ANNEX IX
LOGFRAME MATRIX
Project Structure
Indicators of Achievement
Means of Verification
Assumptions/Risks
Goal
Adoption of the framework by the GEF at
Selection by the GEF and other donors of projects
It is assumed that selection of future priority areas
programmatic level.
which address the priority areas identified by the
for interventions in International Waters will be
To contribute to improving the effectiveness of
GIWA
based on rational decision making. An associated
national, regional, and global level actions
Adoption of the Framework by other donors and
risk is that decision making is distorted by other
designed to achieve environmental benefits in the
organisations in the selection of future
sectorial interests or external influences
area of international waters.
international waters projects
Purpose (Immediate Objectives)
Use of the GIWA framework by the GEF and the
The governments will support the process of the
participating Governments in prioritising and
development of GIWA and will actively
To develop a comprehensive and strategic
Production of a detailed scheme for determining
selecting future IW projects
contribute to it.
framework for the identification of priorities for
priorities between and among transboundary
remedial and mitigatory actions in international
water-related issues and areas
Use of the GIWA framework by the GEF's
Governments and donors will accept the results of
waters, designed to achieve significant
partner organisations, UNCSD, ACC Sub-
the assessment.
environmental benefits, at national, regional and
committees on Ocean and Water Resources, in the
global levels
design of future programmes
Use of the framework by other donors in project
identification and appraisal
Outputs
A global overview of the relative importance of
Policy statements related to the International
It is assumed that sub-regional reviews will be
the various major concerns and principal issues by
Waters, promoting the results of GIWA.
produced in an orderly and timely manner to
Strategic information for GEF use at a
region
permit their aggregation to a global scale
programmatic level in the IW focal area
Periodic Reviews by the Steering Group and, the
A global analysis of the societal causes of
Thematic and Regional Task Teams;
It is assumed that sub-regional reviews and
identified water-related, major concerns and
analyses will be of comparable quality permitting
principal issues
regional and global aggregation
66 sub-regional reviews of the transboundary
Identified regional and global priority areas for
Peer review and acceptance
ecological status (including analyses of
action in the area of International Waters
environmental degradation)
Review and acceptance by various
intergovernmental fora;
9 regional and 66 sub-regional scenarios of the
It is assumed that socio-economic data are
Identified approaches for more sustainable use of
future state of international waters
available and suitable for the development of the
water and its associated resources
sub-regional scenarios. An associated risk is a
failure to release data by the data holders/owners
GIWA Assessment Protocol including agreed
Adoption of the guidelines by the GEF
Completion and publication of methods/guidelines
methods for conducting causal chain analyses to
Implementing Agencies , collaborating
for the conduct of causal chain and transboundary
examine societal root causes of water related
organisations/agencies and other donors.
diagnostic analyses
environmental problems, and transboundary
Application of the methodology in future
diagnostic analyses
transboundary diagnostic and causal chain
analyses
Provision of approaches to incremental cost
Detailed approaches to the application of
analysis to the GEF family
Improved Incremental Cost Analyses in future
Incremental Cost Analyses in IW projects
GEF projects
The activities leading to the above outputs and the means to achieve them are laid out in detail in section 4 of the project brief.
1
ANNEX X
INCREMENTAL COSTS AND BENEFITS OF GIWA
Background
The GEF Incremental Costs analysis requires a consideration of baseline and incremental costs associated with achieving `domestic' and global environmental benefits. The global scope of
GIWA presents methodological difficulties in assessing the baseline and incremental costs of the project which are normally calculated in a national context. This results in part from the
fact that the benefits resulting from the execution of the project are seen as being primarily accruing at the global and regional scales, and in part from the fact that the GIWA project is
dependent on the information and data assembled as a result of past activities undertaken at national, regional and global scales. Consequently the entire costs of the GIWA Project may be
considered incremental since no other organisation will undertake such an assessment in the immediate future.
