5th Meeting of the Regional Steering Committee
FFA Headquarters
Honiara, Solomon Islands
7 November 2009
Paper Number
RSC5/WP 8
Title
IMPLEMENTATION OF REGIONAL AND GLOBAL
OCEANIC FISHERIES CONVENTIONS IN THE PACIFIC
ISLANDS: CONCEPT FOR A FURTHER PROJECT
PHASE

Summary
The Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (OFM Project) evolved as a full Global
Environment Facility (GEF) funded project from a first phase component under the Pacific region's
Strategic Action Programme for International Waters of the Pacific Islands (SAP IW).The Project
commenced in October 2005 and is expected to conclude in October 2010 (five years).
In May 2009 the Regional Steering Committee and FFC70 reviewed a draft of a project identification form
(PIF ­ a GEF project template) outlining the concept for the application of another phase of assistance for
the implementation of oceanic fisheries conservation and management in the WCPO. It was explained that
while significant gains had been made under the current project the complexity and burden of work that
remained, especially for Pacific SIDS and was still an issue that needed to be addressed. Much effort and
resource had been expended to see the WCPF Convention come into force but there was a need to stay
apace of and lead conservation and management measures (CMMs) emerging from the WCPF Commission.
The FFC70 endorsed the submission of the concept to the GEF Secretariat for entry into the GEF project
cycle.

On advice from UNDP the draft PIF and budget have now been further revised to reduce the budget inline
The program of work and budget now stands at USD13.4m, which was arrived at by prioritising components
and activities and reducing costs accordingly.
Recent information received from UNDP advises that while GEF-5 is expected to commence 1 July 2010
and last for 4 years, the GEF Council can't start approving PIFs or start allocating resources until the GEF
Trust Fund reaches a certain level of capitalization from contributions. This typically occurs in early-mid of
the year after the GEF-4 year cycle starts so the expectation is to start sending PIFs to Council in winter-
spring 2011 if all goes as planned.
What this essential means for a submission from the Pacific is that when the current project ends at the end
of September 2010, there will be a much as a 12 month (or possibly longer) gap between the end of the
project and the possible start of a further phase.

Recommendation
The Regional Steering Committee is invited to:
i.) note the work done to date on the development of the concept for a further phase of funding
aimed at the implementation of regional and global oceanic fisheries management in the
Pacific region;
ii.) consider the revised draft PIF, noting the it is a work in progress and once completed will need
the endorsement of GEF focal points in each country; and
iii.) note the timing of the submission and consider the implications of the interruption between
project end and the availability of GEF5 funding.
RSC5/WP.X....... 2

---

IMPLEMENTATION OF REGIONAL AND GLOBAL OCEANIC FISHERIES
CONVENTIONS IN THE PACIFIC ISLANDS: A CONCEPT FOR A FURTHER
PROJECT PHASE
.
Introduction
1.
The Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (OFM Project)
evolved as a full Global Environment Facility (GEF) funded project from a first phase
component1 under the Pacific region's Strategic Action Programme for International
Waters of the Pacific Islands (SAP IW)2. The GEF Council endorsed the full project in
February 2005, with final approval by the GEF CEO received on 24 May 2005. The
Project commenced in October 2005 and is expected to conclude in October 2010 (five
years).
2.
Under the umbrella of the SAP IW, the pilot phase of GEF funding was timely in
its assistance for Pacific small island developing states (Pac SIDS) to negotiate with other
coastal and fishing states, the establishment of a regional arrangement for the
conservation and management of oceanic transboundary fish stocks and related species.
In June 2004 the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention (WCPFC) came into
force, 10 years after the first negotiations that had began in 1994.
Initial Discussions for Continuance
3.
The prospect of applying for further funding assistance from the GEF has been
raised with the FFA member countries that benefit under the current OFM Project and
papers on the matter have been tabled at various regional fisheries meetings since mid-
2008.
4.
The fourth session of the Regional Steering Committee (RSC4) for the OFM
Project held in Apia in October 2008 discussed sustainability issues in relation to the
progress made by the OFM Project towards sustainable fish stocks and ecosystems
results and their contribution towards global environmental concerns that underpin the
rationale for GEF assistance to programmes they support.
5.
The Mid Term Review (MTR)3 for the project was tabled at the Apia steering
committee meeting. The MTR is a significant part of the project's monitoring and
evaluation work plan designed to look at implementation mid way through the project.
Coordinated by UNDP, the external consultants recruited concluded that "...the project
was well designed and implemented and already had a significant impact on the
immediate regional objectives (i.e. improve OFM in Pacific SIDS and sustainable
development of resources), and contributed to its wider global objectives (i.e.
management of oceanic fishery and oceanic biodiversity)."

1 The GEF IW South Pacific SAP Project (see next footnote) was designed to address the concerns, threats and
root causes identified in the SAP. Targeted actions within the South Pacific SAP Project were carried out in two
complementary consultative contexts: An Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management (ICWM) Component
and an Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM) Component.

2 At the time the SAP and the South Pacific SAP Project were prepared in 1997-1998, there was substantial
uncertainty about the future pattern of management of transboundary oceanic fish stocks in the region.
Negotiations had begun on new arrangements for the conservation and management of transboundary stocks of
highly migratory species in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks
Agreement, but there were a wide range of proposals tabled and it was not clear what the outcome of the
negotiations would be. Because of this uncertainty, the activities of the OFM Programme were funded for only
three years as a pilot programme within the broader five-year programme of the South Pacific SAP Project and
terminated at the end of 2004.

3 www.ffa.int/gef

RSC5/WP.8.......
3

---

6.
In addition to recommendations for corrective actions (design, implementation,
management and evaluation), the MTR advocated that a new project should be developed
for strategic, long term capacity-building in OFM in Pacific SIDS, and to specifically
assist smaller Pacific SIDS and those with governance problems. Furthermore, they
pointed out that special arrangements should be considered for OFM in small isolated
SIDS given the lack of progress in capacity-building in the smallest of Pacific SIDS over
the last 30 years.
7.
It is also useful to note that a number of issues that could impact on the
application for a further project phase where highlighted to the steering committee. These
included the uncertainty of the level of funding available within GEF for the fifth
disbursement (2011 ­ 2014), and anticipated adjustments to the GEF priorities for this
funding round (to be discuss further later in this paper). Other issues that the RSC4 were
asked to be aware of, were similar parallel GEF projects in the pipeline that may be
perceived as overlapping or duplicating the intent of a further project from the Western
and Central Pacific. Specifically these were the "West Pacific-East Asia Oceanic
Fisheries Management Project" (WPEA OFMP)4 and the "Coral Triangle Initiative on
Coral Reefs, Fisheries, and Food Security (CTI - CFF)5. See Attachment A for a fuller
explanation of WPEA OFMP & CTI ­CFF.
8.
After discussion some concerns expressed about continued reliance on donor
funding, RSC4 decided that there was merit in seeking further funding assistance from
GEF and referred their recommendations to a special Forum Fisheries Committee (FFC)
meeting the following week, which included the commissioning of a draft concept that
would outline the programme of work in the next project phase. This meeting (FFC69)
further supported and endorsed the decisions of RSC4 saying that:
"The midway review of the Project indicated that while there had been
significant gains towards targeted objectives, the complexity and burden
of work remained, especially for Pacific SIDS, was still an issue that
needed to be addressed. Much effort and resource had been expended to
see the WCPF Convention come into force but there was a need to stay
apace of and lead CMMs emerging from the WCPF Commission"
9.
In the period between the Apia meetings in late 2008 and the annual session of
the Forum Fisheries Committee (FFC70) held at Niue in May 2009, a draft GEF "Project
Identification Form" (PIF) was produced by a consultant recruited to develop the
concept6. The draft concept incorporated the comments and interventions made to date
from a number sources, including the Regional Steering Committee, FFCs, the Mid Term
Review of the Project, the Baseline Study, Annual Reports, UNDP and the Secretariats of
the FFA and SPC. The PIF presents a framework with which to develop a full
programme of work (subject to the endorsement by the GEF Council) i.e. it does not
contain the level of detail contained in a full project document.
10.
In May 2009 at the 70th annual session of the FFC that met at Alofi, Niue, the first
draft of the PIF was presented for discussion. Entitled, "Further Phase of Assistance for
the Implementation of Oceanic Fisheries Conservation and Management in the Western
and Central Pacific" it was explained that while significant gains had been made under
the current project the complexity and burden of work that remained, especially for

4 This project is co-ordinated by the WCPFC Secretariat and seeks to improve the knowledge for oceanic fish
stocks and related ecosystems and strengthen national capacities in oceanic fisheries management in Vietnam,
Indonesia and the Philippines.
5 Involves Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands and Timor L'este for which
USD72 million (includes WPEA OFMP) has been approved by the GEF Council and was formally endorsed by
the leaders of the countries involved in July this year at Manado, Indonesia. The project is to be implemented by
ADB.
6 PIF and concept are used interchangeably.

