consumed” by one person without diminishing the consumption of others. In economic jargon, these benefits are non-excludable in supply and non-rival in consumption. Like global climate stability and air for breathing, they are known as “pure public goods.” Economic theory assures us that such goods must be provided through collective action by a global entity. That is, much of the benefit of conserving diversity for the long run does not accrue to, and cannot be captured by, the local population or the national government.

6.10 The specific values that fall most clearly into this category are the scientific values, genetic option and insurance values, and existence values of the Kamchatka salmonid resources and the associated ecosystems.

6.11 Scientific Knowledge. The value of the protected ecosystems as scientific laboratories could be theoretically captured by selling the rights to conduct research in Kamchatka, but no one could afford to pay very much for these rights because much of the resulting knowledge about basic ecosystem structure and function is itself a public good.

6.12 Economic Importance of Salmonid Capture and Aquaculture. Intensive aquaculture will be the source of any growth in marine-based protein production for the foreseeable future. The most recent FAO statistics show that production from capture fisheries is flat or declining, while aquaculture production has grown by 10% per year during the past half decade, allowing total fish consumption per capita to increase slightly. By the year 2000, four fifths of the world's mollusc harvest, one-fifth of all shrimp and prawns, and more than one-half of all salmonids came from cultured species. Cultured finfish production has for several years yielded more meat than mutton and lamb and is comparable in total protein to world chicken supply.17

World Fisheries Production and Utilizationaverageannual

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 growthProduction (million tonnes)

Capture 91.4 91.5 93.4 93.6 86.3 92.3 0.2%Aquaculture 20.8 24.6 26.9 28.8 30.8 32.9 9.6%Total 112.2 116.1 120.3 122.4 117.1 125.2 2.2%

Share of ProductionCapture 81% 79% 78% 76% 74% 74% -2.0%Aquaculture 19% 21% 22% 24% 26% 26% 7.2%

Utilization (million tonnes)Human Consumption 79.8 86.5 90.7 93.9 93.3 92.6 3.0%Fish Meal and Oil 32.5 29.6 29.6 28.5 23.9 30.4 -1.3%

Population (billions) 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0 1.4%Per Capita

Consumption (kg) 14.3 15.2 15.9 16.2 15.8 15.4 1.6%

source: FAO, The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2000.

6.13 Although salmonids constitute a small amount (approximately 1.4 per cent) of total fish production, the trends toward salmon aquaculture are even more pronounced. Wild salmon production stayed

17 Smil, Vaclav, 2000. Feeding the World: A Challenge for the Twenty-First Century. Cambidge MA: MIT Press; FAO, The State of World Fisheries and Agriculture 2000. www.fao.org.

9

essentially flat at 900,000 tonnes between 1994 and 1999, but farmed salmon production doubled during this period, from 456,000 tonnes to 895,000 tonnes. Thus, the share of total salmon coming from farms increased from 30 percent to more than 50 percent. These trends show no sign of abating in the near term.18 FAO projects continued growth of aquaculture at the rate of 4 per cent per year, and some industry observers suggest that farmed salmon output may grow significantly faster since it is a highly valued species responsive to income growth in addition to population growth.19

6.14 Genetic Vitality Option Value for Salmon Aquaculture. The salmonid aquaculture industry is relatively young and evolving rapidly. It is based largely on one species (Atlantic Salmon), and current overcapacity in the industry is imposing relentless pressure to cut costs through selective breeding and active genetic manipulation (transgenic fish). As Smil notes, “Today’s aquaculture has no greater species variety than large-scale [terrestrial] agriculture. About 10 percent of some 25,000 species of finfish are harvested by subsistence and commercial fisheries for food, but only some hundred species of fish – with 70 percent coming from fresh and brackish waters – are reared in aquacultures. Narrow genetic basis is a challenge to aquaculture: the practice is dominated by a handful of freshwater herbivores and the contribution from marine species rests on even fewer carnivores.”20 Concern about maintaining the genetic vitality of captive broodstocks is evidenced by stories of genetic inadequacy as a constraint on industry expansion21 and a growing literature on technical maneuvers for preserving founder-generation diversity in successor generations.22 Although current laws and policies generally prevent the direct infusion of genetic material from one salmonid species (or stock) into another, there is little doubt that the salmonid aquaculture industry will find it advantageous in the long run to have the option to infuse captive broodstocks with fresh genetic material.23 For example, a recent news report cites representatives from the Arctic Char aquaculture industry as feeling that “it would be useful to obtain fresh samples from the wild to have a broader base for genetic selection.”24

6.15 Since large-scale salmonid aquaculture is a profitable private sector enterprise, one might ask why market forces cannot be relied upon to ensure the preservation of salmonid diversity for these genetic vitality option values. There are three principal reasons. First, salmon farming is not currently conducted in Russia on a significant scale. Therefore, there is no incentive for Russia to act on behalf of its citizens to secure the long-term future of the industry (as there might be in Norway). Second, genetic technology is rapidly evolving, along with the surrounding constellation of laws, policies, and customs controlling property rights to all forms of genetic resources. When property rights and technologies are highly uncertain, private actors cannot invest in the resources. Third, it is highly unlikely that Russian authorities or potential first purchasers could fully exclude other potential users of Kamchatka’s genetic salmonid diversity from access to the resource. Knowing this, no individual firm will enter into a financially significant contract to purchase options for use of genetic resources. Thus, while there is some long-term potential for the assembly of a consortium of private interests to invest in the retention of biodiversity in Kamchatka, this type of collective action cannot be expected from market forces alone.

6.16 Genetic Insurance for Wild Salmon Runs. These global genetic insurance values arise from Kamchatka’s large amount of intraspecific genetic diversity that could prove crucial to the repopulation

18 Kontali Analyse A.S. Monthly Salmon Report, August 2001.19 Danske Securities, personal communication with authors, September 2001.20 Smil, Feeding the World, pp. 176-177.21 “Limited gene pool hinders charr industry,” Intrafish 7/25/2001. www.intrafish.com22 Doyle, Roger, Ricardo Perez-Enriquez, Motohiro Takagi, and Nobuhiko Taniguchi, forthcoming. “Selective recovery of founder genetic diversity in aquaculturalbroodstocks and captive, endangered fish populations.” Genetica (forthcoming); Tringali, M.D. and T.M. Bert, 1998. “Risk to genetic effective population size should be an important consideration in fish stock-enhancement programs.” Bulletin of Marine Science 62 (2): 641-659.23 Roger Doyle, Genetic Computation Ltd, personal communication 24 October 2001.24 “Limited gene pool hinders charr industry,” Intrafish 7/25/2001. www.intrafish.com

10

of other salmonid ecoregions after future environmental shocks from climate change or other sources. For example, recent research strongly suggests that much of the variability in Alaska’s salmon runs over the past 300 years is due to climate fluctuations.25 In the future, the potential acceleration of such climate shocks due to greenhouse gas forcing could abruptly destroy the viability of large salmonid populations previously adapted to that region. Salmonid stocks from Kamchatka could easily provide the best option for rebuilding these depleted runs. Just as Russia benefits from the insurance value of the vast genetic diversity within North American salmonid populations, the rest of the world benefits from the protection of similar resources in Kamchatka.

