IW-Learn Knowledge document UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.1
March 31st 2005
MANAGING MULTI-LATERAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROJECTS AND PROGRAMMES
THE CASE OF THE UNEP/GEF PROJECT ENTITLED: "REVERSING ENVIRONMENTAL
DEGRADATION TRENDS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA AND GULF OF THAILAND"
INTRODUCTION
The management of comprehensive and extensive, multi-lateral and multi-national programmes and
projects in the field of coastal and ocean management poses numerous organisational problems
encompassing co-ordination between the actions of individual participating countries and interventions
that are designed to address issues as diverse as: biological diversity conservation and sustainable
use; fisheries management; maritime transport; and the control of land based pollution. Whilst the
substantive issues and problems that are to be addressed during project implementation are generally
well analysed and the potential solutions are generally identified based on sound scientific knowledge
and information, less attention is all too frequently paid to the management structure that will ensure
coherence and co-ordination of the interventions once the programme or project is under
implementation.
The project entitled "Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand is funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and implemented by the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) in partnership with seven riparian states bordering the South China
Sea1. A brief history of the development of the project is provided in Appendix A. Planning commenced
in 1996 and the project became fully operational in February 2002.
The Project is complex since it addresses three priority areas of concern identified in the Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)2, (Talaue-McManus, 2000) namely the loss and degradation of coastal
habitats, over-exploitation of fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand, and land-based pollution. Of these three
substantive project components the first, relating to habitat degradation and loss is the largest, being
divided into four sub-components. The fourth component of the project is that concerned with regional
co-ordination including facilitation of national level execution and securing inter-country agreement on
project related matters. The financial appropriations approved by the GEF Council are presented in
Table 1, where it can be seen that the allocations from all sources for the priority habitats (mangroves,
coral reefs, seagrass and wetlands) total just over 21 million US dollars or 63% of total project costs.
The allocation for mangrove related activities was greater than all other components and sub-
components.
Table 1
Project budget summary and component financing in million US$.
Co-financing Grand
Project Activities
GEF
Governments Other Sources
Total
1. Habitat Degradation & Loss
1.1 Mangroves
2.733
2.374
1.585 6.692
1.2 Non-oceanic Coral Reefs
2.587
2.326
1.560 6.473
1.3 Seagrass
2.529
2.305
1.585 6.419
1.4 Wetlands
0.975
0.400
0.082 1.457
2. Over-exploitation of fisheries in the Gulf of
1.650
0.735
0.960 3.345
Thailand
3. Land-based Pollution
1.760
0.461
0.110 2.331
4. Project Co-ordination and Management
3.580
0.294
0.505 4.379
EA Overheads
0.600
0.600
Project Total
16.414
8.895
6.622 31.931
PDF-B
0.335
0.176
0.076 0.587
Grand Total
16.749
9.071
6.698
32.518
The project was designed to be implemented over a period of five years and involved the signing of
Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) between UNEP as the GEF Implementing Agency and seven
focal Ministries, (the Ministries responsible for Environment in each country) and thirty-one Specialised
Executing Agencies (SEAs) in the seven participating countries, each responsible for one component or
1 Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam.
2 All project related documents cited in this paper can be found on the project website at www.unepscs.org.
1
IW-Learn Knowledge document UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.1
Draft #1 February 28th 2005
sub-component3. These institutions and organizations comprise fourteen government departments,
eleven research institutions, five universities and one Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO). The
extent of stakeholder involvement to date is only partially reflected by these MOUs concluded
between UNEP and the Specialized Executing Agencies. A number of the SEAs have also
established institutional sub-contractual links with other organizations at the national level, such that
the network of institutions directly involved to the project has expanded to in excess of one hundred,
whereas the number of institutions indirectly involved through individual participation on National
Committees and Sub-committees and Regional Working Groups exceeds four hundred. These kinds
of linkage facilitate wider stakeholder involvement of local and national NGOs and provincial and local
government agencies in the project, which is anticipated to grow as the demonstration sites become
operational.