RSC5/WP.8.......
4

---

Pacific SIDS, was still an issue that needed to be addressed. Much effort and resource
had been expended to see the WCPF Convention come into force but there was a need to
stay apace of and lead conservation and management measures (CMMs) emerging from
the WCPF Commission. The FFC70 endorsed the submission of the concept to the GEF
Secretariat for entry into the GEF project cycle.
GEF International Waters Focal Area Strategy for GEF5
11.
This section has been taken directly from a recent GEF document " International
Waters Draft Focal Area Strategy for GEF-5". The complete document is appended at
Attachment B.
12.
Two long-term goals for the GEF International Waters focal area were included
by the GEF Council in its 1995 Operational Strategy and remain relevant today for GEF-
5. With only slight updating for GEF-5, the goals serve as politically pragmatic and cost-
effective guidance for GEF to tackle the highly complex concerns of transboundary
freshwater and marine ecosystems.
The goal of the International Waters focal area is the promotion of
collective management for transboundary water systems and subsequent
implementation of the full range of policy, legal, and institutional reforms
and investments contributing to sustainable use and maintenance of
ecosystem services.
13.
The GEF Council-approved Operational Strategy in 1995 noted that global
environmental benefits would accrue if countries worked together on priority concerns of
these transboundary systems, which are the dominant waters on Earth, and that global
environmental benefits relate to the interconnectedness of the global hydrologic cycle
that dynamically links watersheds, aquifers, and coastal and marine ecosystems and their
transboundary movement of water, pollutants, ships, and living resources.
14.
Consistent with this approach, the goal for the IW and GEF-5 objectives
contribute to the GEF institutional goal of delivering agreed global environmental
benefits. In particular, IW programming for 2010-2014 supports GEF-5 corporate goal
#1 on global natural resources and #4 on building national and regional capacities and
enabling conditions for addressing transboundary systems.
15.
The GEF-5 strategy for IW proposes to scale-up national and local action given
sufficient resources. GEF operations would help catalyze initial implementation of
multi-state agreed Strategic Action Programmes with shared visions for specific
transboundary surface and groundwater systems or Large Marine Ecosystems. They
would incorporate capacity building and knowledge generation to address climatic
variability and change. With greater funding levels, more on-the-ground results would be
achieved with a greater likelihood of national and local governance reforms being
enacted as part of programmatic approaches.
16.
The addition of climatic variability and change as a key transboundary concerns
in GEF-5 is needed so that multiple priority stresses for individual waterbodies can be
addressed together and collectively by states rather than by single themes or single states.
Achieving in-water benefits contributing to MDGs and WSSD targets dictates that
multiple stresses are addressed and multiple uses is balanced. Pollution reduction or
improved fisheries management will still fail to provide impact if there is no water left in
the river due to excessive water use and drought.
17.
The draft GEF IW strategy would vary depending on level of donor
replenishment funds. The strategy would be implemented through three objectives if
replenishment is modest, and five objectives if replenishment is generous. The first three
objectives are core objectives that will be included in both scenarios but would be

RSC5/WP.8.......
5

---

enhanced with more investments and national sector reforms in the $9 Billion scenario
along with two additional objectives being included.
18.
The proposed GEF-5 IW objectives are:
· Catalyze multi-state cooperation to balance conflicting water uses in
transboundary surface and groundwater basins while considering climatic
variability and change;
· Catalyze multi-state cooperation to rebuild marine fisheries and reduce
pollution of coasts and Large Marine Ecosystems while considering climatic
variability and change;
· Support foundational capacity building, portfolio learning, and targeted
research needs for ecosystem-based, joint management of transboundary water
systems;
· Promote effective management of Marine Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction
(ABNJ) directed at preventing fisheries depletion - joint with Biodiversity; and
· Undertake pilot-scale demonstrations of pollution reduction from Persistent
Toxic Substances, particularly endocrine disruptors--joint with Chemicals.
GEF5 Project Cycle and Replenishment Process
19.
The GEF project cycle has been significantly shortened by the new CEO, with
generally good results and the applicants work with the GEF Implementing Agencies (in
the region's case UNDP) to prepare a PIF. It's expected that the preparation of a PIF for a
further phase for Pacific oceanic fisheries management will be prepared in close
collaboration with UNDP and other stakeholders.
20.
The PIFs can be submitted on a rolling basis and once they are cleared by the
GEF Secretariat they will go either to one of the quarterly GEF Council meetings or
monthly inter-sessional (by mail) work programs of the GEF Council. The PIF needs to
be endorsed by each of the country GEF Political or Operational focal points.
21.
Once Council has cleared a PIF, a proponent can access "Project Preparation
Grant" (PPG) funding7 to prepare the project document, within a maximum time span of
22 months from date the CEO approved the PIF. The project documents are submitted
for CEO endorsement along with the new "CEO Endorsement Template".
22.
In reviewing the PIF, the GEF Secretariat will focus on a number of elements that
includes:
· Country eligibility;
· Consistency with GEF Strategic objectives/programmes;
· Comparative advantage of GEF Agency submitting PIF;
· Estimated cost of the project, including co-financing;
· Availability of resources for the GEF grant request within the focal area and
under the Resource Allocation Framework; and Milestones for further project
processing.
23.
Once the submission has been reviewed by the GEF Secretariat, the PIF is then
considered by the GEF CEO for inclusion in the work program. The cleared PIFs must
then undergo a review by a technical committee (STAP ­ Scientific and Technical
Advisory Panel).
24.
All PIFs cleared for work program inclusion are then eligible for a GEF PPG
approved by the GEF CEO for an amount based on financing the incremental costs of

