MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECT PROPOSAL
REQUEST FOR FUNDING UNDER THE GEF Trust Fund
GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 3341
FINANCING PLAN ($)
IA/ExA PROJECT ID: PIMS No. 3930
PPG
Project*
COUNTRY: Continental Africa
GEF Total
1,000,000
PROJECT TITLE: Regional Dialogue and Twinning to
Improve Transboundary Water Resources Governance
Co-financing
in Africa
GEF IA/ExA
100,000
BMZ InWEnt,
340,000
GEF
GTZ
IA/ExA: UNDP
OTHER PROJECT EXECUTING AGENCY(IES): InWEnt
GLFC 230,000
UNU INWEH UNESCO UNOPS
NBI 100,000
DURATION: 3 years
SIWI/CSIR/PR
130,000
GEF FOCAL AREA: International Waters
UNESCO
350,000
GEF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES: SO1/SO2
InWEnt - 300,000
GEF STRATEGIC PROGRAM: IW-3
TRANSNET,
IA/ExA FEE: 100,000
RBD
CONTRIBUTION TO KEY INDICATORS IDENTIFIED IN
UNU-INWEH
50,000
THE FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES: National water
GWP (Med, EA, 135,000
resource and IWRM reforms/policies adopted; SA, Global)
Adoption and effectiveness of regional basin SADC-
50,000
agreements and institutions.
PF/PALDIF
Co-financing
1,785,000
Total
Total
2,785,000
Financing for Associated Activities If Any:
MILESTONES
DATES
PIF APPROVAL (actual)
PPG APPROVAL (if
applicable)
MSP EFFECTIVENESS September
07
MSP START
September 07
MSP CLOSING May
10
TE/PC REPORT*
May 10
*Terminal Evaluation/Project Completion
Report
Approved on behalf of the UNDP. This proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and
procedures and meets the standards of the Review Criteria for GEF Medium-sized Projects.
Mirey Atallah
Project Contact Person
John Hough
UNDP-GEF Deputy Executive Coordinator, a.i.
Date: 29 August 2007
Tel. and email:
+9613108985 mirey.atallah@undp.org
Petersberg Africa MSP
1
8/30/2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Summary
Rationale
4
Objectives
6
Expected outcomes
6
Key indicators, assumptions and risks
7
2 Country ownership
Country Eligibility
8
Country Drivennes
8
3 Program and policy conformity
A Program designation and conformity
10
B Project Design
10
Sector issues and root causes
10
Barriers to transboundary cooperation at continental level
11
Project strategy
11
C Sustainability
12
D Replicability
12
E Stakeholder involvement
13
Stakeholders in project development
13
Stakeholders in project implementation
13
F Monitoring and evaluation
14
4 Financing
Financing plan
16
5 Institutional coordination and support
A) Core commitment and linkages
18
B) Consultation coordination and collaboration between and among IA, EA and GEFSEC
19
C) Project implementation arrangement
20
Petersberg Africa MSP
2
8/30/2007
ACRONYMS
AMCOW
African Ministerial Council On Water
AMCEN
African Ministerial Council for the Environment
ANBO
African Network of Basin Organizations
COMPSUD
Circle Of Mediterranean Parliamentarians for Sustainable Development
EA
Eastern
Africa
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GLFC
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
GWP
Global Water Partnership
IJC
International
Joint
Commission
InWEnt-RBD
InWEnt Capacity Building International, River Basin Dialogue
Programme
InWEnt-Petersberg
InWEnt Capacity Building International, Petersberg Dialogue
ISARM
International Shared Aquifer Resource Management
MDG
Millennium
Development
Goals
MSP
Medium
Size
Project
NEPAD
New Partnership for Africa's Development
NBI
Nile
Basin
Initiative
OSS
Sahel and Sahara Observatory
PALDIF Pan-African
Leadership
Development Institute and Foundation
SADC-PF
Southern African Development Community Parliamentary Forum
SIWI
Stockholm International Water Institute
TWRM
Transboundary Water Resources Management
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
UNESCO-IHP
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
International Hydrological Programme
UNU-INWEH
United Nations University International Network on Water, Environment and
Health
Petersberg Africa MSP
3
8/30/2007
PART I - PROJECT CONCEPT
1 - SUMMARY
1) The GEF is currently supporting a dozen African freshwater basin projects through
foundational-type projects worth 90 million US$. This proposal for a Medium Size Project
(MSP) Grant from the GEF is to assist African basins toward effecting policy reforms for
governance and transitioning to needed investments. This will be done by supporting (i) the
adoption and national ownership of a number of transboundary water partnerships, (ii) the shift
to systems thinking approaches by including groundwater, lakes and climate change
considerations in shared basin planning and management. (iii) the strengthening of investment
planning processes, and (iv) exchanges of GEF project experiences that can inform global
policy dialogues such as the World Water Forum (WWF) in 2009.. At the broader development
level, the MSP is expected to contribute to the achievement of MDGs and of the Johannesburg
Plan of Implementation in relation to Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) and
reform in the water sector. In particular, this MSP will help ensure that successful experiences
in benefit sharing are replicated, that legal reforms support investments and that intersectoral
coordination supports poverty reduction efforts in sectors underpinned by the use of water
resources. This MSP has been designed to complement the upcoming Petersberg Process Africa
Transboundary Basin Roundtable thus reflecting the priorities and concerns of African
governments and stakeholders.
RATIONALE
2) The distribution of water resources in the African continent is characterized by (i) a great
variability from the dry North to the South and from the Sahel in the West to the arid Horn of
Africa; (ii) a tremendous interconnection through the 60 transboundary river basins covering
over 63% of the continent's land area. These features, in addition to the presence of some 700
lakes (15 of which are transboundary), are reflected in the extent of the GEF's response through
its extensive IW African portfolio.
3) The African nexus is clear:
a. Growing pressure on water resources from population and economic growth and
climate change is driving the need to engage stakeholders at multiple levels and across
sectors in integrated, eco-system-based approaches as a foundation of sustainable
development. This means:
b. Confronting an increasingly urgent need to improve cooperation both within and
between transboundary basin systems at a sub-regional and indeed continental scale to
balance competing uses of water resources and share experiences.
4) As noted during the AMCOW1's October 2006 Conference of African River and Lake Basin
Organizations, while capacity remains weak in African water governance institutions at all
levels, networking among African practitioners and policy-makers within and among
transboundary basins is a proven means to share successful experience and learn from mistakes.