The GIWA project is global in scope and complementary to existing national, regional and global activities related to the assessment of water-related environmental issues and concerns. In
addition no other international organisation or body is at present contemplating undertaking such an assessment and hence the entire costs of GIWA may be considered `incremental'.
Nevertheless some global thematic assessments are ongoing or planned for the immediate future and these may be considered as the existing baseline for GIWA. By developing strong
synergistic links with such global efforts GIWA will build upon this existing base of activities.
At the regional and sub-regional level various assessment activities including those contemplated through the execution of the GPA/LBA and UNEP's Regional Seas Programme may be
seen as contributing directly to the achievement of GIWA goals and objectives. These have not been included in the baseline. The costs of such assessments at sub-regional and regional
levels are considered as analogous to the costs of achieving `domestic' environmental benefits in nationally executed GEF projects.
Whilst the entire project costs may be considered incremental, it should be noted however, that not all costs are eligible for GEF funding. To ensure a global scope the assessment requires the
participation of donor countries in conducting assessments for those sub-regions outside the GEF eligible areas of the Globe. Present indications are that the support required and detailed in the
budget table of the project brief will be forthcoming.
Baseline - past activities providing the information and data upon which GIWA will be based
GIWA is based upon the evaluation and analysis of information which, in most though not all cases, has already been gathered or is being gathered by existing country-based or international
programmes. It adds v al ue to these sets of information by facilitating a truly interdisciplinary analysis which: ex amines s o ci etal dri v ing fo rces o r caus es o f env i ro nmental
deg radati o n; g enerates reg i onal and g l o bal s cenari o s fo r po l i cy co ns iderati o n; and reco mmends pri o ri ty areas fo r dev elo pi ng and funding i nternati o nal
waters pro jects .
GIWA as a global project with broad scope, encompassing the analysis of environmental and societal factors in a global context will focus on - and support financially - activities that are not,
covered by existing programmes or undertaken by individual countries acting unilaterally. GIWA is therefore clearly focused on undertaking and supporting incremental activities, leading to the
identification of priority actions yielding maximal global benefits.
An illustration of the baseline costs of GIWA can be made by examining the approximate costs of some regional, and global assessment programmes as provided by the relevant co-
ordinating bodies:
2
· Mediterranean: The Mediterranean countries have been conducting a pollution assessment programme, MEDPOL, within the framework of UNEP's Mediterranean Action
Plan (MAP) since 1976. The estimated cost of this assessment to the Mediterranean Trust Fund and the cooperating UN Agencies is US $ 35 million. This cost does not
include the contribution of the countries for implementing national monitoring programmes and research projects. The full cost of MEDPOL, including national and individual
contributions, is estimated as US $ 180 million1. A socio-economic study, designated the Blue Plan, has also been conducted within the framework of MAP and the
Barcelona Convention. The estimated cost to the Mediterranean Trust Fund and the Government of France is US $ 9 million for the 1978-1996 period. The corresponding costs
of developing national scenarios elevate this figure to some US $ 20 millions, which does not include the costs of socio-economic assessments conducted in the framework
of the coastal area management plans and other activities of the Priority Areas Programme of the MAP.
· Black Sea: The recently completed three-year GEF study for formulating the Black Sea Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis cost a total of approximately US $ 3 million in
GEF funding and US $ 3 million in funding from other donors, notably the European Union. An additional US $ 10 million was spent on capacity building for a total cost of
US $ 16 million.
· Arctic: The Arctic Marine Assessment Programme (AMAP) cost about US $ 4.5 million in specialist time and data analysis (some 30 person-years). The published
assessment itself cost some US $ 0.5 million, for a total cost of US $ 5 million.
· Comprehensive Freshwater Assessment: The CFA, which focused on problems of freshwater availability, was funded in a complex manner through support to the
eight Agencies involved and the total funding involved is difficult to evaluate at this stage. Funding for the Secretariat (the Stockholm Environment Institute) consisted of
about US $ 1 million from the Swedish government plus US $ 0.2 million for publication, adding the other agency costs, gives an estimated total of US $ 3.2 million.