At the time that the project became operational some concerns were expressed by individuals directly
involved in project execution at the national level, and others implementing other GEF projects both in
the region and outside that, the management framework was too complex that, it involved too many
committees and groups (52 national and 8 regional committees and working groups), and was
consequently too large, unwieldy and involved too many regional co-ordination or, transaction costs (4.4
million US dollars or 13.5% of total project costs). The regional co-ordination costs include the costs of
convening some 16 regional meetings per year for the first two years and around 10 per year thereafter,
together with the costs of the Project Co-ordinating Unit.
Two years later, by the time of the convening of the first Regional Scientific Conference in February
2004 there was near universal agreement amongst the individuals and institutions participating in the
project that not only was the framework operational4 but that it provided unexpected benefits particularly
at the national level, and enabled all individuals to comprehend the manner in which their own actions
related to those of others involved in different components and activities within the project.
THE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
The Project Brief as approved by the fifteenth meeting of the Coordinating Body on the Seas of East
Asia (COBSEA5) and the Sixteenth meeting of the GEF Council formally established the Project
Steering Committee (PSC) for the UNEP/GEF Project entitled "Reversing Environmental Degradation
Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand". This committee was established as "the
supreme decision-making body of the project," and is responsible for "reviewing and approving, on an
annual basis, project activities, including the location of demonstration sites to be funded by the GEF
project". (UNEP, 2000b, Appendix).
The wide ranging and comprehensive nature of the proposed activities necessitate the creation of
regional and national management structures that support the Project Steering Committee in the
achievement of this overall responsibility. Such structures must also ensure that decisions of the
Project Steering Committee are based on country requirements and priorities and reflect the
requirements of the GEF that, activities achieve regional and global environmental benefits. The
overall framework is illustrated in Figure 16, which outlines the national and regional level structures
and their relationships to one another.
3 In the case of Cambodia the limited human capacity in the country resulted in the coral reef and seagrass sub-components
being combined under responsibility of a single Specialised Executing Agency, the Department of Fisheries. The mangrove
and wetlands sub-components were similarly combined resulting in the creation of only four rather than six national
committees in Cambodia.
4 In Section 5.2.7 the mid-term review states: "Figure 1 that was prepared by UNEP/DGEF and adopted within the project has
stood the test of time and served the project remarkably well. It specifies the hierarchy of administration and management
procedures within the project, the identities and subject topics of the Regional Working Groups in relation to each of the
component activities, and the overall consultative mechanisms incorporated into the project. What is particularly pleasing is
that the import of this organogram appears to be universally accepted and understood by those involved in project
implementation. This was abundantly evident during the Regional Scientific Conference held in Bangkok in February 2004
within which there was wide discussion of all aspects of the project. At no point during this meeting was there evidence of
any confusion over the responsibilities of each of the bodies created within the project, disagreements or misunderstandings
of the roles and responsibilities of these bodies, or any lack of recognition and acceptance of the de facto jurisdiction of the
Project Steering Committee. During the Regional Scientific Conference the supportive and advisory role played by the PCU
was in clear evidence and evidently appreciated by the participants. It should also be noted that, in discussions with the
Chinese scientists and officials participating in the project, there is a unanimous high regard for the project structure. In their
view, consensus has been reached largely on scientific merit and/or sound reasoning at all levels within the project."
5 COBSEA = The Co-ordinating Body for the Seas of East Asia, an intergovernmental forum of, presently 10 member
countries, established by UNEP in 1981 and designated by the then 5 member countries as a means to execute the East
Asian Seas Action Plan (UNEP, 1981) COBSEA was at that time congruent with the ASEAN Expert Group on the
Environment (Para 36 of UNEP, 1981).