Proposals for inter-basin transfers with limited consultation and information of concerned
basins are raising worries of devastating impacts such as in the case of Congo. This illustrates
both the need for considerable information exchange and communication as well as the
necessity of forging new ways to tackle shared water resources management and ecosystem-
based governance to guide investment, infrastructure and development planning at multiple
scales to manage Africa's shared freshwater resources as a network of increasingly
interconnected and transboundary hydrological systems.
5) It is estimated that transboundary water systems cover 61% of Africa's landmass, that 77% of
the African population lives in their basins and that they represent 93% of the available surface
1 AMCOW: African Ministerial Council On Water
Petersberg Africa MSP
4
8/30/2007
water in Africa. These figures make it clear that for the African continent to achieve
development and reach the millennium development goals, investing in transboundary
cooperation for the development of water resources is a necessity. The GEF alone is supporting
collaboration on more than 10 basins, with an envelope of 90+ million US$. While the first
stages of such collaboration required facilitation, the creation and support for legal and
institutional structures and piloting innovative approaches, the time is now ripe to move into the
realization of tangible benefits. In order to do so, enhancing governance of water systems and
facilitating national adoption of reforms through a continent-wide cohesive approach is of
utmost necessity.
6) GEF and other donor projects on transboundary water resource management have so far
adopted a basin-level and water-body based approach. The increased understanding of climate
change impacts on hydrological cycles coupled with the underpinning role water plays in
achieving sustainable development to lift Africa out of poverty, highlight the need to adopt a
systems-thinking approach, integrating the management of lake, surface and groundwater.
Furthermore, this approach should extend to integrate climate resilient and sustainable land,
forest and biodiversity management.
7) In characterizing the issue of water scarcity, the 2006 Human Development Report concluded
that it was a consequence of poor management and governance rather than one of absolute
scarcity of the resource. The delivery of tangible benefits for African populations and the
conservation of key ecosystems functions and services are threatened by (i) poor governance
structures and the lack of translation of transboundary agreements into national legislation; (ii)
theoretical understanding of benefit sharing which is not easily valued in terms of development
impacts and (iii) the prospective of future climate change impacts which tend to reverse the
tendency from cooperation to the protection of individual, national interests.
8) In order to support systematic reforms in transboundary water management and governance in
Africa, the German government in cooperation with GEF, UNDP, and the World Bank are
leading a process of experience sharing and dialogue (known as the Petersberg Process) for
African Transboundary basins near Bonn in late September, 2007. The high level Roundtable
will result in priorities determined by a wide range of African stakeholders including public
institutions, regional transboundary basin organizations, civil society representatives and
donors. This proposed MSP and the experiences of the GEF international waters portfolio in
Africa are integral parts of this process and will ensure the recommendations and priorities
identified by the Petersberg Roundtable are taken a step further to the WWF in 2009. The MSP
will also ensure that the concerns of African countries are informed by science, that policy
reform is enacted through the engagement of parliamentarians in the process and that the
effectiveness of Lake and River Basin Organizations is enhanced.
9) The proposed project will therefore produce three key results in support of transboundary water
cooperation:
a. Transboundary water concerns and experiences are better understood by national
legislators and decision-makers and that GEF experience will inform deliberations of
the WWF in 2009
b. Water system approaches (Lakes and groundwater) and climate change dimensions
better reflected in water resource planning and management
c. Effectiveness of Basin Organizations is enhanced through strengthened financing and
investment planning.
Petersberg Africa MSP
5
8/30/2007
10) This will be achieved through a partnership comprised of AMCOW, AMCEN, NEPAD2,
Parliamentary organizations of the regional African communities, civil society organizations
media and scientists with the backing of the international community. Given the widespread
nature of these shared concerns, tackling them at a continental level will ensure the exchange of
lessons learnt, knowledge sharing and cost effectiveness of activities.
11) The project proposes a flexible implementation mechanism with a lead institution identified for
each component depending on its value added and technical knowledge. The principles of
engagement in the MSP for all partners and organizations are:
a. Ensuring that all activities benefit African countries, basins and organizations
b. Building on existing projects and initiatives, when they bring an added value to the
GEF and to the process
c. Broadening the stakeholder base beyond the usual technicians, scientists and water
experts.
OBJECTIVES
12) The project goal is to increase African leaders' and stakeholder's knowledge and political will
for balancing sustainable uses of water resources at the transboundary and regional basin
systems scales by institutionalizing systems-thinking and adaptive management feedback
mechanisms.
13) The project will contribute to achieving this goal through 3 mutually instructive objectives in
support of the continent wide GEF and other donor funded transboundary water cooperation
initiatives:
a. To facilitate implementation of partnerships, exchanges of experience, and learning on
policy, legal and institutional reform for transboundary waters management through
increased knowledge and capacity of decision-makers, legislators and public opinion-
makers
b. To enhance regional and national knowledge and capacity for the management and
planning of shared water resource systems through the integration of groundwater
dimensions, climate impacts and development of science and policy linkages for river
basin and lake system management;
c. To strengthen investment planning processes in shared water resources management
and infrastructure by sharing lessons on transition from donor support to self-
sustaining regional water institutions and providing a basis for assessing optimal
investments in support of benefit sharing discourse
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
· Enhanced understanding and capacity of regional and national decision-makers,
legislators and the media to influence governance and reform shared water resource
planning and management;
· GEF Africa basin experiences inform deliberations at WWF 2009;
· Regional learning mechanisms institutionalized among African RBOs;
· Capacity of key actors and institutions to mainstream groundwater considerations and
climate change impacts in water resource management strategies and policies
enhanced;
· African perspectives and priorities on (i) groundwater and climate change, (ii) Lakes
management and governance and (iii) adding value to collaboration articulated and are
also brought to discussions at WWF;
2 AMCEN: African Ministerial Council for the Environment; NEPAD: New Partnership for Africa's
Development
Petersberg Africa MSP
6
8/30/2007
· A framework for collaboration on great lakes systems through enhanced science and
policy linkages agreed;
· Methodology for assessing benefit sharing options for investment tested;
· Investment commitments at water system levels catalyzed;
· Lessons on transition from donor support to self-sustaining regional water institutions
transferred.