· GESAMP - State of the Marine Environment: GESAMP's 1985-1989 State of the Marine Environment (which did not include socio-economic studies) cost about
US $ 2.5 millions. This sum does not include the cost of eleven regional studies on which the global study was based. The costs associated with the preparation of these
studies is estimated as between US $ 3 and 4 million for a total cost of around US $ 6 million.
· GEMS - Water The Global Environment Monitoring System compilations of River discharge and freshwater quality have cost approximately US $ 5 million over
the last 4-5 years.
· Independent World Commission on the Oceans (IWCO): For the preparation of a report for the Year of the Oceans the Commission's operating budget for the
period 1996-1998 is approximately US $ 4.7 million, mainly provided by governments and private foundations. This figure does not include the in kind contributions of
several governments, foundations and individuals, estimated as an additional US $ 1.4 million, for a total of US $ 6.3 million
· GEF Regional TDA's & SAP preparation: During the last three years GEF has funded a number of regional TDA assessments at an average cost of around US $
3 5 0 , 0 0 0 .
The above are examples of the costs of different regional and thematic assessments of varying scope and this is by no means a comprehensive listing of the past assessments, the information and
data from which will contribute to the execution of GIWA. On the basis of these examples however, it is apparent that the co s ts o f the i nfo rmati on o n whi ch GIWA i s to be bas ed
wi l l be co ns iderabl e. A conservative estimate for the `past' baseline costs of the GIWA would be of the order of US $ 2 0 0 mi l l io n.
1 This figure includes equipment and training for developing country scientists; field sampling measurements and observations, laboratory analyses and experiments not
figure cannot be considered in total as a baseline contribution.
3
Baseline - ongoing and planned global activities contributing to the GIWA
Planned or ongoing global assessment activities that will contribute to the execution of the GIWA include: the GESAMP assessment of the State of the Marine Environment (1997-2002),
the World Water Council's `Vision for the Future', and the GEMS/Water activities, amongst others. A conservative estimate of the costs of such activities would be approximately US $
12.5 million over the life of the GIWA Project.
Based on the above figures a conservative estimate of the ongoing annual investment worldwide in water-related assessment activities undertaken at a regional scale (such as those outlined
above and those undertaken in the context of UNEP's Regional Seas Programme) that will provide on-going support to GIWA during its execution would be of the order of 50 m i l l i o n
US $ per annum. Such activities may be considered as an analogue of the `domestic' benefits for GEF projects conducted within a single country. The national level assessment activities
that contribute to regional assessment activities such as those outlined above, may be as much as two orders of magnitude greater than this figure.
Benefits of the GIWA
GIWA adds v al ue to international programmes, since it will pro v ide i nter-reg i o nal co mpari s o ns of the findings of individual assessments of ecological status and root causes of
degradation. GIWA will, to the extent possible, incorporate the findings of past programmes related to international waters or, in the case of on-going programmes, work in close partnership
with them in order to avoid duplication and optimize the overall benefit.
The incremental benefits of GIWA are harder to quantify at this stage. GIWA should reduce the s co ping s tudy co s ts for the GEF, partner agencies and many donors, enabling more of their
funds to be applied to direct action. By focusing action on priority areas where environmental benefits may be achieved the effectiveness of limited funding will be improved.
The global and regional benefits of the GIWA project are clearly recognised by the extent of commitment to co-financing and collaboration secured during the preparatory phase (see Annex
IV)
4
ANNEX XII
Table 1 Timetable for the Execution of GIWA
ACTIVITIES
PDF PHASE
Appraisal Phase
DURATION OF PROJECT 48 MONTHS
3
6
9
12
3
6
9
12
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
1. Pre-Project preparatory phase PDF
Steering Group mtgs
x
x
x
2 expert group meetings, & Management mtg.
x
x
x
3
Prelim. Biblio. & metadata catalogue
Finalisation of project brief
Finalisation of UNEP prodoc
2. Establishment of the network & development of Assessment Protocol
2.1 Select Core Team; id Focal Pts; regional organisations;
form. Regional Task Teams (RTT)
2.2 Steering Group (SG) Mtg.
x
2.3 Draft assessment protocol include: TDA & causal
chain methods; approaches to incremental costs
analysis.