6.17 Genetic Insurance in the Global Fisheries Portfolio. Finally, it is important to emphasize the contribution of large biodiversity resources to a portfolio approach to global fisheries and aquaculture management. We are just beginning to learn about potential negative interactions between wild salmon stocks, cultured (hatchery) stocks, and captive (or escaped) broodstocks.26 As a result, numerous governments and multilateral organizations such as FAO are emphasizing the use of the Precautionary Principle in global fisheries management. Hilborn27 and colleagues stress the importance of risk management using a portfolio of resources and policy approaches. A significant fund of genetic salmonid diversity, preserved in vivo, is a key component of such a portfolio. It serves as a global insurance policy against overly aggressive manipulation of broodstocks for short-term productivity gains, thus allowing managers and policymakers additional freedom of short-term action while still managing long-term risks consistent with the precautionary principle.28

6.18 Existence Value. The project sites will preserve an important repository of globally important flora and fauna, including the rare and endangered species at risk in other parts of Russia and the world. It is well known that the existence, or passive use, values of these species are nontrivial on a per capita basis, at least to people of reasonably high income and education.29 Both the population and income per capita of the developed economies outside of Russia far exceed the levels within. Thus, simple arithmetic leads to the inexorable conclusions that 1) there is a large total existence value associated with Kamchatka’s overall biodiversity and 2) the vast majority of that value accrues to people outside Russia who cannot be made to pay directly for it. The significant global existence value arises from nontrivial per capita existence values multiplied by the hundreds of millions of developed country citizens who hold these values and live outside of Russia.

6.19 Importance of Varying Discount Rates. Preservation of salmonid biodiversity provides a stream of future benefits. The total economic value, also known as the net present value, of those future benefits depends upon the discount rate used to convert the stream of benefits to a single dollar value. The discounting process is important to decisionmaking because the stream of future and/or uncertain benefits must often be compared to current and certain costs. It is likely that the relevant discount rate for Russia

25 B.P. Finney, et. al, 2000. “Impacts of Climate Change and Fishing on Pacific Salmon Abundance Over the Past 300 Years,” Science 290:795-799 (October 27).26 See, eg, Youngston, A.F., and E. Verspoor, 1998. “Interactions between wild and introduced Atlantic Salmon.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 55(supplement 1): 153-160.27 Hilborn, Ray, J.J. Maguire, A.M. Parma, and A.A. Rosenberg., 2001. “The Precautionary Approach and risk management: can they increase the probability of success in fishery management?” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 58: 99-107.28 As stated in Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the precautionary principle says that, "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."29 See, e.g., Pearce, 1993. Economic Values and the Natural World. Cambridge MA, USA: MIT Press. Also see the discussion and examples on the Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory. (Environment Canada, et. al. 1998. This database of over 2,000 empirical environmental benefits studies is available online at http://www.evri.ec.gc.ca/evri/.)

11

when calculating the present value of economic benefits which flow to Russia may be higher than the relevant discount rate for the rest of the industrialized world that should be used when calculating the present value of global benefits. There are several reasons for this:Lower levels of income in Russia probably result in a higher rate of “social impatience” as people focus on immediate needs rather than delaying their consumption for the future.There are many competing demands in Russia for investment in public and private infrastructure.There are numerous competing demands in Russia for investment in environmental protection.Political and economic risk in Russia adds a risk premium to the marginal rate at which Russia may borrow funds on world capital markets.The global benefits of salmonid diversity conservation will accrue for many years into the future, and with some uncertainty. People in the industrial high-income countries place a relatively high value on such future and/or uncertain benefits because these people have a relatively low rate of “time preference” that is reflected in low market interest rates. In technical terms, at the international level, the net present value of future global benefits from diversity preservation is relatively high because the industrialized high-income countries have low economic discount rates. In Russia, the net present value of future global benefits is relatively low.

6.20 Difference Between Sustainable Development Baseline and Full Project Alternative. It is important to consider whether targeted and incremental GEF support is necessary in order to secure the above-mentioned global benefits, or whether the benefits can reasonably be expected as a byproduct of shifting to a more sustainable commercial fishery. The shift to a sustainable commercial fisheries regime will require greater scientific understanding, more careful management to preserve high numbers of salmonids, and the effective control of poaching. All of these actions will contribute to increased biodiversity. However, there are several reasons why the Sustainable Development Baseline (SDB) outcome is unlikely to secure the major global biodiversity benefits enumerated above. First, the SDB maintains commercially valuable species, not all species. Second, management under the SDB is not directly concerned with genetic diversity, except to the extent necessary to maintain overall numbers of fish. Third, the SDB tolerates bycatch of commercially unimportant species or stocks, regardless of their diversity values. Fourth, the SDB is likely to tolerate higher levels of genetic stress and habitat crowding from hatchery fish as part of an overall effort to maximize production. Fifth, Russia is not a significant producer of farmed salmon, and therefore has no current stake in the industry on behalf of its citizens.

6.21 For all of these reasons much, if not most, of the incremental global diversity benefits are unlikely to be generated as a byproduct of the Sustainable Development Baseline. Thus, even under the SDB Russia would be faced with assuming all of the costs of diversity conservation but could expect to capture only a small portion of the net benefits. This situation clearly discourages management for maximum diversity.

6.22 Summary. Over the long term, salmonid diversity conservation is likely to provide a mix of global and domestic benefits. The global benefits include the protection of alpha and beta biodiversity at the species, stock, and genetic levels. This diversity in turn generates direct use, indirect use (option and insurance) and passive use (existence) values. Some of the direct use value and much if not most of the scientific, genetic vitality, genetic insurance, and existence values will accrue to large populations of people outside Russia. These values are unlikely to be generated as a byproduct of the sustainable development baseline because it is production-oriented and the values cannot be captured by Russia through market transactions. Russia therefore has little or no incentive to incur the incremental costs necessary to generate the benefits. Without external support from a source such as GEF, acting on behalf of the global population, these benefits are likely to be forfeited.

6.23 Incremental Cost Matrix. The matrix that follows shows how funds will be used to carry out the project, and the benefits resulting from each activity. Both costs and benefits are broken down according

12

to benefit type. Costs incurred under the current programmatic baseline and the sustainable development baseline are shown as non-incremental. The right side of the table shows costs and benefits that are incremental to the production-oriented SDB. Within this category, GEF-supported costs are shown separately from other sources of incremental funding.

13

Incremental Cost Matrix for Phase I and Phase II:

Note: Shaded area indicates the GEF Project “Alternative” to the Baseline.