Key Indicators, Assumptions and Risks
14) This MSP is designed to support the overall performance of GEF-funded foundational capacity
building projects for transboundary surface and groundwater basins in Africa by capturing GEF
and non-GEF experiences and encouraging successful replication in other basins. It therefore
contributes to the larger results and indicators of the GEF 4 IW focal area strategy. Being
focused on Africa, this proposed MSP will specifically contribute primarily to Strategic
Program 3 "Balancing overuse and conflicting uses of water resources in transboundary surface
and groundwater basins by promoting learning, information exchange and capacity building at
the regional level, to ensure adequate dissemination of lessons, methodologies and practices.
This would be measured by the following process indicators:
· Governance and policy reform in the context of transboundary water systems enhanced.
· Framework of collaboration on Great Lakes Systems through enhanced science/policy
linkages agreed.
· Assessment of benefit sharing and business planning at shared basin levels developed and
tested in at least one basin from each African sub-region.
15) Key assumptions include:
· The strengthening of media networks and individual capacities through the delivery of
trainings and materials and synchronization with newsworthy events, will result in enhanced
public participation in environment and water-related decision making processes.
· Creating the space for parliamentarians to engage with regional water institutions and work
with fellow parliamentarians to improve water governance set-ups will accelerate the
necessary legal reform processes.
· The proposed methodology for assessing benefit-sharing will identify concrete options and
catalyze African and foreign investment in these options.
16) The key risks to the success of the MSP would be:
· There is a lack of long-term commitment on the part of African Governments to undertake and
maintain sustainable reforms involving inter-sectoral coordination; this risk might be
amplified by the pairing of newly founded commissions with strong international
commissions which might result in neglect by parent governments;
· The timeframe for impacts of the MSP in terms of reform, investment and management
effectiveness is beyond the duration of the project;
· The project is ambitious in terms of the operations and coordination resulting from the
geographic coverage and extent of activities proposed;
· There is potential fiscal risk associated with fluctuations in the foreign exchange rate of the
dollar; this was highlighted as a growing problem by GEF IW project participants in IW:
LEARN's 1st Pan-Africa workshop at UNEP in October, 2006; and
· There are tremendous risks inherent in the potential for infrastructure investments linking
surface and groundwater systems, and creating linkages between basin systems to open the
door to Africa's development through equitable and economically and environmentally
sustainable allocation and use of water resources or to wreak havoc with the water cycle,
leading to unprecedented exacerbation of Africa's water resource problems. These risks are
compounded by the increasing awareness of African governments on the potential impacts of
climate change on water resources; such impacts, amplified by ill-informed media and public
pressure may lead to hasty decisions destabilizing already fragile transboundary agreements.
Petersberg Africa MSP
7
8/30/2007
2 - COUNTRY OWNERSHIP
A) COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY
17) This project is a learning-type MSP targeting transboundary water resource management at the
continental and sub-regional levels in Africa; all benefiting countries are eligible for UNDP
technical assistance and GEF funds under paragraph 9(b) of the GEF instrument.
B) COUNTRY DRIVENNESS
18) The project is anchored in and driven by African stakeholders at three levels: (i) continental in
responding to priorities identified by AMCOW as key challenges which need to be addressed
for the sustainable development of Africa's water resources; (ii) sub-regional through the
proposals made to the project preparation team by shared basin institutions and economic
communities and (iii) national through the articulation of country needs at sub-regional level.
At a continental level
19) The project builds on the GEF partnership with the government of Germany (BMU and BMZ)
and the World Bank in the "Petersberg Process" of transboundary water governance dialogues.
Critical issues identified in consultation with AMCOW include: bringing value to benefit-
sharing, regional water infrastructure and governance, adaptation to climate change, water use
efficiency, products and services, donor harmonization, resource mobilization and sustainable
financing.
20) Project preparation workshops held in conjunction with the October 2006 AMCOW meeting of
African River and Lake Basin organizations recommended twelve reasons to propose this
project:
1. Appropriate legal and institutional frameworks are crucial for sustainable management
of transboundary waters in Africa, especially in light of stakeholder demands for
competing uses, and emerging plans for infrastructure investments at inter-basin
scales.
2. Major infrastructure investments are required to meet Africa's pressing socio-
economic development needs; e.g. less than 5% of Africa's hydropower potential has
been developed.
3. Environmental flows must be maintained to protect the long-term ability of too-often
already stressed hydrological systems and the livelihoods that depend upon them.
4. Emerging water governance institutions in Africa are weak and under-financed;
transboundary institutions need support in order to be able to better learn from, adapt
and implement measures and investments agreed upon at the level of waterbody
systems.
5. Decision-makers lack knowledge and capacity at all of the necessary levels (inter-
ministerial, parliamentarians, NGOs and CBOs, etc.) for governments to articulate and
implement appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks linked to implementation of
transboundary conventions.
6. Multiple initiatives at different intervention levels have generated a body of lessons,
but GEF-IW:LEARN and others have only begun to build South-to-South (sub-
regional) and South/North (thematic) communities of practice to counter an historical
lack of trickle down & transferring.
7. Projects often end before pilots can realize self-sustaining means to share practical
experiences and more importantly to facilitate steps necessary for replication and
scaling up
Petersberg Africa MSP
8
8/30/2007
8. Opportunities for synergies between complementary objectives in land and water
management are lost due to lack of means for coordination and cooperation between
GEF projects operating in countries sharing watersheds.
9. Experience and expertise in peer learning and process tools (consultative dialogue,
consensus building, and conflict resolution) should be targeted at the scale of water
systems within sub-regional economic communities to reap and sustain benefits of
GEF investments and to optimize implementation.
10. A comprehensive set of indicators is lacking for monitoring and evaluation of healthy
ecosystems, especially in contiguous African lakes systems where harmonization
would add value to monitoring & evaluation efforts
11. Despite best efforts, low levels of participation and dissemination of information
remain obstacles to participatory water governance: public participation is
predominantly constrained by lack of access to information - most notably in the
media; gender mainstreaming remains a key area of missed opportunity and
unrealized potential.
12. Climate variability and change introduce new risk factors in water governance,
investment and management decision-making which are little understood, and
consensus on priority threats and actions is weak.
21) This first level of African political anchorage demonstrates the continental driven-ness of the
project.