6 Figures 1, 2 and 3 of this document are taken unchanged from Annex G of the project document (UNEP, 2001a).
2
IW-Learn Knowledge document UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.1
March 31st 2005
The responsibilities of the Project Steering Committee are further amplified in Paragraph 40 of the
Project Brief which states: "The Project Steering Committee's primary responsibility will be to ensure
synergy and integration in the planning and execution of the project sub-components."
UNEP/GEF//SCS [Project document] Annex G page 4
Figure 1. UNEP-GEF Management Framework for the Project:
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand
Project Steering Committee
COBSEA: Co-ordinating
Body for the Seas of East
Asia.
PCU
EAS/RCU
IMC
IMC
IMC
IMC
IMC
IMC
IMC
NTWG
NTWG
NTWG
NTWG
NTWG
NTWG
NTWG
RSTC
SEAs
SEAs
SEAs
SEAs
SEAs
SEAs
SEAs
mangroves
mangroves mangroves mangroves
mangroves mangroves
mangroves
RWGs
coral reefs
[coral reefs] coral reefs
coral reefs
coral reefs
coral reefs
coral reefs
seagrass
seagrass
seagrass
seagrass
seagrass
seagrass
seagrass
wetland
wetland
wetland
wetland
wetland
wetland
wetland
pollution
pollution
pollution
pollution
pollution
pollution
pollution
fishery
[fishery]*
fishery
fishery
fishery
fishery
fishery
IMC: Inter-ministry Committee
NTWG: National Technical Working Group
Regional
SEAs: Specialised Executing Agencies
Reporting/guideline
PCU: Project Co-ordinating Unit
National
Communication
RSTC: Regional Scientific and Technical Committee
RWGs: Regional Working Groups
Sub-national
EAS/RCU: East Asian Seas Regional Coordinating Unit
of UNEP
China will not participate initially in those components in parentheses
Regional Level Co-ordination
At the regional level, the structure includes six regional working groups that reflect the primary
components and sub-components of the project, namely mangroves, coral reefs, seagrass, wetlands,
land-based pollution and fisheries. Each working group is composed of the national focal points for
the component or sub-component from each of the seven countries, together with up to four
internationally recognised experts from the region. Each group has agreed Terms of Reference
(UNEP, 2001a. Annex VIII) and a set of Rules of Procedure, which state that each group shall elect
its' own Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Rapporteur from among the members. The Officers serve
for one year with the possibility of being re-elected for one further year. The regional working groups
were responsible for developing criteria during the first phase of the project (2002 to 2004) that were
used in the selection of the various demonstration activities to be executed during the operational
phase of the project (2005-2007). In addition, the working groups were responsible for assembling
information and data, for inputting these into a regional GIS and meta-database, and for conducting
the analyses required to demonstrate the regional and global importance of the demonstration sites
proposed to the Project Steering Committee.
To ensure that the results of each working group are mutually supportive and that the
recommendations and activities do not result in overlap or conflict, a Regional Scientific and Technical
Committee, was created. The membership of this committee consists of the Chairpersons of the six
regional working groups, the chairpersons of the seven National Technical Working Groups and up to
six additional senior marine and social scientists of recognised international standing drawn from the
participating countries. The primary function of this committee is to provide sound scientific and
technical advice to the Project Steering Committee. Terms of Reference for this group and rules of
procedure were approved by the Project Steering Committee (UNEP, 2001a. Annex VIII); the
members elect the officers annually.
3
IW-Learn Knowledge document UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.1
Draft #1 February 28th 2005
The Regional Task Forces
The Terms of Reference for each of the national bodies provide guidance regarding the types of
individuals and/or organisations that should be included amongst the membership of each body. Thus
it was envisaged that the national committees having responsibility for executing each component in
the country would include legal specialists and economists to provide appropriate inputs during the
work of the national committees. It became apparent quite early on during project execution that the
focal points responsible for constituting the national committees had difficulty in identifying appropriate
specialists, and outputs were correspondingly weak in the areas of economic valuation and legal
instruments.