7 This is the same as the PDF B funding available under GEF3

RSC5/WP.8.......
6

---

project preparation i.e. there is no set amount. Principally these are the first step in the
GEF Project cycle8.
25.
The process for a further round of GEF funding assistance will require a
concerted effort not only by countries themselves but by the FFA Secretariat in
coordinating an unhindered submission. Any follow-up project should be impact oriented
and contribute to the maintenance and improvements of transboundary fish stocks and
have quantifiable indicators.
26.
Donor nations fund the GEF and every four years, they commit money through a
process called the "GEF Replenishment". At the November 2008 meeting, the
Council requested the Trustee of the Global Environment Facility, in cooperation with
the CEO and Chairperson of the Facility, to initiate discussions on the fifth replenishment
of resources of the GEF Trust Fund, GEF-5.
27.
To ensure uninterrupted funding of GEF operations and activities (GEF-49
replenishment will fund activities until June 30, 2010) and donors should strive to
conclude negotiations for the GEF-5 replenishment in early 2010. The GEF-5
replenishment is expected to fund 4 years of GEF operations and activities, beginning
July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 201410.
28.
Recent information received from UNDP advises that while GEF-5 is expected to
commence 1 July 2010 and last for 4 years, the GEF Council can't start approving PIFs
or start allocating resources until the GEF Trust Fund reaches a certain level of
capitalization from contributions. This typically occurs in early-mid of the year after the
GEF 4 year cycle starts so the expectation is to start sending PIFs to Council in winter-
spring 2011 if all goes as planned.
29.
What this essential means for a submission from the Pacific is that when the
current project ends at the end of September 2010, there will be a much as a 12 month (or
possibly longer) gap between the end of the project and the possible start of a further
phase and there is a degree of uncertainty of the level of funding available in GEF-5.
Implementation of Regional and Global Fisheries Conventions in the Pacific Islands
30.
With the advice from UNDP that in all likelihood there would now be a
significant gap between the current project and the availability of next funding round
which would not in fact be available until some time in 2011, they urged that
consideration would need to be given to how the gap between the completion of the
OFMP and the commencement of another phase would be bridged.
31.
The concept embodied in the draft PIF and indicative budget that was reviewed
by the FFC70, took into account two of the broader suggestions that any new project
should be developed for the strategic, long-term capacity-building in OFM in Pacific
SIDS and that it should be specifically designed to assist smaller Pacific SIDS and those
with governance problems, i.e. a greater prioritised national focus.
32.
The design of the draft PIF and budget was based on the following principles:
· OFMPII is proposed to be aimed at implementing conservation and
management measures, rather than institution-building and strengthening
which is the focus of the OFMP, with less focus on the Commission decision-
making and more on national implementation;
· participants at RSC4 stressed the OFMPII should be more "national";

8 http://thegef.org/interior_right.aspx?id=90
9 OFMP is funded under GEF-3
10 http://www.gefweb.org/interior_right.aspx?id=48

RSC5/WP.8.......
7

---

· an MTR recommendation noted that the Project Coordinating Unit in the
OFMP is under-resourced and the project coordination function will have to
be strengthened to enable greater focus on information dissemination,
monitoring and reporting;
· it also recommended a greater focus on smaller Islands States; and
· a focus on a follow-up project on long term capacity building/academic
training11.
33.
Ideas contributed to the draft PIF and budget by the FFA and SPC Secretariats
include:
· Strengthening legal and policy frameworks and performance;
· Providing near real-time information for fisheries and ecosystem
management;
· Improving the understanding of the warm pool LME;
· Protecting biodiversity;
· Deterring IUU fishing;
· Target stock sustainability; and
· Long term capacity building, knowledge management and sustainability.
34.
The budget proposed for the PIF presented to FFC70 was for nearly US$30
million. However, UNDP/GEF advised that it is very unlikely that in a final phase such
an amount would not be available for the second phase. This has meant the activities
proposed have had to be prioritised and substantial elements of the project have been
culled based on finding common ground between GEF's focus on environmental benefits
and the needs of the Pacific SIDS beneficiaries.
Revised PIF
35.
The draft PIF and budget have now been further revised to reduce the budget
inline with the advice from UNDP. Following the revisions to the PIF, the budget now
stands at USD13.4m, which was arrived at by prioritising components and activities and
reducing costs accordingly.
36.
The main impact of the revision is the removal of the full component aimed at
protecting biodiversity which sought to formulate effective implementation of WCPFC
CMMs related to non-target species (sharks, seabirds, turtles etc.) and merging some
activities in the broader component which seeks to provide information for the
formulation and implementation of fisheries and ecosystems conservation and
management measures. Changes also relate to replacing a component aimed at improving
the understanding of Warm Pool LME with a lesser costing set of activities to help
understand the impact of climate change on the regions fisheries, and retaining a similar
resources project coordination unit instead of the MTR recommended enhanced unit.
37.
The revised draft PIF appended at Attachment C will be complete once details of
co-financing are determined by the Consultant and indicative calendar dates for the
milestones are known, along with any further revisions generated by discussion at the
special FFC being held the week before RSC5 and the RSC5 itself.
38.
Further discussion on the draft PIF is also expected to take place with UNDP and
GEF in the margins of the 5th GEF International Waters Conference to be held at Cairns,

11 UNDP/GEF advise that they do not fund academic training.

RSC5/WP.8.......
8

---

Australia in 26 ­ 29 October, outcomes of which will be conveyed to RSC5 and also
reflected in the PIF.
39.
The Regional Steering Committee is invited to:
i.) note the work done to date on the development of the concept for a further phase
of funding aimed at the implementation of regional and global oceanic fisheries
management in the Pacific region;
ii.) consider the revised draft PIF, noting the it is a work in progress and once
completed will need the endorsement of GEF focal points in each country; and
iii.) note the timing of the submission and consider the implications of the
interruption between project end and the availability of GEF5 funding.






RSC5/WP.8.......
9

---

Attachment A
FFC7012/WP21 Excerpts

WPEA OFM
The recent initiative to strengthen fisheries data to enhance oceanic fisheries management in
Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam is a design sponsored by the WCPFC Secretariat who is
in the process of submitting a PIF for GEF funding assistance. Similar to the OFM Project,
the West Pacific-East Asia Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (WPEA OFM) seeks to
improve knowledge for oceanic fish stocks and related ecosystems and strengthen national
capacities in oceanic fisheries management.
The links between the WPEA and the OFM Project are maintained through the WCPFC
Secretariat with Indonesia and the Philippines being full parties to WCPFC and along with
Vietnam form the western boundary of the Western tropical Pacific warm pool large marine
ecosystem, a globally significant marine region and one covered by the WCPF Convention.
It's estimated that a significant percentage of the tuna and tuna-like species is taken by the
Philippines, eastern Indonesia and Vietnamese fishers and that a climate of poor information,
over exploitation and incomplete and inadequate collaborative arrangements for conservation
and management prevails. The focus of the WPEA OFM project to assist the countries
involved is comparable to those for OFM Project countries and more importantly the linkage
through shared migratory fish stocks and ecosystems. The OFM Project is identified as
contributing co-financing to this submission.
Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI)
Largely driven by environmental NGOs, the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral reefs, Fisheries
and Food Security (CTI-CFF) involves six countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New
Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste. In April 2008, the GEF Council
approved USD72 million for a five year CTI Support Programme with ADB as the
implementing agency. The ADB is anticipating the inclusion of more countries in the GEF
CTI Programme. The initiative is currently in a development phase with the construction of a
regional plan of action being progressed at meeting held at Honiara in September 2008 and
others since.
The Secretariats for WCPFC, FFA and SPC had the opportunity to review the draft CTI
regional plan of action in September 2008. At the time they expressed concern for the
potential for the duplication of existing efforts, such as those of the OFM Project, the
established work program for regional fisheries management and the WCPFC process with
the proposed work in the CTI regional plan of action, particularly the features of the plan
associated with the tuna fisheries. In the CTI plan the goal for Ecosystems Approach to
Management of Fisheries (EAFM) and Other Marine Resources is expected to target `the
sustainable management of shared tuna stocks achieved for all species of tuna exploited in the
region with special attention to spawning areas and juvenile growth stages'.
Potentially, there could be questions of overlapping benefits to PNG and the Solomon Islands
if the design of a further project remains consistent with the current objectives and goals, as
this work will also be mirrored in the proposed CTI work plan. For instance, CTI will address
national and regional legislative, policy & regulatory frameworks for EAFM, improvement of
enforcement (including an observer program) of IUU fishing, etc.
Finally, it is well recognized that the current Pacific meeting schedule for regional fisheries is
fairly demanding and the region struggles to find ways to lessen this burden. The
establishment of the proposed `CTI Tuna Forum' is not likely to improve matters, particularly
for those FFA countries participating in the CTI.

12 11 ­ 15 May 2009, Alofi Niue

---

Attachment B
INTERNATIONAL WATERS DRAFT FOCAL AREA STRATEGY FOR GEF-5
BACKGROUND

1.
Water is the lifeblood of our planet. Human life depends on freshwater, and the
Earth's climate and its habitability depend on ecosystem and climate services from the ocean.
Slowly, the world community is recognizing the severity of the global water crisis. Not only
are Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Johannesburg World Summit (WSSD)
targets being missed, but economic opportunities and community security are now diminished
because of little priority on water. Once thought to be simply related to mismanagement and
policy failure, degradation and depletion of our planet's surface, ground water, and oceans are
also caused by complex global pressures of population growth and forced migration, changing
climate, global financial and trade distortions, food shortages, and changing diets.