Shared basins and economic commissions
22) Shared waters institutions such as the Lake Victoria Basin Commission, the Nile Basin
Secretariat, and the nascent Lake Tanganika Management Authority have participated in the
identification of activities and the design of specific components of relevance and interest to
their work.
23) The same applies to other regional organizations involved in the project (SADC, PALDIF,
COMPSUD, GWP3, etc.); following the initial project brainstorming workshop and agreement
on the principles, approaches and aim of the project, proponents in each sub-region have
undertaken their own consultations and proposed specific activities that would contribute to the
overall goal of the project.
National levels
24) Most organizations involved in the project undertake strategic planning with their membership
and boards, composed of constituencies ranging from Ministries of Water, members of
parliament, to networks of professionals. These organizations generally rely on a pyramidal
process starting with broad-based, diverse activities stemming from the constituency which are
then filtered down to common priorities offering opportunities for economies of scale when
delivered regionally. The project responds to these needs and priorities identified at the national
levels and articulated in the form of strategic activities.
25) The bulk of beneficiary countries are riparians of one or more shared water system engaged in
GEF IW projects with their GEF OFPs having endorsed the need for GEF support to strengthen
the management of the transboundary water bodies they share.
3 SADC: South African Development Community; PALDIF: Pan-African Leadership Development Institute and
Foundation; COMPSUD: Circle Of Mediterranean Parliamentarians for Sustainable Development; GWP: Global
Water Partnership.
Petersberg Africa MSP
9
8/30/2007
3 PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY
A) PROGRAM DESIGNATION AND CONFORMITY
26) The GEF 4 IW focal area strategy states that "An increased emphasis on targeted experience
sharing and learning among the new and existing GEF IW projects in the portfolio is planned to
improve capacity of projects to achieve objectives and to identify and replicate good practices
before project completion. South-to-South experience sharing among IW projects contributes to
quality enhancement for the GEF IW portfolio, development of knowledge management tools to
capture good practices, and accelerated replication of good practices. With the help of its
IW:LEARN program, its web-based resource center (www.iwlearn.net), and the GEF
International Waters Task Force, this portfolio learning is an important feature of GEF
programming and will be enhanced with a focus on many Africa IW operations now underway."
The project specifically responds to this statement and will contribute to the transfer of lessons,
knowledge and best practices to GEF IW operations within and beyond the African continent.
27) The project will contribute SO1/SO2 at a continental level: by leveraging existing GEF
portfolio projects and transboundary organizations on water bodies worldwide through South-
South and North-South partnerships, it will contribute to replicating existing best practices and
approaches in terms of institutional management of shared water bodies; the project also tackles
financial aspects of TBW management. In doing so, the project clearly abides by the principles
set out in the GEF4 IW strategy and squares with its overall targeted learning outcomes.
28) Strategic Program 3 "Balancing overuse and conflicting uses of water resources in
transboundary surface and groundwater basins" ascertains the findings of the 2006 Human
Development report by acknowledging that the global water crisis results from a crisis of
governance. Through its interventions, the project contributes to the resolution of this crisis by
engaging legislators to accelerate legal reforms and by creating the frameworks for public
participation in decision-making processes.
29) More specifically, the proposed MSP will contribute to indicators of IW#1/2 through the
promotion of integrated water policies and joint activities to key decision-makers and key
policy reform instruments such as basin-wide business plans and the inclusion of groundwater
and climate change consideration in economic development planning tools.
30) Finally this MSP will enhance the performance of basins receiving GEF support as well as the
commitment of individual countries as part of their participation in basin-wide development
activities.
B) PROJECT DESIGN
SECTOR ISSUES AND ROOT CAUSES
31) Transboundary water resource management in Africa is subject to poor management and lack of
support at the national level; the extent of interlinkages at the ecosystem level among the basins
warrants linkages among decision-makers and managers as well. There are multiple root causes
to be addressed, they include the following:
· Inadequate governance systems, including inadequate integration of legal and
administrative frameworks at the national levels
· The absence of solid bases for looking comprehensively at water resource management by
including groundwater, climate change and lake systems
· Inadequate linkages for effective sub-regional management based on an ecosystem
approach in key institutions.
· Poor understanding of benefit-sharing concepts and transboundary water cooperation at
the level of national decision-makers which are not directly involved in TWRM .
· Weak bases to determine options for financing permanent institutions and for joint
investments generating benefits to be shared.
Petersberg Africa MSP
10
8/30/2007
BARRIERS TO TRANS-BOUNDARY COOPERATION AT CONTINENTAL LEVEL
32) At the ecosystem and sub-regional level, there is a need for countries to cooperate in addressing
these root causes in order to manage water resources, including trans-boundary resources,
effectively. The barriers to successful cooperation at the basin and sub-regional levels include:
· Insufficient human and financial resources for international cooperation.
· Inadequate institutional arrangements for coordination and exchange of information
· Insufficient harmonization of legislation and procedures within countries, between
countries, between regional and national levels and inter-regionally.
· Insufficient data and analysis of status and trends in transboundary resources especially in
terms of climate change impacts
· Insufficient linkages between science and policy leading to ill-informed policies,
legislation and strategies.
PROJECT STRATEGY
33) This proposed MSP for will aim to achieve the objectives referenced above in Section 2. The
proposed MSP has been structured around four components as described below:
Component 1: Exchanges of experience on legal, policy and management reforms in transboundary
water resources management (Total cost: US$1,351,000; GEF: US$506,000; Others: US$845,000)
This component would include (i) conducting the Petersberg Roundtable entitled "From agreements to
investments How to put measurable value on transboundary water cooperation in Africa"; (ii)
conducting a series of parliamentary dialogues to inform and engage parliamentarians; (iii)
establishing mechanisms and process tools for networking among RBO and Pan-African partners; (iv)
conducting trainings for African media on water and environment; and (v) using GEF-funded Africa
basin experiences to inform discussions at the World Water Forum in Istanbul.
Component 2: Systems thinking approach to shared and transboundary water resources (Total cost:
US$972,500; GEF: US$300,000; Others: US$672,500). This component (which represents a more
comprehensive, ecosystem-based approach) will focus on (a) bringing the groundwater and climate
change dimensions into shared water resource thinking and management and (b) strengthening Lake
Management systems through twinning with successful global experiences. It will help articulate
African perspectives and priorities in these two areas for presentation and discussion at the WWF 5.