Component

Benefit

Cost (in millions US$)Non-Incremental IncrementalBaseline Sustainable Development

Baseline Co-financingGEF Financing Incremental Co-financing

New Salmonid Diversity Management Approach

KRV/KOIR: 4.860 m KNIRO 2.615 mKO 0.013 mKAO 0.055 m

Total = US$7.543 m

KRV: 2.280 mKNRO: 2.156 m

Total: US$ 4.436 m

Phase I, GEF: 0.830 mPhase II, GEF:0.390 m

Total: US$ 1.220 m

KRV: 2.003 mWSC: 1.195 mMGU: 0.088 mKO: 0.120 m

Total: US$ 3.406 m

Domestic Benefits Sustained commercial production of salmonid fishery is purpose of salmonid fishery management approach. Little emphasis on or understanding of integrating diversity conservation into this production-oriented baseline.

Strengthened enforcement of anti-poaching of commercial species improves sustainability of commercial fishery.

New understanding of diversity value and long-term sustainability directs investment toward foreclosing fishery degradation and toward other actions to preserve natural capital.

Global Benefits Lack of data, monitoring, evaluation and planning operations for integrated diversity conservation, hampers effective

By-catch and poaching of non-commercial salmonid species reduced.

Re-oriented commercial fishery practices incorporate diversity management criteria. Information on species, life-history and genetic diversity is collected, interpreted and applied to commercial fishery management, resulting in informed adaptive diversity-oriented management and

15

Component

Benefit

Cost (in millions US$)Non-Incremental IncrementalBaseline Sustainable Development

Baseline Co-financingGEF Financing Incremental Co-financing

adaptation of conservation and development efforts to abate threats to global environmental values.

resource allocation in four representative river ecosystems. New policy prescriptions, decision making tools and methods advance integrated ecosystem management objectives and create a foundation for sustaining management over time.

River Ecosystem Sites Conserved

KRV/KOIR: 0.471 mKNRO: 0.030 mKO: 0.080 mKAO: 0.020 m

Total = 0.601 m

NA Phase I, GEF: 1.205 m

Phase II, GEF:0.577 m

Total: 1.775 m

KVR/KNRO: 0.486 mMNR: 0.100 mKAO: 0.100 mWSC: 0.353 mNSF: 2.600 mMGU: 0.250 mTotal: US$ 3.769 m

Domestic Benefits Lack of effective protection of priority river ecosystems threatens the loss of direct use values from wild salmonid-based ecotourism, harvesting, and future-use values of wild salmonid gene pools.

NA Replicable models of community participation in river ecosystem management are tested and adapted. New locally based decision making instruments for watershed management are developed.Consumptive use benefits are created from the carefully regulated harvest of wild salmonids in protected watersheds. Future use values derived from recreational use and option values for natural genetic diversity are protected.

Global Benefits Inadequately protected salmonid river ecosystems threatens the gradual decay of refugia needed to maintain globally

NA Effectively conserved and managed salmonid river ecosystems provide a genetic insurance fund that preserves options for world aquaculture to augment the genetic vitality of captive broodstocks and for future worldwide conservation efforts by helping other

16

Component

Benefit

Cost (in millions US$)Non-Incremental IncrementalBaseline Sustainable Development

Baseline Co-financingGEF Financing Incremental Co-financing

significant salmonid species, life-history and genetic diversity important for aquaculture. Inadequate community participation, site-based information and monitoring operations for river ecosystem management hamper prioritization, and effective adaptation of conservation and development efforts to abate threats to global environmental values.

salmonid ecoregions overcome future environmental shocks. Institutional arrangements for integrated river ecosystem management are strengthened.

Full global extent of existence and option values for preservation of salmonid-based aquatic and riparian ecosystem is realized, including preservation of riparian and terrestrial species dependent on nutrient transport by salmonids.

Information Sharing, Preservation of Indigenous Knowledge & Awareness Raising

KRV/KNRO: 0.059 mKO: 0.098 mKAO: 0.021 mRockefeller Fndtn:

0.100 m

Total = US$ 0.278 m

NA Phase I: GEF: 0.620 mPhase II: GEF 0.307 m

Total: US$ 0.927

KO: 0.094 m KVR: 0.059 m

Total: 0.153 m

Domestic Benefit Inadequate information sharing mechanisms reduce effectiveness of fishery management program; cultural and socio-

NA Sustainability of overall salmonid fishery is improved.

17

Component

Benefit

Cost (in millions US$)Non-Incremental IncrementalBaseline Sustainable Development

Baseline Co-financingGEF Financing Incremental Co-financing

economic pressures worsen the loss of indigenous knowledge hamper self-help efforts to improve livelihoods.

Global Benefit Information sharing and awareness raising are inadequate to the task. Social, economic and demographic changes overwhelm indigenous conservation practices and lead to ecosystem fragmentation and gradual loss of biological diversity.

NA Conservation of global biodiversity values (salmonid diversity and indigenous knowledge) is strengthened by dynamic flow of information, maintenance of traditional conservation practices, and more informed constituency.

Stakeholders Developing Alternative Livelihoods:

KRV/KNRO: 0.078 mKO: 0.230 mKAO 0.080 m

Total = US$ 0.388 m

KO/KAO 0.259 mUNDP/CIDA: 0.300 mWSC: 2.577 mKV/KOIR 0.091 m

Total: 3.227 m

Phase I, GEF: 0.200 mPhase II, GEF:0.093 m

Total: US$0.293 m

NA

Domestic Benefit Financial, policy and knowledge-related barriers prevent people from breaking out of the cycle of environmental degradation

People overcome financial, policy and knowledge-related barriers and successfully develop new, sustainable livelihoods.

None NA

18

Component

Benefit

Cost (in millions US$)Non-Incremental IncrementalBaseline Sustainable Development

Baseline Co-financingGEF Financing Incremental Co-financing

and increasing poverty.

Global Benefits People are empowered to systematically integrate ecologically benign, sustainable livelihood systems into the productive systems, thus eliminating the root causes of biodiversity degradation of vital river ecosystem processes.

N/A Demonstration of biologically, social, and economically viable means of generating income for people and maintaining salmonid diversity and watershed ecosystem integrity. Transferable lessons, techniques, and policies can be applied to other areas facing similar threats to biodiversity.

Wild Salmonid Diversity Conservation Fund

KRV: 0.000 m

Total: US$ 0.000 m

NA Phase I, GEF: 0.145 mPhase II, GEF:0.380 m

Total: US$ 0.525 m

WSC: 2.950 m

Total: US$ 2.950 m

Domestic Benefits No long-term funding to develop Russian expertise in salmonid diversity management.

NA Long-term funding develops Russian expertise in salmonid diversity management.

Global Benefits Wild salmonid diversity values decline over the long-term.

NA Long-term sustainable funding supports ongoing conservation of global salmonid diversity values important to aquaculture in priority aquatic ecosystems.