2.
Freshwater, saltwater, and their living resources know no borders. With 70 percent of
the Earth being ocean and 60 percent of the land lying in cross-border surface and
groundwater basins, most water systems on Earth are transboundary ­ and thus are at the
heart of the GEF International Waters (IW) mandate. These water systems, that know no
boundaries, produce food for global trade and domestic use, power industry and economies,
quench thirst, and nourish the ecosystems that support life. Globally, these systems are
overused, over-polluted, and suffer from serious transboundary and national governance
failures.

3.
Demands for freshwater continue to rise, resulting in competition among key sectors
and ultimately between countries that share transboundary freshwater systems. In parallel,
the human demand for protein from marine waters and pollution releases place stress on both
coastal and ocean systems. The results are all too apparent--depleted and degraded surface
waters, aquifers, and marine ecosystems that we see today with adverse impacts on human
and ecosystem health, food security, and social stability. In addition, changes in global
hydrologic cycles driven by changes in climate and climatic variability deepen poverty,
reduce food supplies, damage health and further threaten political and social stability.
Collective action among states and negotiation of legal/institutional framework are now
critical to address these multiple stresses, including climatic variability and change, before
tension between states gets even worse.

Evolution of the IW Strategy at the GEF

4.
The GEF International Waters (IW) focal area addresses these very complex
sustainable development challenges faced by States sharing transboundary surface,
groundwater, and marine systems. Challenges range from pollution, loss of habitat, and ship
waste, to overuse and conflicting uses of surface and groundwater, over-harvesting of
fisheries, and adaptation to climatic fluctuations. The GEF serves a unique role in building
trust and confidence among states for catalyzing collective management of these large water
systems while providing benefits for environment, food production, economic development,
community health, and regional stability. The GEF IW focal area has shown that cooperation
among states on water, fisheries, catchments, and environment serves as a new path to secure
these benefits for multiple water users and that the demonstration of appropriate technologies
can catalyze investments for on-the-ground results. The challenges of climate and climate
change add an additional impetus to the GEF work, especially as transboundary cooperation
suffers most from "market failure" in tough times.

5.
Both the third and fourth Overall Performance Studies (OPS3 and OPS4) document
GEF success in catalyzing impacts related to multi-country cooperation for shared waters.

11

---

Outcomes have been robust, targets exceeded, and IW has proven to be an effective agent for
policy, legal and institutional reforms and for enabling on-the-ground demo action. OPS 3 in
2005 concluded that the IW Focal Area was ready to move from a demonstration mode to
scaling-up of full operations in support of reforms, investments, and collective management.
This scaling up of on-the-ground actions was not possible during GEF 4 because funding was
reduced.

6.
While coping with small funding, GEF IW programming has focused on: (a) creating
an enabling foundation in trust, confidence and capacity among states desiring to collaborate
on sustainable use of their transboundary waters, (b) demonstrating simple GEF strategic
approaches for scaling up impacts when larger funding levels become available, and (c)
developing measures for groundwater protection and management to cope with increased use
and more frequent droughts. To avoid irreversible economic and social damage while cost-
effective measures can still work, the time for scaling up the IW area is now. A backlog of
requests for action exists with GEF having built the capacity of 149 recipient countries to
work together with 23 non-recipient countries on regional collective management for the
particular transboundary water systems they share--22 river basins, 8 lake basins, 5
groundwater systems, and 19 Large Marine Ecosystems.

7.
As recommended by OPS3 in 2005, the time is at hand to scale-up funding in the
GEF IW focal area to achieve results before conditions become irreversible. GEF5 presents a
crucial opportunity to scale up collective action for freshwater basins, aquifers, and marine
systems. Beyond GEF4 priorities, new imperatives in International Waters relating to climatic
variability and change and incorporation of groundwater concerns must be integrated into
mainstream work to produce actual results that benefit communities. The capacity that has
been built through previous GEF interventions means that many states are ready to move
forward in scaling up impacts contributing to MDGs and WSSD targets while also
incorporating climatic variability and change as a new transboundary concern for action.

INTERNATIONAL WATERS STRATEGY, GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

8.
Two long-term goals for the GEF International Waters focal area were included by
the GEF Council in its 1995 Operational Strategy and remain relevant today for GEF5. With
only slight updating for GEF-5, the goals serve as politically pragmatic and cost-effective
guidance for GEF to tackle the highly complex concerns of transboundary freshwater and
marine ecosystems.

The goal of the International Waters focal area is the promotion of collective management
for transboundary water systems and subsequent implementation of the full range of policy,
legal, and institutional reforms and investments contributing to sustainable use and
maintenance of ecosystem services.

9.
Since 1995, GEF has placed human needs at the center of transboundary water
systems and based interventions on modifying human activities and institutions toward
sustaining multiple uses of and human well-being for these sensitive waters. The GEF
approach has provided opportunities for states wishing to address transboundary water-related
conflicts and development concerns in a collective manner while respecting the political
interests of hesitant states.

10.
The GEF Council-approved Operational Strategy in 1995 recognized the sensitive
international political dimensions of assisting states in collective management of
transboundary water systems. The Council noted that global environmental benefits would
accrue if countries worked together on priority concerns of these transboundary systems,
which are the dominant waters on Earth, and that global environmental benefits relate to the
interconnectedness of the global hydrologic cycle that dynamically links watersheds, aquifers,

12

---

and coastal and marine ecosystems and their transboundary movement of water, pollutants,
ships, and living resources.

11.
Consistent with this approach, the goal for the IW area and GEF-5 objectives
contribute to the GEF institutional goal of delivering agreed global environmental benefits.
In particular, IW programming for 2010-2014 supports GEF-5 corporate goal #1 on global
natural resources and #4 on building national and regional capacities and enabling conditions
for addressing transboundary systems. Through its previously stated support of Agenda 21
Chapters 17 and 18 as well as the MDGs and WSDD targets, the IW focal area also
contributes to human well being and poverty eradication by sustaining water-related and
dependent livelihoods, securing food sources, promoting equitable access to water, and
reducing water-related health risks in addition to resolving and preventing water-related use
conflicts in these large bodies of water.

SUMMARY OF GEF5 DRAFT IW STRATEGY

12.
The GEF5 strategy for IW follows the successful approach described in the OPS4
review with progressive programming of GEF resources accompanying progressive multi-
state commitments to collective action. This strategy builds on the foundational capacity built
and pilot scale work accomplished in GEF 3 and 4 and proposes to scale-up national and local
action given sufficient resources. GEF operations would help catalyze initial implementation
of multi-state agreed Strategic Action Programmes with shared visions for specific
transboundary surface and groundwater systems or Large Marine Ecosystems. They would
incorporate capacity building and knowledge generation to address climatic variability and
change. With greater funding levels, more on-the-ground results would be achieved with a
greater likelihood of national and local governance reforms being enacted as part of
programmatic approaches. With less funding, fewer results would be catalyzed and scaling-
up for measureable impacts would be limited.

13.
Adding climatic variability and change as a key transboundary concern in GEF-5 is
needed so that multiple priority stresses for individual waterbodies can be addressed together
and collectively by states rather than by single themes or single states. Achieving in-water
benefits contributing to MDGs and WSSD targets dictates that multiple stresses be addressed
and multiple uses be balanced. Pollution reduction or improved fisheries management will
still fail to provide impact if there is no water left in the river due to excessive water use and
drought.