In recognition of this problem the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee recommended to the
Project Steering Committee that two Regional Task Forces be created one on legal matters (RTF-L) and
one on economic valuation (RTF-E) constituted by nomination of experts from each participating
country. The Project Steering Committee approved the creation of these two additional bodies in
December 2002 just eleven months following the commencement of project activities Each, has specific
terms of reference and work-plans designed to complement and strengthen the work of the national
committees and regional bodies. In discharging their responsibilities under the terms of reference the
Task Forces provide direct advice regarding national levels of analysis in each area of the project to the
national committees and sub-committees whilst at the same time providing advice regarding the regional
level of analysis to the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee and the Project Steering
Committee. The membership of the RSTC has been amended to include the chairpersons of the two
regional task forces.
The Project Co-ordinating Unit
The Project Co-ordinating Unit, acts as the Secretariat for each of the regional level structures
established under the project, is the main conduit for reporting on project implementation to the GEF
Council and UNEP Governing Council, via the UNEP Global Environment Facility Co-ordination
Division, and is responsible for due diligence monitoring of project execution and financial
management. Through direct interaction with the East Asian Seas Regional Co-ordination Unit
(EAS/RCU), synergy and complementarity are ensured with the work of the UNEP Division of
Environmental Conventions (UNEP/DEC), in accordance with the decisions of the UNEP Governing
Council (UNEP GC).
National Level co-ordination
At the national level, the national co-ordinators or focal points for each component are responsible for
convening regular meetings of a national committee or sub-committee with membership drawn from
the government and national level stakeholder groups having interests in, or responsibilities for, the
habitat or issue, at the national level. Terms of Reference for these committees were approved at the
time of project document review by the first meeting of the Project Steering Committee (UNEP, 2001a.
Annex VII). Thus, the focal point for mangroves from one country, for example, is supposed to chair a
group of specialists within the country having interests in research, management and use of
mangrove habitats and resources. In some instances such as mangroves, national committees7
existed in some countries before the project commenced, in others new bodies were created.
In each country, a government designated senior official serves as the National Technical Focal Point
with responsibility for convening and chairing meetings of a National Technical Working Group8,
comprising representatives of the National Committees or Sub-Committee together with additional
experts and representatives drawn from the public and private sectors and civil society. This working
group is intended to provide sound scientific and technical advice to the Inter-Ministry Committee
regarding national priorities and actions as the basis for national level decisions regarding project
activities. A primary function of this group is to ensure synergy and complementarity among the
actions proposed at the national level within each component and sub-component of the overall
project. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 2, which further shows the relationships among the
7 National Mangrove Committees were established in each country participating in the UNESCO COMAR Mangroves project,
which ran from the 1980's to early 90's. The fact that such committees were still functioning in some countries ten years
after the completion of this project is a testament both to their usefulness and to the foresight of the UNESCO programme.
8 In view of the fact that China did not participate in the initial phases of the coral reef and fisheries components and Malaysia
did not participate in the fisheries and mangroves components, national committees were not formed in those countries for
these components. In contrast to the other countries, only four sub-groups of the National Technical Working group
covering the remaining components were formed.
4
IW-Learn Knowledge document UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.1
March 31st 2005
national level committees for each component and the respective regional working groups. As noted
above, each regional working group comprises the chairpersons of the national committees. A major
task for the regional working groups is to ensure that the national priorities determined by the National
Committees for each component and sub-component are adequately taken into consideration in
determining regional priorities for action.