19

Component

Benefit

Cost (in millions US$)Non-Incremental IncrementalBaseline Sustainable Development

Baseline Co-financingGEF Financing Incremental Co-financing

20

Totals

Baseline US$ 8,801,000

GEF Project Alternative (not including the baseline)

US$ 23,277,500

SD Baseline Co-financing

US$ 7,663,000

GEF financed Incremental Costs

Phase I: 3,000,000Phase II: 1,747,000Total: US$ 4,747,000

Co-financed Incremental Costs

US$ 10,418,000

Block A financing

Block B Project Preparation FinancingTotal

GEF FinancingCo-financing

GEF FinancingCo-financing:

US$ 22,000US$ 10,000

US$ 287,000US$ 207,500

US$ 526,500

Grand Total US$ 32,605,000

21

Annex II: Logical Framework

PROJECT VERIFIABLE SUCCESS INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION

RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Goal: The long term health of Kamchatka’s salmonid genetic and life history diversity and river ecosystem integrity.

1. Surveys in year 6 show genetic and life history diversity levels are maintained. 2. Spawning populations of salmonid species in priority areas remain at levels that insure species and ecosystem health.Monitoring of four sites in year 6 indicates that their ecological integrity and biodiversity remains intact.

Biannual biological surveys. Biannual biological surveysMonitoring records/Evaluation results.

Continued GoR/RG support for salmonid conservationConservation of salmonid habitats Natural factors and man-made disasters, (e.g. disease and/or overfishing at-sea) do not harm anadromous population status by species.

Purpose: Government agencies, indigenous peoples, and local communities are applying new-found capacity, livelihood options, and knowledge to the conservation and sustainable use of salmonid diversity in four river sites.

Phase I: Escapement goals for each species in each project site that insure species and ecosystem health have been established in project site areas. Fishery and economic policy is strengthened to support diversity and ecotourism development/. Diversity management principles and criteria are developed, proposed, and approved.Local community capacity for partnerships is strengthened. Threats are being reduced; preventive orientation to conservation activities established. Local stakeholder capacity to develop alternative livelihoods being strengthened.

Monitoring resultsReport of FFHC;GG; GoK policy documents Fishery management records/interviews.Field visits; Interviews w/emerging local leaders.Monitoring results & policy papers. Business training surveys.Review of education material/ School visits/ Test resultsReview of knowledge sources/ Interviews with indigenous representatives.

Biodiversity conservation will continue to be a government priority. RYBVOD will continue to support diversity management.Pollution will not become a problem for salmonid sites

22

Education programs/materials developed.Indigenous people begin to record knowledge and develop education programs.

Phase II: Escapement goals for each species in each project site have been met. Kamchatka policies in year 6 state that salmonid diversity conservation and ecosystem health are the highest management priority in project sites and allow use of fixed-wing aircraft. Diversity principles and criteria are adopted and applied by Kamchatka fish management agencies. At least 8 local communities involved in salmonid diversity management partnerships in the four project sites by the end of the project.Threats to salmon and ecosystem health have been eliminated or reduced.Former poachers successfully pursuing alternative livelihood options.2,000 school children having participated in field learning trips to river sites. Indigenous knowledge being preserved and maintained through traditional forms of mapping, documentation, art forms and education.

Output 1: Salmonid fishery managers develop and apply new salmonid diversity

Phase IComplete inventory of freshwater and riparian biological diversity and habitat type, including aquatic invertebrates and salmonid genetic and

Data and information in database. Field reports. Program description/ field

GoR priorities may change preventing progress from being made on salmonid diversity conservation.

23

conservation approach. life history diversity. Sustainable research and monitoring program developed and implemented by end of year 2. Monitoring program is capable of, on a biannual basis, detecting changes to the diversity baseline.New training materials prepared by 2002Diversity conservation policies developed and approved and applied by year 3; Guidelines for integrating applicable salmonid diversity conservation objectives into commercial fishery operations finished by year 3. Escapement goals set for each river site that enable species health and ecosystem health by year 3. Guidelines for public participation in diversity-management approved by end of year 3.Poaching prevention efforts for commercial salmonid species are increased by 30%.

Phase IIAdaptive management decisions taken and measures implemented semi-annually based upon monitoring and research results. River-specific escapement goals are met by KVR for each site riverEstablished salmonid diversity research, monitoring, and management linkages with other Pacific basin stakeholder countries.Salmonid conservation requirements integrated into existing fisheries law by year 5.Best practice approaches to salmonid

resultsMonitoring program analysisMaterials broadly availablePolicy documents; Evaluation of expert abilities.Published & approved guidelines; Conclusion of independent scientific review committeeThe guidelines broadly availableEnforcement patrol records; Interviews/ field visits.Interviews with RYBVOD and NIRO officials.Conclusion of independent scientific review committee. Signed international cooperative agreements w/partner institutions in other Pacific basin countries Best practice documents. Legal proceedings to revise lawSurvey and monitoring results

Institutional walls blocking cross-sector collaboration can be overcome.Naturally occurring conditions could alter baseline level of salmonid diversity.

24

conservation and sustainable use developed by end of year 5 as a product of learning process.Baseline level of salmonid diversity is conserved and/or remains unchanged in four sites.

Output 2: River ecosystem integrity is conserved in four sites using a variety of conservation tools.

Phase IBaseline river ecosystem quality described and quantified and utilized in project sites by year 2.Established community-based management approach in river sites, including mechanisms for community partnership by end of year 2. Salmonid river ecosystem conservation management regimes established in four priority sites. Spawning grounds in the Bolshaya, watershed-level PAs in K-K & U-K; community management area in Sop. Targeted research and monitoring infrastructure established.Poaching of non-commercial salmonid species significantly reduced by end of year 3.

Phase IINo significant deterioration in water quality beyond year 4. Staff applying newly acquired science and methodological knowledge. Staffing arrangements for conservation areas are established by Government and staff assigned to each river system by end of year 4.

Survey and water quality results;Policy documents/Interviews; Field Visits.Stakeholder agreements Management plan documents; local riverkeeper reports, local resource user committee minutes.Field visits; Mid-term evaluationProject reports; mid-term evaluation.Monitoring measurements of water quality, invertebrate populations, field visits.Training evaluation B & A.Staff records; field visits

Regional/national scientific institutions maintain their technical capacity.Funding for additional staff will be made available by GoR and regional Governments. Communities support, collaborate with the project, and government, collaborates with local communities.

Output 3: Information Phase I Survey of awareness levels NGOs will maintain

25

sharing, preservation of indigenous peoples’ knowledge, and awareness raising build constituencies for salmon diversity conservation in four river sites.

Information materials on threats to salmonid diversity produced as necessary from year 2.River keepers hired, trained for each project site.Designs for interpretation/visitor center and displays produced by year 2.Components on salmonid diversity, ecology and sustainable use developed for inclusion in the curricula of 20 local schools by year 3. Regular field visits by local school groups to local sites organized regularly from year 2.Studies of salmonid ecology undertaken by school and university students from year 3.