Sub-component (a) would include: (i) articulating a consensual view of African stakeholders on GW
integration in transboundary systems; (ii) providing thematic trainings for legislators on groundwater
issues; (iii) publishing and disseminating a series of papers on GW integration; (iv) publishing and
disseminating a series of papers on climate change and adaptation in transboundary water resources;
(v) facilitating an inter-parliamentary position on GW integration, climate change and adaptive policy
in Africa. Sub-component (b) on Lakes Management includes (i) generating a synoptic overview of
ecosystem-health related science; (ii) publishing four workshop proceedings; (iii) developing a suite of
indicators to monitor and evaluate ecosystem health; (iv) publishing a science synthesis report and (v)
developing a framework for collaboration on great lakes systems through enhanced science and policy
linkages.
Component 3: Mechanisms for investment planning and financial sustainability (Total cost:
US$344,000; GEF: US$114,000, Others: US$230,000). This component would focus on the financial
aspects both in terms of the sustainability of RBO and in terms of investment planning. It would
include (i) the development of a methodology for assessing benefit sharing options which could be
pursued through joint action among riparian countries; (ii) transferring lessons learnt from shared
basin institutions that have already achieved their financial sustainability and shifted from donor
support; and (iii) testing the effectiveness of inter-ministerial committees in communicating with
ministries of finance for the allocation of budgetary resources to transboundary water cooperation.
Petersberg Africa MSP
11
8/30/2007
Component 4: Management, monitoring and evaluation (Total cost: US$117,500; GEF: US$80,000;
Others: US$37,500). This component will focus on the management and oversight of MSP
implementation. Given the number of project partners, it would include (i) establishment of the project
structure, communication lines and incorporation of findings of the (ii) meetings of the PSC to track
implementation, ensure complementarity between the different components and support feedback
loops among them; (iii) ad-hoc technical and themactic groups for technical backstopping and
coordination and (iv) independent evaluation of project performance and activities.
C) SUSTAINABILITY (INCLUDING FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY)
34) The project brings together the sustainability of natural resources, the sustainability of processes
and the sustainability of institutions. Together these three result in the sustainability of the GEF
and other investments made to meet the project objectives.
35) By (i) introducing a systems thinking approach to water and natural resource management, (ii)
including the integration of groundwater dimensions and mainstreaming of climate change
impacts in planning and decision-making processes, (iii) enhancing capacity to assess and share
public goods and benefits generated through transboundary cooperation; and (iv) supporting
cost-benefit analysis of sectoral development decisions, the project will contribute to the
sustainability of the African natural resource base.
36) As a demand-driven project responding to calls of governments and regional organizations, the
project will ramp up networking, inter-basin cooperation, exchange of knowledge and lesson
learning. Given the African leadership of these activities, the project will constitute a seed
investment in forming networks, regulatory approaches and investments required to insuring
self-sustaining processes and functions.
37) The project entails systematic capacity building of individuals, organizations and institutions.
The third component of the project exemplifies the contribution this project brings towards the
sustainability of existing institutions. Drawing on successful models of conflict resolution and
joint action (e.g. IJC and GLFC) the project will not only contribute to the strengthening of
existing water-body organizations, but will more importantly be an important transfer to
accomplish transboundary management of water resources as opposed to national interventions.
38) Finally, during its life-time the project will work with the permanent organizations such as
InWEnt, AMCOW, GWP, SADC PF and UNESCO's ISARM networks to integrate the
practices and approaches piloted by the project into their core programming. By specifically
targeting financial aspects of transboundary water resources management, the MSP will support
resource mobilization efforts beyond the lifetime of the project.
D) REPLICABILITY
39) The project will generate knowledge material, design methodologies and propose concrete
recommendations for policy reform to promote the replication of successful management
measures. Given that the project steering committee will include representatives of AMCOW,
of regional GWP members and of organizations active throughout the continent and beyond, it
is well position to promote successes and lessons through its members. Further replication and
promotion of best practices will be undertaken through GEF IW:LEARN tools, mechanisms,
events and networks. The project also allocates specific space to facilitate African contributions
to the next World Water Forum.
Petersberg Africa MSP
12
8/30/2007
E) STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
STAKEHOLDERS IN PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
40) Regional stakeholders, intergovernmental and non-government organizations have been
involved in the planning of basin level activities for GEF and non-GEF support. They have
further contributed to the last meeting of AMCOW and informed its debates.
41)
For GEF supported projects, the focal points have already provided endorsement ascertaining
the national relevance of IW projects with some committing financial resources as well. In order
to ensure the relevance of this MSP to countries, basins and on-going processes a consultation
meetings were held during project preparation and the official Brazzaville Ministerial
Declaration of AMCOW's sixth's ordinary session were integrated into the project The project
will specifically support three results of AMCOW's 2007 meeting: (i) Pan African declaration
on water financing and engaging finance ministries with annual review of progress through its
component 3 the MSP will contribute the transboundary dimension and develop targeted
communication materials for finance ministries; (ii) promote the institutionalization of
groundwater management by river basin organizations to ensure regional ownership through
its component 2 the MSP will provide the basis for informed and systematic integration of
groundwater dimensions; (iii) strengthening relations of AMCOW with NEPAD, AMCEN,
LBOs/RBO4s and civil society organizations through the broad stakeholder base targeted by
the first component of the project, the MSP responds to this policy statement by AMCOW and
will support the strengthening or relations in between Pan-African organizations.
STAKEHOLDERS IN PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
42) Stakeholders engaged in the implementation of the MSP have been identified during the
planning process and their role as partners and beneficiaries agreed based on value added and
relevance to the expected results from the MSP.
43) Following on from the Petersberg Roundtable the project's inception meeting and regular
steering committee will involve AMCOW, AMCEN, NEPAD as providers of strategic guidance
to the project.
44) Parliamentarians have been identified as a group often marginalized in IW projects while their
role in enacting legislation for the adoption of transboundary legal frameworks is key. Through
partnerships with the SADC parliamentary forum and PALDIF, with the Sahel Forum and with
the NBI, the project will develop and deliver targeted material to engage parliamentarians in IW
processes.
45) The media shapes public opinion and support or lack of to IW processes, including
infrastructure development. In certain basins, second-hand reporting has been identified as a set-
back to joint developments. The project will work directly with the media to increase their
understanding of transboundary water resource management.
46) International organizations will be involved in their respective areas of intervention and
comparative advantage to leverage internal knowledge and networks in support of the project.