14.
Concerns of droughts and floods would now have to be incorporated into
transboundary surface and groundwater basin IW projects through Integrated Water
Resources Management (IWRM) approaches that link aquifers and surface water basins.
Likewise, for Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) and their coasts, concerns related to coastal
climatic variability, sea-level rise, ocean warming and acidification, and ecosystem resilience,
would be incorporated through governance reforms at the LME level as well as in Integrated
Coastal Management (ICM) at local levels, including environmental flows where needed in
linked freshwater systems.. Lessons from previous GEF IW projects show that climatic
variability must now be included as a priority transboundary concern along with the other
multiple drivers of depletion and degradation to achieve impacts. Additionally, for
transboundary surface water basins, groundwater (accounting for 97% of our planet's
unfrozen fresh water) will play a large role and must be protected.

15.
Beyond this focus on implementation of agreed action programmes, the strategy
continues to provide for support to states for foundational capacity building activities for new
transboundary water systems not yet addressed by GEF. Limited funding would be provided
for processes pioneered by GEF to build trust and confidence among states so that they may
work together collectively on their transboundary water systems toward increased stability

13

---

and water security. Additionally, a number of needs for targeted research as it applies to
management of waters will be addressed, and experience sharing and learning within the GEF
IW portfolio will be enhanced based on successful pilots in this focal area (GEF IW:LEARN)
as noted by OPS4.

16.
The draft GEF IW strategy would vary depending on level of Replenishment. The
strategy would be implemented through three objectives if Replenishment is modest and five
objectives if Replenishment is generous. The first three objectives are core objectives that
will be included in both scenarios but would be enhanced with more investments and national
sector reforms in the $9 Billion scenario along with two additional objectives being included.
The following sections introduce the proposed GEF 5 objectives and their expected outcomes
for the two different Replenishment scenarios. The detailed results framework for the IW
focal area is presented in Annex 1 for both the $5 and $9 Billion Replenishment scenarios.

17.
The proposed GEF 5 IW Objectives are:

a)
Catalyze multi-state cooperation to balance conflicting water uses in
transboundary surface and groundwater basins while considering climatic
variability and change;
b)
Catalyze multi-state cooperation to rebuild marine fisheries and reduce
pollution of coasts and Large Marine Ecosystems while considering climatic
variability and change;
c)
Support foundational capacity building, portfolio learning, and targeted
research needs for ecosystem-based, joint management of transboundary
water systems;
d)
Promote effective management of Marine Areas Beyond National
Jurisdiction (ABNJ) directed at preventing fisheries depletion --joint with
Biodiversity;
e)
Undertake pilot-scale demonstrations of pollution reduction from Persistent
Toxic Substances, particularly endocrine disruptors--joint with Chemicals

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED GEF 5 IW OBJECTIVES

Objective One: Catalyze multi-state cooperation to balance conflicting water uses in
trans-boundary surface/groundwater basins while considering climatic variability and
change

Rationale
18.
This objective relates to GEF assistance to states for implementing agreed Strategic
Action Programmes (SAP) for interventions in cross-border surface and groundwater basins.
GEF has previously supported such foundational capacity building in almost 30
transboundary freshwater systems. Overuse and conflicting uses of water resources in
transboundary surface and groundwater basins result in significant ecological and economic
damage, reduced livelihoods for the poor, and increased political tensions among downstream
states that get worse with increasing climatic variability. Shallow groundwater over-
extraction, saline intrusion, and pollution of groundwater supplies must now be factored into
GEF projects, especially for many SIDS where water supply threats are becoming major
threats to their viability. Use of IWRM plans and policies at the basin level consistent with
WSSD targets has been identified as an answer to balancing competing and conflicting uses
of water resources to inform tradeoffs being made.

19.
With the high scenario, the focal area would be able to help states avoid more
conflicts in water use, prevent more water pollution, protect additional aquifers for use in
droughts, and introduce more widespread national water sub-sector reforms through enhanced
assistance for SAP implementation and cross-focal area GEF projects. The $800 million

14

---

scenario would allow support for programmatic approaches to scale-up investments and
reforms (per OPS3) while retrofitting understanding of climatic variability and demo-scale
action on adaptive management. This scaling-up would include programmatic approaches for
investments where all states that are important contributors to the transboundary concerns
agree to cooperative management. The need to build capacity and provide technical
assistance on adaptive management for drought and floods to states working on shared
freshwater systems represents an important new line of work and new cost as does
incorporating groundwater protection and management.

20.
Concerns of managing floods and droughts would be incorporated through IWRM
while integrating surface water quality and aquifers. This would fill a glaring gap in the
WSSD target for IWRM. Africa would receive priority attention through programmatic
approaches for transboundary river and aquifer systems of West Africa and for the Great
Lakes Region. Innovative partnerships with the business community would be supported
both by the focal area and the GEF Earth Fund for broader scale and maximum impact.
Benefits of collaboration on transboundary basins and adoption by cooperating states of
reforms in IWRM policies contribute to improved community livelihoods, increased crop
yields, sustainable irrigation, improved environmental flows, and reduced health risks where
pollutants create risks. These interventions contribute to regional integration, reduction of
tensions among states, and increased stability.

Project Support
21.
GEF will support further development and implementation of regional policies and
measures identified in agreed SAPs, which through collaborative action would promote
sustainable functioning of already established joint legal and institutional frameworks or help
establish new ones. GEF assistance to states includes development and enforcement of
national policy, legislative and institutional reforms as well as demonstrating innovative
measures/ approaches to water quantity and quality concerns. The projected impact will
enable states to negotiate treaties and better balance conflicting uses of surface and ground
water for hydropower, irrigation-food security, drinking water, and support of fisheries for
protein and environmental flows in the face of multiple stresses, including climatic
fluctuations and aquifers.

Outcomes
22.
SAP implementation will lead to application of IWRM policies and principles that
include environment and groundwater as well as innovative investments for measureable on-
the-ground results. Outcomes include: better balancing of conflicting water uses; enhanced
functioning of joint management institutions; ground-water aquifers systematically
incorporated into surface water management; improved environmental flows from
infrastructure; protected water supplies; enhanced recharge; improved freshwater fisheries
management; and increased understanding leading to better resilience to fluctuating climate.
Indicators would vary, including: adoption/implementation of policy and legal reforms at
national and local levels that show progress toward WSSD IWRM targets; evidence that
national inter-ministry committees function properly; measureable pollution reduction, water
use efficiency improvements, community benefits disaggregated by gender, restored/
protected wetlands, sustainable freshwater fisheries, protection of quality and level of ground-
water, capacity enhancement for incorporating aquifers and climatic variability and change
reflected in updated SAPs and legal frameworks.

Objective Two: Catalyze multi-state cooperation to rebuild marine fisheries and reduce
pollution of coasts and Large Marine Ecosystems while considering climatic variability
and change.

Rationale

15

---

23.
Depletion and degradation of coasts and oceans is accelerating along with reduction
of access to protein in fisheries with at least two-thirds of global stocks overfished. Tens of
billions of dollars annually are lost to developing country economies when illegal and
unreported fishing depletes stocks and when factory fleets, sometimes endorsed by
governments, deplete fisheries for poor coastal communities. There is a strong economic,
poverty reduction, and food security argument for reforms in coastal and ocean fisheries,
which are need for two-thirds of the planet's fish stocks. When coupled with the expansion of
"Dead Zones" from nutrient pollution and the multiple risks from flooding with sea-level rise,
coastal storm vulnerability and a warming ocean, further degradation must be prevented now
before irreversible conditions develop.

24.
Progress has been made by GEF in foundational capacity building for states choosing
to address over-fishing and use of damaging gear in Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) and
tackle coastal concerns through Integrated Coastal Management (ICM). GEF has responded
to requests from 125 states that have chosen to work with neighbors on foundational capacity
building for 16 shared LMEs. The demand implementation of action programs illustrates
state recognition for the economic and social importance of functioning LMEs. In order to
minimize impacts from sea-level rise and reduce coastal storm vulnerability that will diminish
livelihoods, health, food security, and community security even more, GEF support for ICM
and LMEs will begin to consider risks related to climatic variability and change as future
Action Programs are implemented. Programmatic approaches to secure community benefits
from LMEs and their coasts will be up-scaled through management institutions that spur
collective national action.