Phase II. Indigenous people are maintaining oral histories/ community knowledge, innovation, and traditions related to biodiversity in new, sustainable ways. Revival of traditional dance & song as they relate to the expressive knowledge of indigenous people’s relationship to the diversity of life. The gap between scientific knowledge and traditional knowledge is bridged.Experts from around the world attend salmonid conservation conference in Kamchatka in year 5. Experts from around the world participate in salmonid diversity research in Kamchatka.

before and after. Review of materials Minutes from meetings; records of training sessions; Review of actual materials Project recordsProject recordsCommunity historical records. Written descriptions; Anthropological evaluationDance show and interpretation.Interviews/records of round table discussions/ revised management methods. Published papers incorporating traditional & scientific knowledge.International press releases; memoranda of understandingArticles in peer-reviewed journals. Research program reports.

support for outreach and education objectives.Popular media will remain willing and able to implement a media campaign.Stakeholders willing to share information.

Output 4: Stakeholders successfully develop

Phase I.Local communities pursuing sustainable

Project field records; Field visits; interviews with local

Targeted levels of funding will be realized

26

alternative livelihoods in river site areas.

livelihood options (e.g. accessing micro-credit & business training) by end year 3. Eco-tourism demonstration on the Sopochnaya and U-K rivers actively involve 35% of the stakeholders establishing routes, modest infrastructure, trained guides and service people.

Phase IIFinancial feedback mechanisms developed to enable tourism activities to support management and conservation work. Stakeholders in more than half local communities engaged in self-help training program; income levels rising in two site areas by end of year 5. Effective cross-cutting lessons learned program involving stakeholders from all relevant sectors.

people; Progress reports.Regulations promulgated; ToR for committees; Cmte meeting notes. Written guidelines;Description of feedback mechanism and financial results;Training manual/schedule; knowledge survey B/A; economic dataLessons learned docs; Participants lists; Survey of knowledge before & after; final evaluations;.

External factors do not inhibit the development of tourism in site areas.Local residents are willing to change resource use practices given certain benefits.

Output 5: Sustainable financing for salmonid conservation

Phase ISalmonid Diversity Conservation Fund legally established by end of year 3. Promotional material produced Preliminary commitment of US $1.5 million.

Phase IIBridging Fund capitalized to US$ 3 million

Fund admin guidelines; Legal program description; Report and related documentation on studyCollection of materials Letters of commitment/ Project reportsDeposit records/Project reports

GoR/RG support for an autonomous trust fund will be maintained. Momentum to capitalize this trust fund will be maintained.

27

Activities:

Output 1: SALMONID FISHERY STEWARDS GENERATE AND APPLY NEW DIVERSITY CONSERVATION APPROACH IN FOUR RIVER SITES

Phase I Activities (Year 1-4) Phase II Activities (Year 5-7)

Activity 1.1: Establish and orient project teamRecruit project staff, Establish Steering Committee, orient project staff, and familiarize team with project Log Frame and expected results.

Review staff capabilities and successes and revise ToRRevise and reinforce staff capabilities for work at site level.

Activity 1.2 Conduct comprehensive, multi-year biological inventories and assessments of each site

Complete database for each site to store and utilize information gathered.

Activity 1.3: Develop targeted research program & begin in two site areas by year 2 to determine salmonid pop. structure, life history diversity, etc.

Continue this research building on Phase I.

Activity 1.4: Establish Independent Scientific Committee to guide the development of salmonid diversity conservation approach.

Council continues to meet bi-annually.

Activity 1.5: Develop and apply diversity management principles to baseline fishery management policy in two sites (one in KO and one in KAO).

Review diversity management approach as defined in Phase I & determine how to refine and improve and apply to remaining two sites.

Activity 1.6. Develop guidelines for the integration of salmonid diversity conservation objectives into commercial salmonid fishery operations.Salmonid conservation requirements integrated into existing KO/KAO fishery law by end of year four;Develop and approve diversity-management public participation guidelines;

Policy experts’ apply new policy tools to salmonid diversity conservation;

Activity 1.7: Re-orient commercial fishery practices by Re-orient commercial fishery practices by integrating escapement

28

integrating escapement goals and other diversity objectives in two of the four sites.

goals and other diversity objectives for remaining two sites.

Activity 1.8: Train fishery managers in salmonid diversity conservation Assess training needs in KamchatRYBVOD and KamchatNIRO;Prepare new training materials and curriculum based on needs assessment;

Identify and forge linkages with innovative programs in the United States and CanadaCoordinate study tours to other diversity conservation initiatives.

Activity 1.9: Develop new salmonid diversity conservation policies. Prepare proposal for improvement of and subsequent adoption of the draft Federal Law on Fisheries and Water Biological Resources and Law; Prepare proposal for improvement of and subsequent adoption of the draft Federal Law on Wildlife;Prepare legal brief recommending the protection of spawning beds;Prepare draft law for consideration by KO and KAO Council of Deputies setting penalties for breaking rules of salmonid resource protection.

Legislation passed for enabling community management and use of salmonid resources;

Activity 1.10: Develop and implement salmonid diversity research and monitoring program;

Implement incremental monitoring program Adaptive management decisions taken and measures implemented bi-annually, based upon the monitoring and research results.

Activity 1.11: Strengthen anti-poaching efforts and improve enforcement results in two of the four site areas

Output 2: STAKEHOLDERS MAINTAIN SALMONID DIVERSITY AND RIVER ECOSYSTEM INTEGRITY IN FOUR RIVER SITES BY APPLYING A RANGE OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION TOOLS

Phase I Phase IIActivity 2.1: Consult with stakeholder groups in each site area

29

regarding best, most appropriate form of management protection to be applied in each site.

Activity 2.2: Conserve river ecosystem integrity in all four sites by establishing different conservation management regimes in each, from a spawning ground on the Bolshaya to a watershed-scale refuge on the Kol/Kekhta).

Activity 2.3 Establish local user committees and develop participatory management plans for three conservation areas by end of 2003. Identify, hire, and train local riverkeepersDevelop “state of the river” reports for each of the site rivers beginning in year 3 and continuing on an annual basis thereafter.

Consolidate community management approach in the two sites and develop and implement approach in third and fourth. Adapt conservation approaches in response to emerging issues and challenges.

Activity 2.4: Establish conservation area management and research infrastructure in two of the four sites Site staffing plans established.

Establish conservation area infrastructure in two remaining sites.

Activity 2.5: Research on salmonid riverine ecological structure and function provides scientific underpinning to aquatic ecosystem management.

Ongoing research on salmonid riverine ecological structure and function

Activity 2.6: Develop & implement species and habitat conservation management plans with local communities in two of the site areas.

Develop & implement species and habitat management plans in two remaining site areas.

Activity 2.7: Provide training to staff and community partners in conservation biological science and methodological knowledge in their salmonid diversity management work.

Evaluate staff and community partner capabilities and adapt training program accordingly.

Activity 2.8: Strengthen anti-poaching enforcement for non-commercial species of salmonids in three site areas. Develop community-based enforcement regimes.

Consolidate this anti-poaching approach with local community support and involvement.

30

Activity 2.9: Strengthen enforcement of commercial salmonid fishery regulations in site areas

Continue increased baseline support of anti-poaching efforts in site areas.

Activity 2.10: Develop environmental management plan for K-K and Bolshaya to prevent negative impacts from road and pipeline construction.

Review effect of plan on site area work and recommend follow-up action.