For instance, GWP will play a key role in engaging the media, UNESCO in engaging scientists
on groundwater and climate change, UNU-INWEH will capitalize on its partnership with
GLFC5 (and perhaps the International Joint Commission--Canada and U.S.) and mastery of
lake basin systems management, InWEnt will pursue with GEF a partnership with RBOs to
enhance their performance.
4 LBO: Lake Basin Organization; RBO: River Basin Organization
5 Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Petersberg Africa MSP
13
8/30/2007
F) MONITORING AND EVALUATION
47) Project-based monitoring will be organized by InWEnt with the cooperation of UNESCO and
UNU-INWEH, under the guidance of the Steering Committee and in accordance with
GEF/UNDP monitoring and evaluation policy. Specific considerations in relation to the
monitoring of results and adaptive management approaches will form the basis of Monitoring
and Evaluation processes.
48) The project will adopt a three-pronged approach to monitoring and evaluation: (i) oversight of
project implementation and delivery of expected outputs and results by the PSC6; (ii) generating
feedback from project beneficiaries on the usefulness and results of project activities; (iii)
independent evaluation of the overall project performance.
(i) Project steering committee:
49) An inception meeting of the project partners, concurrent with the Petersberg roundtable for cost-
efficiency purposes will be held at the on-set of the project. During this meeting the
membership, modus operandi, and focus of the PSC will be agreed and endorsed. The PSC will
meet on a regular basis (at least once annually) and all efforts will be exerted to ensure
minimum financial implications of such meetings (e.g. organized concurrently with IWC,
project meetings...). As already experienced during the project preparation phase, virtual
meetings through teleconferencing and other communication technologies will be used
optimally. A final face to face meeting of the PSC will be held following the terminal project
evaluation at the end of the project to take stock of and generate lessons for similar projects in
the future and envisage follow-up mechanisms and activities.
(ii) Beneficiary feedback:
50) More informal systems-thinking influenced approaches recommend that `feedback generation'
be given greater prominence than `measurement'. There is persuasive evidence of the value and
effectiveness in terms of organizational capacity building of M&E approaches which:
· are based upon participation through self-assessment of key players;
· encourage reflection and learning on the basis of experience;
· promote internal and external dialogue.
51) The MSP will monitor and evaluate the generation of feedback mechanisms by tracking the
development of learning capacity on three levels: individual, organizational, and institutional or
enabling environment. Objectives, interventions and expected results indicators are summarized
in the table below and a logical framework with additional detailed indicators to be used in
monitoring & evaluation of project activity results and outcomes are included in Annex a.
6 PSC: Project Steering Committee
Petersberg Africa MSP
14
8/30/2007
Learning Capacity Development at Three Levels
Individual
Organizational
Institutional/
Enabling Environment
Learning
Improved knowledge, Improved coordination,
Improved trust, confidence
Capacity
skills and networking shared vision & goals
& political will
(Demand)
Objectives
Project
Technical, professional Systems-thinking feedback Key stakeholder group
(Supply)
Activity
and communications
mechanisms tested for
consultative dialogue,
Interventions
knowledge-sharing,
adaptive policy, regulatory capacitation, knowledge and
skills, self-assessment & water management
experience-sharing &
decision making
networking
Expected results/ Self- assessed increase Improved effectiveness of Consensus on challenges & (Does S
outcomes
in confidence,
TBW organizations in
solutions in key sectors
meet D?)
indicators
knowledge, skills
managing change
(iii) Independent evaluation:
52) As per standard GEF and UNDP procedures, an independent evaluation of the project will be
commissioned 3 months before the end of the project. It will look into results in terms of
capacity building and policy reforms, ownership, co-financing and strategic mainstreaming of
key technical issues raised by the project. InWEnt, in cooperation with UNDP and project
partners, will initiate and coordinate external review processes
TABLE 1: Indicative Monitoring and Evaluation work plan and corresponding budget
Type of M&E
Responsible Parties
Budget US$
Time frame
activity
Excluding project team
Staff time
Inception
InWEnt
None
Back to back with Petersberg
meeting
UNESCO-IHP
roundtable meeting
UNU-INWEH
UNDP/GEF
IW:LEARN
Inception Report
InWEnt with feedback
None
Immediately following
from project partners
inception meeting
UNDP/GEF
PIR
InWEnt
None Annually
UNDP-GEF
Others as identified
Project Steering
InWEnt
To be linked to other
At least once a year and
Committee (PSC)
UNESCO-IHP
project events/meetings
additional virtual meetings as
Meetings
UNU-INWEH
therefore costs covered
necessary
PSC members
in other budget lines
IW:LEARN
UNDP/GEF
Beneficiary
InWEnt
None Throughout
project
lifetime
feedback
IW LEARN
and specifically in response
UNU-INWEH
to key regional and thematic
Partner institutions
adaptive learning activities
Independent
UNDP/GEF
20,000 USD
3 months before the end of
Evaluation
External Consultants
the project
Final Project
InWEnt
At WWF 5
Following the terminal
Meeting
UNDP GEF
evaluation
TOTAL indicative COST Excluding project team
20,000
staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses
Petersberg Africa MSP
15
8/30/2007
4 - FINANCING
FINANCING PLAN
53) The project's cost-effectiveness lies in the fact that it will be delivering its results and goal at a
continental level through partnerships, peer-to-peer learning, exchanges and transfers within and
among continents rather than engaging with each sub-region or water basin in isolation.
54) The second aspect of cost-effectiveness lies in the fact that methodologies for assessing benefit-
sharing, manuals for parliamentarians, training for journalists will be developed to allow their
application across the continent. While they will be comprehensive in their content and
approaches, all efforts will be exerted to avoid a blue-print approach.
55) In the design of the project's activities especially in relation to meetings, workshops,
trainings... project proponents have accorded special attention to the merging of such events to
avoid mobilizing too much of stakeholders' time and reduce the costs of such events.
56) It is noteworthy here that the prospect of a GEF support has rendered this project a catalyst for a
more comprehensive programmatic approach among partners where existing and planned
initiatives were aligned to contribute to a higher vision, align behind African state needs and
create natural outlets for certain processes. For example, the GEF support to the development of
a benefit sharing methodology is on a 1:3 co-finance ratio, but it more importantly provides a
natural outlet for this methodology through the basin organization, parliamentary dialogues
while also guiding the identification of investment options and options for financing RBOs.