25.
With the high scenario, the focal area would be able to help states avoid additional
depletion of fish stocks and in fact reverse the trend for through sustainable fisheries and
habitat restoration/conservation. This will take the assistance of OECD members participating
in partnerships to reduce their fleets' influence on depletion. Reduction of land-based sources
of marine pollution continues to demand GEF attention, particularly nutrients from sewage
and agriculture that contribute to the alarming spread of coastal "Dead Zones" and adverse
effects on coral reefs. Support to the GPA (Global Programme of Action for the Protection of
the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities) will be mainstreamed in LME projects
to improve coastal quality. The $800 million scenario would allow support for programmatic
approaches to scale-up investments and reforms (per OPS3) in land-based pollution reduction
and coastal/marine fisheries while retrofitting understanding of climatic variability and demo-
scale action on adaptive management. This scaling-up would include programmatic
approaches for investments where all states that are important contributors to the concerns
agree to cooperative management. Where transboundary priorities warrant, MARPOL/port
considerations will be included in ICM as more port authorities incorporate environmental
management systems.

Project Support
26.
Where capacity is built and collective action programs agreed by all states
significantly contributing to transboundary concerns, GEF will support implementation of
SAPs with reforms and investments with measureable results. Policy, legal, and institutional
reforms and multi-agency partnerships that contribute to WSSD targets for recovering and
sustaining fish stocks would be a priority, including regional and national-level reforms in
legal frameworks and governance, access rights, and enforcement in LMEs. Also supported:
investments in sustainable alternative livelihoods (such as aquaculture), habitat restoration
and limited use designations (including MPAs in joint projects with the BD focal area and
fisheries refugia), technical assistance, less destructive gear to reduce stress on wild fish
stocks and biological diversity, and provisions of the 1995 International Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries.


16

---

27.
GEF pilot successes in support for the GPA and nitrogen pollution reduction will be
scaled up in the high scenario to reduce land-based nutrient pollution of oceans. This is aimed
at catalyzing global attention to disruption of the nitrogen cycle and to limit expansion of
"dead zones" that interfere with food security and community livelihoods. National and local
policy, legal, institutional reforms to reduce land-based inputs of nitrogen and other pollutants
will be monitored consistent with agreed SAPs and the GPA. Incorporation of nutrient
reduction and considerations of coastal climate variability into ICM policies and plans would
be systematic in the high scenario. Innovative partnerships, investments and financing will be
pursued addressing agriculture, municipal, and industry sector pollution and for wetland
restoration/enhancement (including use of locally acceptable ecological sanitation and simple
constructed wetlands treatment). The IW focal area would complement the IW platforms in
the Earth Fund on "Rebuilding Ocean Fish Stocks" and "Revitalizing Dead Zones" in the
high scenario to achieve broader scale and global impact of the platforms with the business
community.

Outcomes
28.
Where capacity is built to work jointly in LMEs and their coasts, GEF assistance will
assist in SAP implementation to catalyze the application of policies and principles related to
sustainable fisheries and ICM as well as investments with measureable results in alternative
livelihoods and land-based pollution reduction. Sustainable joint management institutions
and mechanisms as well as functioning national inter-ministry committees would result and
represent political commitments to ecosystem-based joint action and national commitments to
mainstreaming. National and local policy, legal and institutional reforms and increased
enforcement reduce land-based pollution, over-fishing, and secure coastal/marine habitat.
Greater on-the ground impact with significant demo projects for coastal and marine systems,
stakeholder and Parliamentarian involvement, more widespread reforms, and a focus on
enforcement of legal regimes would result from programmatic approaches for the $800
million scenario.

29.
Another expected outcome would be multi-agency partnerships in programmatic
approaches that foster replication after GEF assistance is ended by incorporating them into
UN frameworks and country assistance strategies of agencies and partners. The partnerships
created under the Earth Fund with IW focal area regional complementary projects engage the
business community in a way that would be expected to have an influence on global
dialogues. Increased coverage of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) would also be expected
from cross-foal area projects with the Biodiversity area, and a focus on Arctic LMEs with
their fragile changing environment will catalyze management institutions to prevent decline.
Indicators would vary in projects, including: measureable land-based pollution reduction,
rights-based fisheries and sustainable fisheries policies reducing over-fishing and gear
changes, community income benefits disaggregated by gender, improved enforcement,
conserved/restored coastal wetlands and MPAs, improved environmental flows, reduction in
overcapacity of boats, and policy/legal/institutional reforms at national and local levels
helping states move toward the WSSD 2010/2015 marine targets. Climatic variability and
change and ICM would be reflected in updated SAPs for LMEs.

Objective 3: Support foundational capacity building, portfolio learning, and targeted
research needs for ecosystem-based, joint management of transboundary water systems

Rationale
30.
A decade of GEF experience shows that interventions in multiple countries with
regional projects are more cost-effective than individual country IW projects in catalyzing
commitments to collective action. OPS4 clearly highlights the impact on collaboration
among states by using these GEF processes that build trust and confidence for states working
together on shared water-related concerns. An additional benefit involves avoiding political
conflicts among neighboring states and pursuing joint development benefits and regional

17

---

integration. This strategy of using foundational processes to leverage political commitment to
collective action and then scaling up with innovative policy, legal and institutional reforms
and pilot demonstrations may take 10 years and successive projects to achieve. During GEF-
5, climatic variability and change and consideration of aquifers will be integrated into these
foundational, capacity building processes.

31.
Where capacity and agreement among states is not yet built for collectively
addressing transboundary concerns or where climatic variability and change are not yet
incorporated into adaptive management frameworks, an enabling environment for action will
be created through GEF supported foundational processes. These processes include:
establishment of national inter-ministry committees for project participation, development of
Transboundary Diagnostic Analyses, third-party facilitation, stakeholder participation, and
formulation of Strategic Action Programs (SAPs) with shared visions and agreed reforms and
investments.

32.
Under the $800 million scenario, more attention can be paid to fragile states and those
undergoing post-conflict reconstruction and more requests funded for foundational capacity
building and capacity enhancement for understanding climatic variability and change and
incorporating groundwater considerations. For LMEs and coasts, adaptive management
institutions would become better enabled to build resilience to fluctuating fisheries, coral reef
bleaching, sea-level rise, coastal storm vulnerability, and coastal hypoxia (`Dead Zones') into
strategies for LME governance and ICM.

33.
The generous Replenishment scenario will allow two other priority needs to be met: a
pent up demand for targeted research on pressing IW concerns and the need to operationalize
experience sharing/learning/KM to improve IW portfolio performance and reduce time for
impacts to be produced. Significant global impact would be sought for targeted research
related to coral reefs, nutrient reduction and "Hypoxic or Dead Zones" and environmental
flows. Other research needs on ocean biogeochemistry and climate tools to be developed for
GEF IW projects would also be funded among the various priority topics of use to the IW
portfolio.

Project Support
34.
For transboundary surface and groundwater systems, groundwater concerns and
opportunities would be systematically integrated into management of surface water systems
and surface water concerns into transboundary groundwater systems so that entire basins or
aquifers serve as management units. National inter-ministry committees would contribute to
development of Strategic Action Programmes, which would include commitments to establish
or strengthen institutions for multi-state, collective management and subsequent action. An
enabling environment for adopting Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) plans
and policies per WSSD targets will be pursued in states sharing transboundary surface and
groundwater systems, and climatic variability and change will be integrated into the GEF
supported processes to address droughts and floods and integrate the concerns into IWRM
policies. For coastal and marine ecosystems, GEF will utilize similar foundational capacity
building processes to help states adopt ecosystem-based approaches at the LME and local
ICM scales. Shifting currents and changes in distribution, abundance, and life cycles of
marine resources as well as coastal storm vulnerability and sea-level rise may be included in
the GEF-supported foundational processes.