Output 3: INFORMATION IS SHARED WIDELY, STAKEHOLDERS BUILD CONSTITUENCIES FOR SALMONID DIVERSITY CONSERVATION & INDIGENOUS PEOPLE PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN THEIR KNOWLEDGE

Phase I Phase IIActivity 3.1: Consult with indigenous communities in site areas as part of local community management consultations under Output 2, and develop program for the preservation and maintenance of indigenous knowledge of salmonid diversity and river ecosystems.

Review successes and failures, analyze the reasons why, and strengthen the program implementation during phase II.

Activity 3.2: Develop community-level information management in project sites. Indigenous people conduct resource assessments in cooperation with other work and map this information in a form that can be used by all.

Evaluate program’s strengths and weaknesses, adapt and improve program in terms of its effectiveness and most importantly in terms of its sustainability.

Activity 3.3: Consult with indigenous representatives and develop program for preserving and maintaining traditional art forms w/respect to salmonid diversity and river ecosystems. Appropriate and accessible databases will be established by and for indigenous people in project site areas.

Evaluate program’s strengths and weaknesses, adapt and improve program in terms of its effectiveness and most importantly in terms of its sustainability.

Activity 3.4: Support targeted research into the cultural links of salmonid diversity in project sites and nurture a dialogue between the scientific knowledge of Russian scientists and the practical

Publish papers incorporating both traditional and newly acquired scientific insights into salmonid diversity and ecosystem dynamics.

31

knowledge of native people.

Activity 3.5: Cultivate and establish international linkages among academic, governmental and NGO institutions to further wild fish management.

Consolidate linkages among academic, governmental and NGO organizations in the form of memoranda of understanding, cooperation.Organize Pacific Basin Conference on salmonid diversity management in 2004 with field trips to share lessons learned.

Activity 3.6: Develop salmonid diversity education program.Develop curriculum materials for elementary, middle, high school levels. Designs for interpretation/visitor center and displays produced by 03/2002Field visits by local school groups to nearby sites organized regularly for schoolchildren from 06/2003

Field guide for salmonid river ecosystems developed Special studies of salmonid ecology undertaken by secondary school and university students from 06/2005Components on salmonid diversity, ecology, and sustainable-use developed for inclusion in the curricula of local schools by 06/2005

Activity 3.7: Develop and publish “Best Practices” for salmonid diversity conservation and management through

Output 4: STAKEHOLDERS SUCCESSFULLY APPLY ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS IN RIVER SITE AREAS.

Phase I Phase IIActivity 4.1 Alternative livelihood opportunities w/respect to sport fishing defined in consultation with local communities and support program developed.

Local people employed in sport fishing tourism activities.

Activity 4.2 Establish training program and micro-credit support facility.

Continue ongoing training of local people.

Activity 4.3 Establish eco-tourism demonstration business in two priority sites.

Establish eco-tourism demonstration business in third priority site and consolidate programs in other two sites.

Activity 4.4 Develop financial feedback mechanisms for support Apply financial feedback mechanisms in a way that is

32

of conservation activities complementary to the wild salmonid trust fund.

Output 5: SALMONID DIVERSITY CONSERVATION FUND (SDCF) SUPPORT SALMONID DIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN KAMCHATKA

Activity 5.1 Hold consultations on development of SDCF’s bridging and revolving fund mechanisms;

Activity 5.2. Design SDCF’s structure and get endorsement of structure by end of year three.

Finalize design of revolving fund mechanism by end of year 6.

Activity 5.3 Develop promotional materials for trust fund in year three.

Implement fund-raising campaign

Activity 5.4 Capitalize Bridging Fund in year three with at least 1.5 million – all co-financing.

Negotiate terms of trust fund capitalization with funders/investors.Fully capitalize Briding Fund by end of year five at the level of US$3 million, including US$320,000 from GEF.

33

Annex III: Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel Review

“Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wild Salmonid Biological Diversity in Russia¹s Kamchatka Peninsula”

& Response to Review

Reviewer: Carl Safina, Ph.D.Vice President for Marine ConservationNational Audubon Society306 South Bay AvenueIslip, NY 11751 USA(Carlsafina@erols.com)

Overall Impression: This appears to be a very well thought-out project, devised by knowledgeable and experienced people. I will respond directly to various issues immediately below, then provide other thoughts about the proposal.

Key issuesScientific and technical soundness: This project appears to fully incorporate current and recent understanding of salmonid biodiversity issues.

Identification of the global environmental benefits and/or drawbacks of the project. The project rightly asserts that the fish under consideration are locally abundant but globally very scarce, and facing major threats throughout most of their global range.

Regional context: I believe that if it is successful, this work will be exceedingly valuable in future decades, both regionally and globally.

Replicability of the project (added value for the global environment beyond the project itself): The approach could be universal, but few regions offer such opportunity to conserve before the situation gets bad.

Sustainability of the project: This project has an interesting built in mechanism for perpetuating self-funding.

Secondary issues

Other beneficial or damaging environmental effects: Conservation of the target species of fishes will greatly aid conservation of their predators, as well as the forests which are in large part nourished by the up-river and out-of-the-river influx of concentrated marine nutrients in the bodies of the fishes.

Degree of involvement of stakeholders in the project: Very heavy stakeholder involvement is built in.

Capacity-building aspects. The project provides innovative training.

34

Innovativeness of the project. I am unaware of anything else so comprehensive and minutely thought-out in any aquatic system.

Further reviewer comments:

I remained a bit confused about who, exactly, is requesting the funds and who wrote the proposal. The proposal seems to reflect American sensibilities (and it appears actually to have been written in Canada), yet the State Fisheries Committee of the Russian Federation is listed as “executing agency.” Does that mean they are the prospective grantee? It doesn¹t seem really clear who/what organization is requesting/receiving the funds. This made it more difficult to evaluate the likelihood that the fund recipient would have enough authority, or, on the other hand, enough latitude, to accomplish the goals.

I see nothing indicating levels of staffing, despite enormously ambitious goals. Some clarification about who will carry out the work, and the staffing levels, as well as non-staffing expenses would help.

Having said that, the goals of intra-specific biodiversity conservation, and recognition of the value of salmon across the spectrum ranging from food for people to delivery mechanisms for concentrated ocean nutrients to upper watersheds and surrounding forests, and the approach using different land-use designations and different stakeholder groupings in each site, are all good. All these considerations are progressive, innovative, and recognize all the values currently captured by our scientific state of knowledge and by social concerns.

The brief’s summary says, ”Empowered by this project, stakeholders will conserve globally significant salmonid biological diversity and secure aquacultural (watershed) ecosystem integrity in four river systems on Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula.” This is a very unusual and incorrect use of the word aquaculture. Aquaculture means fish farming. It should be clear that fish farming does not contribute to watershed ecosystem integrity; usually aquaculture (fish farming) significantly erodes watershed ecosystem integrity.