2.4 Mtgs of 9 Regional Task Teams
Prep. of meta-data catalogue & website inputs
on-going updating of the website see 5.4 below
2.5 Review of assessment protocol & mtgs. of Thematic
Task Teams
3. Analytical phase
3.1 Annual Core Team Rpt & 1999 workplan, SG Mtg
x
3.3 Regional Task Team mtgs. 2 x 9
Preparation of regional reviews, TDA analysis
Preparation of regional causal chain analysis
3.4 3 Mtgs of Economics Task Team, methods for
x
x
x
scenario analysis
3.5 3 Mtgs of Thematic Task Teams
x
x
x
Preparation of draft thematic global reviews
3.6 Finalisation of GEF TDA guidelines
4. Predictive/policy options phase
4.1 Annual Core Team Rpt & 2000 workplan, SG Mtg.
x
4.2 Combined mtg. Economics & RTT
x
4.3 Regional & sub-regional scenario development
4.4 Stakeholders meeting
x
4.5 Preparation of the global overview
5. Dissemination of GIWA products
5.1 Annual Core Team Rp & 2001 workplan, SG Mtg
x
x
5.2 Appt. of Public Information expert
5.3 Mtgs of Regional & Thematic TT
5.4 Expansion of website information, CD ROMs
5.5 Global & Regional Information products
5
ANNEX XII Cont.
TABLE 2
WORKPLAN: SUMMARY OF GIWA ACTIVITIES, MILESTONES AND PRODUCTS
Activity
Time Period
Implementation
Products (major products in bold)
1. Pre-project preparatory phase (completed)
1.1 Establishment & meetings of Steering,
Two Steering, Two Expert Group & Management Meeting reportds. Preliminary analysis of thematic and geographical
Management and Expert Groups .
April - Sept.
UNEP
scope of GIWA.
1997
1.2 Preparation of preliminary bibliography
May - Sept.
UNEP
Preliminary bibliography of water related assessments
1997
1.3 Analysis of expert meeting results &
July - Sept.
UNEP
· Project Brief
design of the project Brief
1997
1.4 Approval of the Project brief
November
GEF Council
· Approved Project Brief
1997
1.5 Appraisal and finalisation of the UNEP
December
UNEP
· UNEP Project Document
Internal project Document including Host
1997 -
Country Agreement, MoU for Institutional
November
support and co-financing agreements
1998
1.6 Final clearance
December
CEO & GEF
· Final clearance by the GEF Council
1998
Council
2. The establishment of the GIWA network and development of the GIWA Assessment Protocol
2.1 Appointment of Core Team staff of
Nov./Dec.
UNEP
Recommendations to the Steering Group (SG) on: identification of existing programmes and institutions in each region, and
specialists: Scientific Director (D2), 4
1998
sub-region; selection of regional, collaborating bodies; identification of sub-regional focal points and formation of regional
Programme Officers (P4/P5) and
task teams, where justified, or the use of existing teams where present.
identification of regional collaborators &
focal points.
Approval of GIWA Management Plan & final GIWA UNEO Project Document.
2.2 Steering Group meeting
April, 1999
UNEP
Recommendation to UNEP on appointment of Core Team
2.3 Completion of draft GIWA Assessment
protocol; TDA & causal chains methods;
Jan - Sept.
Core Team
Draft documents, see under 2.5
approaches to incremental cost analysis
1999
Reports on the establishment of the regional GIWA task teams; analysis of existing/completed projects in the regions; full
2.4 Meetings of all 9 Regional Task Teams
April - Dec.
Core Team
discussion of the proposed methodology; identified information gaps.