Outcomes
35.
Outcomes relate to agreement on key transboundary concerns for waterbodies and
political agreements on commitments for ecosystem-based, joint actions and for regional,
waterbody-related cooperation frameworks. Commitments to incorporate transboundary water
management priorities into national and local management institutions would also be
achieved. For both freshwater and marine transboundary systems, local pilot demonstrations

18

---

associated with priority transboundary concerns and aquifer assessment/management would
be incorporated into foundational projects and produce measureable results with community
benefits. GEF IW experiences and evaluations show these local demonstrations help provide
pilot scale benefits toward MDGs and WSSD targets while also engaging local stakeholders
in needed actions and helping states better understand potential benefits of collective action.
Better understanding of climatic variability and change and groundwater considerations will
result in enabling states and regional water/ocean institutions to build resilience into
programs. With regard to targeted research, addressing the priority needs is expected to result
in global attention to those issues and incorporation into GEF projects. The expected
outcomes for the learning/experience sharing projects is not only capacity enhancement or
best practices identified and shared among agencies, but also surveys will monitor a possible
improvement in IW portfolio performance. Indicators include: evidence of functioning
national inter-ministry committees; agreed SAPs adopted with shared visions of future action
and commitments to reforms/investments and reflecting climatic variability and change; and
community benefits demonstrated from water quality, quantity, habitat, and fisheries pilots.
Global attention would be a measure of success for three priority targeted research programs
and improvement in portfolio performance will be tracked.

Objective Four: Promote effective management of Marine Areas Beyond National
Jurisdiction (ABNJ) directed at preventing fisheries depletion --joint with Biodiversity
and only included in $800 million IW Replenishment Scenario

Rationale
36.
Since 1982 when the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea defined national
maritime jurisdictions, Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) have remained a
sustainable management challenge, lacking comprehensive legal instruments and normal
management options despite being 40% of the planet. ABNJ marine ecosystems are
threatened by increasing use by pelagic fishing for highly migratory species and very
damaging bottom trawling on seamounts (fish catch has doubled the last decade), maritime
navigation, extraction of hydrocarbons and mineral exploration, and other emerging activities
such as ocean fertilization, which might affect the marine environment. Solutions to the legal
and management challenges are emerging under a number of conventions and international
legal instruments such as CCAMLR, the IMO environment conventions and the Barcelona
Convention for the Mediterranean. Recent developments at the international level (UN, CBD,
FAO) demonstrate the growing interest for these high seas issues which have been eligible in
GEF IW since 1995.

Project Support
37.
This objective can only be established in the $800 million IW Replenishment
scenario. Fisheries, especially those taking highly migratory species such as tuna, and bottom
trawling on seamounts are likely to remain the main and most widespread threat to
ecosystems in ABNJ and would be subject of GEF projects. Tuna fishing by purse seines and
long-lines kill non-target biodiversity such as sea birds, marine mammals and sea turtles.
Solutions have been found to prevent and reduce by-catch and would be supported. For
example: in the eastern Pacific marine mammal by-catch has been reduced by changed fishing
practices; in the Southern Ocean; bird mortality on long lines has been reduced by gear
alterations; and turtle catch can be reduced by use of circle hooks on long lines. Regional
fisheries organizations (RFMOs) responsible for managing migratory species are
increasingly collaborating, e.g., through the Kobe meeting process, and the fisheries and
conservation sectors are collaborating more closely with RFMOs, offering platforms to
leverage private-public partnerships and international legal innovations.

38.
Protection of seamounts and biodiversity can be greatly improved through more
developed regional fisheries management capacity and application of protected area tools
such as MPAs. A pilot initiative with resources and expertise from both the Biodiversity and

19

---

IW areas has the potential to conserve this last haven with Marine Protected Areas (MPAs),
Benthic Protected Areas (BPAs), cooperative frameworks, and improved flag-state fisheries
compliance. Projects that develop and test technology and management arrangements for
MPAs and reducing tuna by-catch would be supported (including use of criteria issued in
CBD/COP9 Decision IX/20) and guidance issued from by FAO in August, 2008 on ABNJ
(including deep sea and tuna fisheries on the high seas consistent with implementing UNGA
Resolution 61/105 and the International Guidelines). Use of existing legal instruments such
as Regional Seas Agreements, FAO RFMOs, and other arrangements such as IMO Special
Areas Designation may be tested along with market and industry approaches. NGOs with
interest in certain areas of ocean or seamounts may help contribute to the testing of measures
and management options.

Outcomes
39.
GEF intends to have a global institutional impact by testing management approaches.
Outcomes include: sustainable fisheries achieved and proper gear used in ABNJ as a result of
improved flag-state and port-state monitoring and control of fishing practices; protection of
seamounts and other priority ABNJ results from establishment of MPAs, BPAs, incorporation
into RMFOs and partnerships with NGPs/foundations/states/agencies; globally significant
partnership between Biodiversity and IW focal areas catalyzes global attention on needed
regimes for ABNJ. Indicators include: port state and flag state compliance improvements;
reduced overfishing and fishing with damaging gear; establishment of MPAs and BPAs,
adoption of RFMO ABNJ plans, and establishment of pilot regimes for certain ABNJ.

Objective Five: Undertake pilot-scale demonstrations of pollution reduction from
Persistent Toxic Substances, particularly endocrine disruptors--joint with Chemicals
and only included in $800 million IW Replenishment Scenario

Rationale
40.
While Persistent Toxic Substances have been eligible for financing in IW since 1995
through the GEF Operational Strategy, other priorities requests from states have taken
precedence. New information shows the danger to ecosystem and human health from
persistent toxic substances that are not classified as POPS but are released as air and water
pollution or leak from waste sites. Cleanup and best management practices in agriculture are
critical to reduce risks. Without a separate initiative being developed with dedicated IW
resources and help from the Chemicals focal area, the persistent toxic substances termed
"endocrine disruptors" will continue to bio-accumulate in fish and pose serious human and
ecosystem health problems.

Project Support
41.
This objective can only be established in the $800 million IW Replenishment
scenario. A pilot initiative joint with the Chemicals focal area would be pursued to
demonstrate that clean technology provides alternatives to releasing PTS, particularly
endocrine disruptors that accumulate in fish and impair human health, neurological
development of children, and populations of fisheries, wildlife, and birds. With thousands of
pollutants this characteristic, future programs may be costly and a pilot initiative shared
among two focal areas provides a pragmatic approach to pursue in addressing this recently
identified gap in global action.

Outcomes
42.
A demonstration program of joint projects(Chemicals and IW) tests the effectiveness
of policies, instruments, and technologies for reducing releases of PTS, particularly those that
exhibit endocrine disruption in order to reduce risks to ecosystem and community health. The
business community is engaged in developing solutions to demonstrate cost-effectiveness and
pollution prevention pays strategies. Indicators include: partnerships developed with

20

---

industry on clean technologies and pollution prevention; measureable pollution reduction at
demo sites.