Summary says: “At least eleven species of salmonids are known to occur in these river systems, more than any other one place in the world. In-situ conservation is cost-effective and is actually the only known way to maintain such dynamic biological diversity. For world aquaculture, this genetic diversity preserves options to rebuild, preserve, or augment the genetic vitality of captive broodstocks.” This is all very true.

The Summary also says, “No country has ever tried to manage for salmonid biological diversity concurrent with managing for fish production.” The US has tried and has failed to conserve diversity because production is always favored.

I believe the acronym list and consequent acronyms make it difficult to wade through the alphabet soup of the subsequent text. Most acronyms should simply be spelled out. There are too many and it is too onerous to keep hem in mind or keep referring to the list, especially in reading an electronic version. The acronyms don¹t make it easier to read, they make it more difficult.

The word “harvest,” though widely used to apply to fishing, is an agricultural term that is inappropriate to indicate hunting and capture of wild animals. The word "harvest" should be replaced with words like fishing, catching, or catches.

35

From the section: Salmonid Diversity¹s Importance to Food and Aquaculture: Section 1 states, “The global benefits of conserving salmonid diversity at the species and within species levels in a world where salmon are becoming an important food source are significant. Just as agricultural ecosystems and associated wild relatives are important to the long-term health of agriculture, so too are aquacultural ecosystems and the wild diversity they harbor, important to the long-term health of aquaculture.”

The applicants shouldn’t seem so reticent to say anything about the rightness of conserving species and other levels of biological diversity based on biological, cultural, and ethical imperatives. (The sentence “It is well known that the passive use (existence) values of these species are nontrivial on a per capita basis, at least to people of reasonably high income and education,” doesn¹t get us there.) These other values do not weaken the argument, rather, they add several new dimensions of rationale for the conservation that they are proposing. Not including them, however, weakens the argument. (I note much later, in the incremental costs annex, the sentence “The global existence value arises from nontrivial per capita existence values multiplied by the hundreds of millions of developed country citizens who hold these values and live outside of Russia.” This could be highlighted earlier as more of a driving rationale, along with the material concerns that are also important.)

From the section: Environment & Biodiversity Background & Context:

Points 7 & 8: The recognition of the importance of intra-species diversity and of the importance of large runs of salmon in delivering marine nutrients far up freshwater rivers is right on target.

The earlier-noted failure to point out the cultural and ethical imperatives might have lead to the unfortunate use of the term "free-rider" in the sentence: "Furthermore, the global benefits of this project are enhanced by a significant number of free rider species and ecosystems that gain protection as a result of salmon conservation efforts. Large vertebrates that depend on salmon in Kamchatka include the world¹s largest population of brown bears (5,000-10,000 individuals), over 50% of the global population of the world's largest eagle, Steller sea eagle, and 1,800 Steller sea lions, a species that has declined 95% worldwide in the last 20 years." These are creatures dependent on salmon. They are no more "free-riders" than are people dependent on salmon. They further illustrate the salmon¹s importance. This importance would be further emphasized by highlighting the value of the dependent species, not by calling them "free-riders." This is not an egregious problem in the document¹s context because the value of maintaining "healthy" populations of predators is duly noted.

In the section Project Sites:

The mention of rapid climate change that might otherwise eliminate salmon from viable habitat is appropriate and is an important consideration in this context.

The proposal states: "The waters of the Kol/Kekhta flow over a basalt substrate and lack dissolved constituents to such a degree that it may be compared with distilled water. Biotic productivity in rivers like the K/K is different than it is, for example, in the Bolshaya, because it is tied to the input of marine nutrients derived from salmon runs.² It seems highly unlikely that the waters can simultaneously be nutrient starved and yet be receiving high concentrations of nutrients from salmon carcasses. This apparent discrepancy should be resolved.

Paragraph 26 of the brief states: "The danger of the international community not acting now is that this globally significant biological diversity important to food and aquaculture will be lost in the

36

face of these growing threats." This was the same warning given about the Columbia River, and ignoring it helped bring the disasters we have there today.

¶ 28: "Fishing gear and harvest timing results in unnecessarily high levels of rare and non-commercial salmonid species by-catch." This is similar to the situation in the Pacific Northwest.

The document says, "Public awareness of the values of salmon to Kamchatka¹s economy is quite high. Everyone is aware of the importance of salmon to the local economy. What is lacking is an awareness of the diversity of salmonid species and the importance of the intra-specific diversity among different salmon stocks." This was exactly the same situation that generally existed in the US until the 1990s. It was largely responsible for the disasters we incurred.

Is this correct?: "The only regularly published regional environmental magazine is entitled "Northern Pacific." With WWF, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, KRV and KO Administration support, 5,000 copies are printed biannually." Or is it really semi-annually (every 6 months)?

¶ 57: "There is a nascent ecotourism business in Kamchatka, and sport fishing is one of the principal attractions. This industry will continue to grow slowly, hindered by a lack of investment capital, supportive laws and policies, tourism expertise, lack of sufficient infrastructure, and the high cost of travel on the Kamchatka peninsula." Since this is the case, how much can tourism be depended on in the future, and what can realistically be done to energize ecotourism in Kamchatka?

¶ 60. It seems odd to me that it is not until here, more than halfway into the briefing document, that the plainest expression of the project¹s goals appears: “The overall objective of the proposed project is the sustained conservation of Kamchatka’s salmonid genetic and life history diversity and the maintenance of river ecosystem integrity. Upon completion of the project, Government agencies and local communities and indigenous peoples will be conserving salmonid diversity in the project’s four river sites by applying a new diversity-oriented approach, conservation tools, and sustainable livelihoods. The project will use an adaptive management approach that is designed to respond to emergent threats and orient conservation activities to threat mitigation.”

I note, importantly, that basing a strategy upon reacting to threats is a good way to ensure that threats will constantly emerge. I would like to see the strategic orientation given to how to instill in all relevant groups of people an overarching sense that securing the future of salmon diversity and abundance is paramount. If such a strategy succeeded, no threats would arise. Because no such strategy could succeed 100 percent, it seems that a 2-pronged approach is needed: avoiding threats and mitigating threats that do arise. But to "orient conservation activities to threat mitigation" is the approach that keeps the conservation enterprise behind the curve all over the world. Rather, we should orient conservation activities to threat prevention and to instilling and restoring new cultural values that recognize and cherish nature and the contribution of nature to human well-being. Many of these pieces have already been discussed in the proposal, so it is odd and a bit dismaying that in this belated articulation of the "overall objective" the orientation is so reactive.

Outputs & activities:

Output 1.1. Baseline. This is a very good first step.2. Monitoring. This is critical and usually undervalued in research.3. Re-orient management towards diversity and inter-species and nutrient goals. This is also an excellent goal, very unusual, perhaps unprecedented in practice.

37

4. The timing of current activity and future funding seems wrong in the sentence “GEF financing will support the preparation of a legal brief on the integration of salmonid diversity conservation objectives into a new draft federal fishery law currently under consideration by the Russian Duma.”

Output 2. These are all worthy activities. The state of the river report is a good way to benchmark success and maintain visibility.

Output 3. Information sharing and community building. These are very important goals, often mishandled or overlooked in many environmental projects.