A) PROJECT COSTS
Project Components/Outcomes
Co-
GEF ($)
Total ($)
financing
($)
1. Legal, policy and management 845,000
506,000
1,351,000
reforms
2. Systems thinking approach
672,500
300,000
972,500
3. Mechanisms for investment planning 230,000
114,000
344,000
and financial sustainability
4. Project management monitoring and 37,500
80,000
117,500
evaluation
Total project costs
1,785,000
1,000,000 2,785,000
B) PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET/COST7
Estimated
GEF($)
Other
Project total
Component
staffweeks
sources
($)
($)
Personnel*
20 15,000
16,250
31,250
Local consultants*
10
7250
7250
Office facilities,
equipment, vehicles and
2000 16,000
18,000
communications
Executing agency support
40,000
costs
Travel
3,750 5,250
9,000
Miscellaneous (Audits)
12,000
12,000
Total
80,000
37,500
117,500
7 For all consultants hired to manage project or provide technical assistance, please attach a description in terms of their staff
weeks, roles and functions in the project, and their position titles in the organization, such as project officer, supervisor,
assistants or secretaries.
Petersberg Africa MSP
16
8/30/2007
* Local and international consultants in this table are those who are hired for functions related to the management of
project. For those consultants who are hired to do a special task, they would be referred to as consultants providing
technical assistance. For these consultants, please provide details of their services in c) below:
C) CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS:
Estimated staff
Other
Project total
Component
weeks
GEF($)
sources ($)
($)
Personnel
277
$55,000 $392,454
$447,454
Local consultants
282
$114,000 $187,500
$301,500
International
48
consultants
$83,500 $44,050
$127,550
Total
607
$252,500 $624,004
$876,504
D) CO-FINANCING SOURCES8 (expand the table line items as necessary)
Co-financing Sources
Status
Name of co-financier
Amount
Classification Type
(source)
($)
Confirmed Unconfirm
ed
UNDP IA
Cash
100,000
X
parallel
BMZ Bilateral
Cash
340,000 X
parallel
GLFC International
Cash
230,000 X
Basin
parallel
Commission
UNU-INWEH Multilateral
In
kind
50,000
X
UNESCO
Multilateral
In kind 350,000
X
NBI Transition
Cash
100,000 X
mechanism
parallel
InWEnt (German
Bilateral Cash
300,000 X
Development Cooperation)
parallel
SIWI/CSIR/PRA Foundation
Cash
130,000
X
parallel
Cash
130,000
X
parallel
GWP (Med and EA) NGO Cash
135,000 X
/MIOECSDE
parallel
In kind
SADC IGO
In kind 50,000
X
Intergovernm
ental
Organization
Sub-total co-financing
1,785,000
X
130,000
X
8 Refer to the paper on Cofinancing, GEF/C.206/Rev. 1
Petersberg Africa MSP
17
8/30/2007
5 - INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT
A) CORE COMMITMENTS AND LINKAGES
57) This project directly supports expressed aims and objectives of the AMCOW and African
transboundary lake and river basin organizations and shared aquifer systems to cultivate trust
and confidence, political will, science-based policy linkages, inter-basin knowledge-sharing
mechanisms and sub-regional networking to improve institutional and legal set-ups for water
governance and ecosystem-based management of water resources in Africa. These priorities
have been articulated in the documentation of the AMCOW Conference of River and Lake
Basin Organisations, October 2006.
58) A key level of water governance targeted for scaling up in this MSP (tested with GWP in the
Nile Basin and in GEF/UNDP Yellow Sea project) is the engagement and capacitation of
parliamentarians to improve legislative and regulatory frameworks for water governance and
additional benefits that can be realized through transboundary cooperation. This aim is shared
by the SADC Parliamentary Forum and PALDIF with the contribution of COMPSUD to
transfer experience from Euro-mediterranean processes. In partnership with these African
institutions, this project will bring local expertise from GEF International Waters projects and
other African-based applied research projects on benefit-sharing (SIWI) to inter-parliamentary
consultative workshops organized around transboundary river and lake basin, and shared aquifer
systems in the SADC sub-region, and will lay foundations for sustaining this approach in the
SADC region and replication in other sub-regions.
59) Another good practice (piloted in the Nile Basin) this project scales up in the Eastern Africa
sub-region is the cultivation of media to raise public awareness, ensure transparency, and
facilitate stakeholder participation in water resources management and governance; activities to
establish an environmental media network are supported by GWP.
60) The German government (Ministry of Development Cooperation- BMZ/GTZ, and InWEnt) is
supporting with cofinance and proposing this project as an extension of the GEF, World Bank
and BMU "Petersberg Process" on Transboundary Water Resources Management. It aims, in
conjunction with Germany's Presidency of the European Union to apply this process to improve
water resources management at the regional scale in Africa. The Petersberg Africa roundtable
adapts and replicates lessons and experience gained in "Petersberg Process" activities in South
Eastern Europe carried out by German Ministry of Environment-BMU, with World Bank, GEF-
IW:LEARN, GWP-Med, UNECE9 and UNESCO. The German government (BMZ,
InWEnt/GTZ) financed teleconferencing and a project preparation workshop in conjunction
with October 2006 AMCOW meeting in Kampala to facilitate consultations and root the project
at the highest level of African leadership.
61) As overall convening and executing agencies of the project, InWEnt and GEF-IW:LEARN
internalized costs of project preparation meetings in Entebbe, Windhoek, Nairobi, Cape Town,
Berlin and Washington, DC as an extension of GEF-IW:LEARN partnership with InWEnt
launching regional networking and knowledge-sharing activities among GEF IW projects and
partners in Africa. Consultative dialogue on balancing competing uses and infrastructure
development with basin organizations and regional water institutions in SADC and EAC10 will
build on foundations of UNEP Dams and Development project.
62) With Canadian funding, the UNU-INWEH is supporting peer networking and technical training
for African lake basin organisations and twinning with North American Great Lakes
organizations to establish sustaining knowledge-sharing mechanisms within Africa and with
lake basin organizations outside of Africa. UNU-INWEH committed funds to prepare proposed
9 UNECE: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
10 EAC: East African Community
Petersberg Africa MSP
18
8/30/2007
twinning and technical exchange activities with African and North American Lake Basin
organizations. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission has committed bi-national (S-Canada)
funds to a series of scientific workshops that will run in parallel (and nearly
contemporaneously) to the MSP that will engage scientists from around the world to identify
ecosystem health indicators for great lakes ecosystems.