1999
· a meta-data catalogue of existing/completed projects in all regions;
2.5 Peer review and meeting of Thematic
April -
Core Team
· GIWA methodology for causal chain analysis of water-related environmental issues and their societal causes;
Task Teams to complete the GIWA
September,
· methodology for conducting regional TDA; and,
methodology
1999
· detailed approaches to incremental cost analyses.
3. Analytical phase of GIWA
3.1 Meeting of the GIWA Steering Group
November,
UNEP
Review of 1998 project implementation & results, approval of 1999 annual workplan
1999
3.2 Coordination of implementation
October 1999
Core Team
Report demonstrating the implementation of workplan and development of specific products
- September
2000
3.3 Two meetings of each regional task team
October 1999
Core Team/
·
Sub-regional & regional reviews of transboundary issues & their societal causes.
and implementation of regional
- September
Donors/ regional
·
Meta database & bibliography on CD ROM.
programmes
2000
bodies
·
Creation and updating of a GIWA Web page
6
ANNEX XII Cont.
Activity
Time Period
Implementation
Products (major products in bold)
3.4 Three meetings of economic task team in
October 1999
Core Team in
support of regional case studies & to
- September
close cooperation
Draft methodology for the scenario and policy options analysis phase, based upon the availability of regional data and
identify & fill gaps in regional/global
2000
with the World
information from case studies.
database.
Bank
3.5 Meetings of ad-hoc thematic task teams,
December
Core Team. in
as necessary
1999 - July
close cooperation
· Preparation of draft global thematic reviews
2000
with technical
partners.
3.6 Methodology development for GEF
April - July
Core Team
· Methodology for GEF TDA (including inputs from the Regional TTs)
Transboundary Diagnostic Analyses
2000
(TDA)
4 Predictive/ policy options analysis phase
4.1 Meeting of the GIWA Steering Group
October, 2000
UNEP
Review of 1999 project implementation & results, approval of 2000 annual workplan
4.2 Meeting of economic task team & key
members of regional TTs to review data
October, 2000
Core Team. &
Meeting Report and agree methodology for scenario development and policy options analysis
gathered in Phase 4 & to explain the
Technical
methodology for regional scenario
partners
development & policy options analysis.
·
Regional & sub-regional scenarios of future state of international waters based on trends & rates of change in
4.3 Regional and Sub-regional scenario
October 2000
Core Team.,
industrialisation, population growth and development.
development by thematic/regional TTs
- September,
Donors, Regional
2001
bodies
4.4 Stakeholders meeting to review the initial
September,
Core Team
Meeting Report
conclusions of the policy options analysis
2001
4.5 Joint Economic TT and Core Team `task
April -
Core Team and
·
Detailed scheme for decision making concerning priority areas for action at national, regional and global levels
force' to examine global issues of
September,
technical partners
·
A global overview of the relative importance of the various issues and their principal causes.
concern to GIWA and to complete
2001
assessment
5. Outreach activities and diffusion of the GIWA products
5.1 Meeting of the GIWA Steering Group
October, 2001
UNEP
Review of 2000 project implementation and results, approval of 2001 annual workplan
5.2 Incorporation of additional expertise on
October 2001
UNEP
public information in the Core Team
5.3 Meetings of key members of the regional
October 2001
Core Team,
· Public information plain language technical reviews
and thematic TTs to plan and produce
- April 2002
Donors, Regional
· Popular educational and information materials specific to the regions & sub-regions
region-specific and thematic information
bodies
products
5.4 Expansion of GIWA Website as a tool
October 2001
Core Team,
· GIWA Website with regional reviews
for education and production of GIWA
- September
Donors, Technical
· GIWA educational CD-ROM
CD-ROM
2002
Partners
· GIWA Reports and data base on CD-ROM
· Meta-data catalogue on Website & CD-ROM
5.5 Production of global information products
December
Core Team.
2001 -
· Comprehensible, illustrated Global Waters Assessment (sales publication)
October 2002
5.6 Evaulation and reports to co-sponsoring
Oct. - Dec.
UNEP/Core team
· Evaluation reports
organisations
2002
7