Output 4. Stakeholders develop sustainable livelihoods. Few ideas can be so important fundamental, actually‹to conservation of nature in developing regions.

¶ 82. It is refreshing to see tourism as a revenue producer for conservation in a remote place, and integrated directly into conservation goals from the outset

Funding

There seems quite an arithmetic error in the sentence, “Incremental Costs: The total cost of the project (not including project preparation costs) is US$23,277,500 of which 20% will be funded by GEF, and 20% by co-financiers to cover the incremental costs of salmonid diversity conservation. The remaining 31% of the project¹s budget is also co-financed and covers the sustainable development-related costs of biodiversity conservation." That’s only 71 percent. This paragraph should also reiterate the timeframe of the project funded by the $23 million.

The sentence from ¶ 106, "This project is designed to be cost-effective" seems a bit difficult to evaluate for a conservation project that will not directly return financial value against the investment. Usually this term means that an endeavor will return a financial profit. Here, while it is true that eventually the value of the results may exceed the costs of the project, in the context of the proposal and its timeframe it is not easy to see the exact meaning of the term "cost-effective."

In ¶ 108, "Another risk is the potential for a sudden shift in governmental priorities with a change in government. The potential for this kind of risk scenario is low but the events since September 11 should reinforce how abruptly and unforeseeably government priorities can shift. I agree that stakeholder support is the best buffer against shifting government priorities.

Bridging and revolving funds seem well conceived. However, the total monies in table 1 seem a very small part of the costs listed elsewhere; I don¹t see how those table 1 totals relate to the overall totals.

The partnership with the Wild Salmon Center seems crucial, and this proposal as seen by this reviewer does not seem to provide proof or assurance that WSC is likely to raise the stated funds (I hasten to add that I have a very positive prior-acquired impression of the WSC).

What are "Surplus sport fishing revenues?"

Why is GEF the only funding source in year 7?

38

The LOGICFRAME attachment is thought out in extreme detail. However, the difference between purpose, output, and activities is not always evident; some of these seem interchangeable in terms of categorization within the proposal framework.

In the incremental cost analysis, how can it be true that "the Government has been committed to utilizing this resource wisely and has supported a strong institutional capacity to oversee this for the past 40 years," if such threats exist? Have the problem and the threats been overstated? Has the government failed? If the latter, what is different now that augurs for success? In the US, the government has indeed failed at salmon conservation and nothing leads me to see a significantly improved future. Why is Russia going to be different?

Conclusion:

Overall, this is an extremely ambitious and very well thought-out and very informed proposal.

39

Response to STAP Review by Carl Safina, Ph.D.

The reviewer’s comments are much appreciated and helped us to improve aspects of the project significantly.

The key issues and secondary issues identified and observed by the reviewer are very gratifying to the project development team after so much hard work in developing this proposal.

The following are responses to concerns and recommendations raised by the reviewer. Positive comments made by the reviewer, of which there were many, are not addressed here.

Further Reviewer Comments:

The Russian Government’s State Fisheries Committee and Kamchatrybvod are requesting the funds, as indicated on the cover page of the document. This could be made more clear in the format/presentation of GEF projects.

The project brief covers implementation arrangements in paragraphs 96-101. Specific staffing levels are not described because project activities will be supported in large part by KamchatRYBVOD’s 580 staff positions, as well as those of KamchatkNIRO, Wild Salmon Center and other partners.

Comment acknowledged. (Indicates recognition of supportive statement or comment)

The use of the term aquaculture in this circumstance was meant to emphasize the point that aquatic and marine ecosystems are of great importance to future world food supply. But, to avoid this kind of confusion, this has been changed.

Comment acknowledged.

Comment acknowledged. The U.S. has tried, but not “proactively” as is stated in the project summary.

Acronyms help to reduce the length of these proposals when there are so many long-named organizations.

An excellent point on harvesting. This wording has been changed throughout the proposal to “fishing” or “catching” or “catch.”

The emphasis in this proposal is on biodiversity important to agriculture. Biodiversity is also important for other reasons and these are acknowledged in the proposal (as acknowledged by the reviewer). The reason they are not emphasized is because agrobiodiversity is the emphasis here.

Same as “I.”

Comment acknowledged.

Comment acknowledged as is the reviewer’s. “Free-rider” is simply a term used to imply that these species are important and will benefit and will be conserved, but they are not being used to justify the proposal, per say.

Comment acknowledged.

40

The discrepancy between nutrient starved waters and waters receiving high inputs of marine nutrients from salmon can be explained this way. The waters themselves of the Kol/Kekhta River receive very little nutrients from organic detritus, and are therefore, in the absence of salmon lifecycle, nutrient starved.

Comment acknowledged.

Comment acknowledged.

Comment acknowledged.

The term “bi-annually” was misapplied. “Semi-annually” is the correct term, as pointed out by the reviewer.

What the project will realistically do to energize ecotourism development in Kamchatka is explained in Output 4, Activity 4.1., paragraphs 79-81.

The description of the project objective was modified in the summary to be very clear, as the reviewer found it to be in paragraph 60.

The reviewer’s comment on orienting the project to threat prevention rather than mitigation is an excellent one. This GEF project is aimed at trying to prevent threats and secure the future of salmonid diversity as well as mitigating existing threats. The language has been made more comprehensive in the brief in response to the reviewer’s comments.

Outputs & activities:

Output 1: Comments acknowledged.

Output 2: Comment acknowledged.

Output 3: Comment acknowledged.

Output 4: Comment acknowledged.

Funding

There was an typographical error in arithmetic and this was corrected.

Cost-effectiveness is difficult to evaluate in biodiversity projects, which is why we emphasize cost-effective approaches like utilizing existing organizations, staff, and so on.

Comment acknowledged.

The re-current costs in Table 1 have been clarified in Annex IV.

The WSC has been working for some time to secure this level of co-funding and is confident that it will be able to do so. Preliminary, phased commitments have been received by WSC from key funders, based upon successful first phase of this project.

41

Surplus sport fishing revenues are those that are left after the non-profit sport fishing company pays its expenses. This has been clarified in Annex IV.

GEF is the only funding source in year 7 (first year of the bridging period) to give the corpus of the bridging fund raised by WSC one more year to accrue interest.

Description of the project purpose in the logical framework was revised to be more specific as to how people will be doing things differently at the end of the project than at the beginning. Some of the project components or categories do overlap slightly because they are all part of the project in its entirety.

The reviewer asks, “In the incremental cost analysis, how can it be true that ‘the Government has been committed to utilizing this resource wisely and has supported a strong institutional capacity to oversee this for the past 40 years, if such threats exist?” It is true because Government has committed millions of dollars to managing the sustainable production of salmon. This is the existing situation. However, the threats exist to salmonid diversity because even a government-funded program to manage for sustainable production doesn’t include diversity conservation. It never has in any country and it is unreasonable to expect that under a “business as usual” scenario that this would be the case in Russia.

Conclusion: The conclusion is much appreciated.

42