21

---

Table 1: Results Framework for International Waters (IW) Focal Area for GEF5**

Long-term IW Goal: Promotion of collective management of transboundary water systems and implementation of the full range of policy,
legal, and institutional reforms and investments contributing to sustainable use and maintenance of ecosystem services.
Impact: Depends on the Replenishment level
Objectives
Key Expected Outcomes
Key Targets under
Key Targets under $9
Core Outputs
$5 billion Scenario
billion Scenario **
Objective 1:
· Key Outcomes: (a) Implementation of agreed
$150-180 million
$225-275 million


Strategic Action Programmes (SAP) incorporates



Catalyze multi-
transboundary IWRM principles (including
Co-financing ratio Co-financing ratio
National and local
state
environment and groundwater) and
of 1:2
of 1:4
policy and legal
cooperation to
policy/legal/institutional reforms into national/local


reforms adopted/
balance
plans; (b) Transboundary institutions for joint
Measureable
Measureable results implemented; agreed
ecosystem-based and adaptive management
results for local
for local
commitments to
conflicting
demonstrate sustainability; (c) Innovative solutions for demonstrations
demonstrations and joint, ecosystem-
water uses in
reduced pollution, improved water use efficiency,
and
adoption/implemen
based management
transboundary
sustainable fisheries with rights-based management,
adoption/impleme
tation of
frameworks; types of
surface and
IWRM, water supply protection in SIDS, and aquifer
ntation of
national/local
technologies and
groundwater
and catchment protection produce measureable, on-the national/local
reforms for at least
measures
basins while
ground results including community benefits; (d)
reforms for at least 70 % of states
implemented in local
considering
Climatic variability and change as well as
50 % of states
participating in 10-
investments;
climatic
groundwater capacity incorporated into updated SAP
participating in 8-
12 transboundary
capacity
variability and
to reflect adaptive management.
10 transboundary
water systems
enhancement for
change
· Indicators: (a) Adoption/implementation of
water systems
covering at least 40 issues of climatic
national/local reforms; functioning of national inter-
covering at least
states.
variability and
ministry committees; (b) Cooperation frameworks
30 states.

groundwater
agreed with sustainable financing; (c) Measureable
"Save the Source"
management
results produced for on-the-ground investment
water use
demonstrations, including community benefits
efficiency Earth
(disaggregated by gender) and; (d) Surveys record
Fund Platform fully
capacity improvement and partnerships.
funded
· Enhanced Outcomes**: (a) Same as above but with
greater scaling-up of demonstrations to more states
and waterbodies plus (b) Earth Fund water use
efficiency platform pilots enhanced results with
complementary IW partnership funding
· Indicators: Same as above.
22

---

Objectives
Key Expected Outcomes
Key Targets under $5
Key Targets under $9
Core Outputs

billion Scenario
billion Scenario **
Objective 2:
· Key Outcomes: (a) Implementation of agreed
$200-240 million
$240-300 million


Strategic Action Programmes (SAP) incorporates



Catalyze multi-
ecosystem-based approaches to management of
1:2 co-financing ratio 1:3 co-financing ratio Agreed
state
LMEs, ICM principles, and policy/legal/


commitments to
cooperation to
institutional reforms into national/local plans; (b)
Measureable results
Measureable results
sustainable ICM
rebuild marine
Institutions for joint ecosystem-based and adaptive for reducing land-
for reducing land-
and LME
management demonstrate sustainability; (c)
based pollution and
based pollution and
cooperation
fisheries and
Innovative solutions for reduced pollution,
sustainable fisheries
sustainable fisheries
frameworks;
reduce
rebuilding or protecting fish stocks with rights-
in demonstrations as
in demonstrations and national and local
pollution of
based management, ICM, habitat
well as adoption/
adoption/implementat policy/legal/
coasts and
restoration/conservation, and port management
implementation of
ion of national/local
institutional
Large Marine
produce measureable, on-the ground results
national/local reforms reforms for at least 70 reforms
Ecosystems
including community benefits; (d) Climatic
for at least 50 % of
% of states
adopted/implement
(LMEs) while
variability and change at coasts and in LMEs
states in 8-10 LMEs
participating in 9-11
ed; types of
considering
incorporated into updated SAP to reflect adaptive
covering at least 40
LMEs covering at
technologies and
climatic
management and ICM considerations.
states.
least 48 states.
measures
variability and
· Indicators: a) Adoption/implementation of

implemented in
change
national/local reforms; functioning of national
Earth Fund platforms local
inter-ministry committees; (b) Cooperation
" Rebuilding Ocean
demonstrations;
frameworks agreed with sustainable financing; (c)
Fish Stocks &
industry
Measureable results produced for on-the-ground
Biodiversity" and
partnerships with
investment demonstrations including Community
"Revitalizing Dead
Earth Fund
benefits( disaggregated by gender); (d) Surveys
Zones" fully funded
record capacity improvement and partnerships.
· Enhanced Outcomes: (a) Same as above but with
greater scaling-up of demonstrations to more
states and waterbodies plus (b) Earth Fund
"Rebuilding Ocean Fish Stocks and "Revitalizing
Dead Zones" platforms pilot enhanced results with
complementary IW partnership funding
· Indicators: Same as above.
23

---

Objectives
Key Expected Outcomes
Key Targets
Key Targets under
Core Outputs

under $5 billion
$9 billion Scenario
Scenario
**
Objective 3:
· Key Outcomes: (a) Political commitment, shared
$90-125
$125-165 million

vision, and institutional capacity demonstrated for joint, million


Support
ecosystem-based management; (b) Community benefits
Multi-state
National inter-ministry
foundational
result from water quality, quantity, fisheries
Multi-state
agreement on
committees established;
capacity
demonstrations; (c) IW portfolio performance enhanced
agreement on
commitments to
agreed Transboundary
building,
from active learning/KM; (d) Targeted research
commitments
joint, ecosystem-
Diagnostic Analyses &
networks impact global thinking on at least coral reefs;
to joint,
based action for
Strategic Action
portfolio
(e) Political agreements on Arctic LMEs prevent further ecosystem-
10-12 new
Programmes; demo-
learning, and
depletion/degradation.
based action
waterbodies with scale local action
targeted
· Indicators: (a) Agreed Strategic Action Programmes at for 9-11 new
investment-scale
implemented; active
research needs
ministerial level with considerations for climatic
waterbodies
demonstrations;
experience/sharing/
for joint,
variability and change; (b) Measureable on-the-ground
with modest

learning practiced in the
ecosystem-
results in local demonstrations (c) GEF 5 performance
demonstrations 85% IW projects IW portfolio; Arctic
based
improved over GEF 4 per Tracking Tool; (d) Coral reef
demonstrate
LME programmatic
management of
research results incorporated into projects; (e) AMAP
active GEF
approach with partners.
transboundary
monitoring shows no further depletion/degradation.
portfolio
water systems

experience
· Enhanced Outcomes: (a) Key outcomes above plus: (b)
sharing/learning;
Community benefits and measureable results produced
for on-the-ground investment demonstrations; (c)
Targeted research networks impact global thinking on
coral reefs, nutrients/"Dead Zones", and environmental
flows.
· Indicators: (a) Indicators above plus: (b) Global action
catalyzed on 3 research priorities
24

---

Objectives
Key Expected Outcomes
Key Targets
Key Targets under $9
Core Outputs
under $5 billion
billion Scenario **
Scenario
Objective 4:

$ 0
$40-75 million


· Enhanced Outcomes: (a) Seamounts and fisheries for



Promote
ABNJ under sustainable management and protection;
50% of ABNJ
ABNJ demo plans
effective
(b) Plans and institutional frameworks for pilot case
plans sustainable
with institutions; pilot
management of
ABNJ have global impact
within institutions; regimes for improved
Marine Areas
· Indicators: (a) MPAs established; improved flag and
MPA target in
management; Marine
port state enforcement of practices; (b) GEF-piloted
Biodiversity
Protected Areas
Beyond
ABNJ approaches replicated globally
Strategy
(MPAs)
National
Jurisdiction
(ABNJ) directed
at preventing
fisheries
depletion --joint
with GEF Biodi
Focal Area

Objectives
Key Expected Outcomes
Key Targets
Key Targets under
Core Outputs
under $5 billion
$9 billion Scenario **
Scenario
Objective 5:

$0
$25-40 million


· Enhanced Outcomes: (a) PTS pollution reduction



Undertake pilot-
through successful demonstration technology; (b)
70% of pilots
Avoided releases of
scale
Partnerships with industry replicate clean technology to
show reduced
PTS in pilot projects;
demonstrations
avoid PTS releases
PTS;
variety of
of pollution
· Indicators: (a) Kg PTS reduced; (b)Replication
partnerships with
strategies
industry
reduction from
Persistent Toxic
Substances
(PTS) ,
especially
endocrine
disruptors--joint
25

---

with Chemicals
**Outc
Focal Area
omes
and
Indicators associated with $9 Billion Replenishment Scenario highlighted in italics
26

---

Attachment C


27

---