63) The adoption of `systems thinking' is a well established approach in water resources
management which has been in the forefront of the UNESCO International Hydrological
Programmes achievements, world wide and also in Africa. Thus UNESCO and its Africa
Partners (i.e. the National IHP Committees) are well equipped to work within this framework.
The MSP's approach in promoting the mainstreaming of water-ecosystems into the national
economic development squares with UNESCO's experience and work. UNESCO-IHP's
contribution will build on an already very strong on going programme that involves all aspects
of water resources, ecohydrology and aquifer resources management, including transboundary
aquifers. The UNESCO ISARM has completed a preliminary continent wide inventory of
shared aquifers and two major regional conferences have been held to address this specific
issue. Other regional meetings have also been supported and sponsored over the last half decade
in all regions of the Continent. Building on the global 'Petersberg Process' the MSP will
develop an Africa-specific `Windhoek Process' focused on groundwater which would receive
support from bilateral donors as a `twinned' set of actions each with its own long term
objectives.
64) UNDP is the Implementing Agency for this MSP, which builds on the foundations of GEF
IW:LEARN and other learning projects supported by GEF/UNDP in the International Waters
focal area. As such, GEF/UNDP Regional Coordinators for North Africa, West and Central
Africa, and Southern and Eastern Africa actively assisted GEF-IW:LEARN and InWEnt in
developing iterative on-the-ground targeted learning activities at the sub-regional level and in
the case of lake basins to test region-wide and global knowledge-sharing mechanisms with a
view to setting the stage for a comprehensive lake basin management regime for which future
GEF support could be requested. Core UNDP experience and expertise on governance is
brought into the process through its interventions in North Africa with the Program On
Governance in the Arab Region (POGAR). This program transfers expertise and provides
advice in relation to legal and policy reforms and working with parliamentarians; this kind of
link will have a dual effect of internalizing water management in UNDP's core governance
work while strengthening South-South exchanges between North and Sub-Saharan Networks.
The extent of this commitment is reflected in the co-finance provided by UNDP through
POGAR and its support to the NBI. UNDP's portfolio in GEF international waters and its
mainstream water governance work is mostly focused on Africa with either single or joint IA
interventions.
B) CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION BETWEEN AND AMONG
IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES, EXECUTING AGENCIES, AND THE GEF SECRETARIAT, IF
APPROPRIATE.
65) The German government (Ministry of Development Cooperation, GTZ, InWEnt) engaged
leadership from key institutions addressing water governance in Africa (AMCOW, UNECA,
African Development Bank) with GEF partners including the World Bank Water Advisor,
Africa and water advisors from UNEP, and GEF-IW:LEARN in the preparation of the
"Petersberg Process-Africa" component of this project, focused on balancing multiple uses of
transboundary water resources. The international planning committee has met repeatedly in
2006.
66) In addition, components of the project were proposed by African basin, regional and other
institutions involved in the project. The draft proposal was circulated widely and shared with
and has received the endorsement of institutions and agencies involved in relevant aspects of
Petersberg Africa MSP
19
8/30/2007
water resource management in Africa e.g. UNESCO, GWP, IAEA, OSS, SIWI, PALDIF,
SADCs, NBA, NBI11....
67) UNU-INWEH has led the development of the lake twinning component and will facilitate its
implementation while ensuring linkages and contributions to cross-cutting activities such as the
parliamentarian dialogues or providing information for the media and outreach related activities.
68) The World Bank Water Advisor contributed to the development of this project Through
participation in BMZ-organized Preparatory Workshop in Kampala, October 2006, and WBI
(World Bank Institute) is interested to assist in preparing dialogue processes to cultivate
mentoring of change agents and champions within targeted communities of practice.
C) PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT
69) The overall project executing agency agreed upon by all partners and contracted by UNDP
through UNOPS, is InWEnt as the key partner of the German government and convener of the
Petersberg-Africa process. In executing the project, InWEnt will liaise closely with IW:LEARN
(until September 2008), UNESCO and UNU-INWEH.
70) Given the specific nature of the project and its multi-dimensional learning levels, a matrixed
implementation arrangement has been agreed among partners with the specific aim to ensure
African leadership and capacity building through active implementation, execution and
management of specific activities.
71) An added value of this approach consists in long-term sustainability of networks, results and
activities through ownership and increased capacity of African institutions. An illustrative
organigram of project implementation arrangements is presented in Annex c.
72) The project will establish a steering committee consisting of the main agencies and institutions
involved in the overall planning and oversight of the project (e.g. InWEnt; UNU-INWEH;
UNESCO; IW:LEARN; UNDP/GEF); representatives of AMCOW, AMCEN, NEPAD and
other leading African institutions will provide strategic advice and guidance to the project
partners.
73) Focused technical or thematic committees will be established for the execution of specific
components of the project and will include at least one of the members of the project steering
committee to ensure feedback into the overall project strategy and enhance cross-component
fertilization.
11 IAEA: International Atomic Energy Agency; OSS: Observatoire du Sahara et du Sahel; SIWI: Stockholm
International Water Institute; NBA: Niger Basin Authority; NBI: Nile Basin Initiative.
Petersberg Africa MSP
20
8/30/2007
1.
REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS
a) Country Endorsement Letter
b) Confirmed letters of commitments from co-financiers
Petersberg Africa MSP
21
8/30/2007
c) PART II SUPPLEMENTAL ANNEXES
a) Project logframe
b) Project detailed budget
c) Implementation organigram
d) "Petersberg Process" concept note
e) River Basin Dialogue concept and approach
f) Towards A Parliamentary Transboundary Natural Resources Management (TBNRM) Strategy
for SADC
g) PALDIF partnership document
h) COMPSUD Corfu declaration
i) GWP/EA Water Life Media
j) Concept note "Twinning" International Lake Management Commissions
k) Summary table of meetings
PART III - RESPONSE TO PROJECT REVIEWS
a) Convention Secretariat comments and IA/ExA response
b) STAP expert review and IA/ExA response (if requested)
c) GEF Secretariat and other Agencies' comments and IA/ExA response
REFERENCES:
Petersberg Africa MSP
22
8/30/2007