UNEP/GEF//SCS [Project document] Annex G page 5
Figure 2. UNEP GEF SCS Project Management Framework
PSC
IMC
IMC
IMC
IMC
IMC
IMC
IMC
NTWG NTWG NTWG NTWG NTWG NTWG NTWG
RSTC
National Mangrove
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
RWG-M
Committees
National Coral Reef
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
RWG-CR
Committees
National Seagrass
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
RWG-SG
Committees
National Wetland
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
RWG-W
Committees
National Pollution
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
RWG-L-bP
Committees
National Fisheries
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
SEA
RWG-F
Committees
At the national level, each Inter-Ministry Committee (IMC) includes within their membership, the
National Technical Focal Point and the National Focal Point for the project, the latter serving as
Chairperson of the Committee. In addition this committee includes high level representatives of other,
sectoral ministries and government agencies having interests in, and responsibilities for, the
management of the marine environment and resources. As noted above, the National Technical Focal
Point is normally a senior official with operational level responsibility whilst the National Focal Point is
a more senior official or Minister with responsibility for overall policy within the marine sector. Terms of
reference for the national committees, the National Technical Working Groups and the Inter-Ministry
Committees were agreed inter-governmentally prior to the commencement of the project (UNEP,
2001a. Annex VII).
The primary role of the Inter-Ministry Committees in each country is to function as the national
equivalent of the regional Project Steering Committee and to ensure co-ordination across sectors and
stakeholder groups at the national level. The Chairperson of the Inter-ministry Committee serves as a
member of the regional level Project Steering Committee, thus ensuring that decisions taken by all
participating countries accord with the priorities and requirements at the national level.
Relationships between National and Regional Structures
The relationships originally envisaged among the national and regional management structures are
illustrated in Figure 3 where it can be seen that the specialised executing agencies in each country
assemble national data and information in the light of national priorities and plans. National priorities
are integrated into a regional approach through the work of the six regional working groups
responsible for managing each of the major components and sub-components of the project. The
relationships between the Regional Task Forces created in late 2002 and the other regional entities are
illustrated in Figure 4, which represents the current management structure.
5
IW-Learn Knowledge document UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.1
Draft #1 February 28th 2005
The specialised executing agencies in each country interact via the National Technical Working
Groups that, in turn, feed national information to the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee,
which reconciles the national priorities of each participating country with the overall regional and
global priorities for action within the project as a whole. Overall decision-making at the national level,
is taken via, the inter-ministry committees that in turn, provide national inputs to regional, policy level
decision-making by the Project Steering Committee.
The existence of these two bodies at the national level, and their counterparts at the regional level,
provides for a clear separation between scientific and technical issues and concerns, and the higher
level policy and principles that, govern interactions between sectors at the national level, and between
participating countries at the regional level. Ultimately, decisions are taken, both at the national and
regional levels, by an appropriately constituted body having authority and responsibility for policy level
decision-making. These bodies, the Project Steering Committee and Inter-Ministry Committees, are
advised by, the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee and the National Technical Working
Groups respectively on matters of substance relating to the scientific and technical soundness of the
alternative courses of action before each body, for decision. This allows for a better integration of
scientific and technical data into the decision making process than would be possible with a single,
joint forum that would result in confusion between the purely scientific and technical on the one hand
and the policy related issues and concerns on the other.
UNEP/GEF/SCS [Project document] Annex G page 6
Figure 3. Management framework for reporting and
information flows within the UNEP GEF SCS Project
GEF
UNEP
Council
GC
COBSEA
UNEP/GEF
UNEP/DEC
7 Inter-Ministry
National Policies
Project Steering
Committees
Committee
Regional Decisions
PCU
EAS/RCU
National S& T
7 National Technical suggestions
Regional Scientific
Working Groups
& Technical
Regional S&T
guidelines
Committee
38 Specialised
National Data &
6 Regional
Information
Executing Agencies &
Working Groups
associated National
Regional Guidelines
one for each
Committees
Component
UNEP/GEF = UNEP GEF Co-ordination Division
UNEP/DEC = UNEP Division of Environmental
Conventions
UNEP GC = UNEP Governing Council
6
IW-Learn Knowledge document UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.1
March 31st 2005
Figure 4
Current Management Framework Illustrating the Relationships between the Regional Task Forces and
Other Project Entities
National Policies
7 Inter-Ministry
Project
Committees
Steering
Regional Decisions
Committee
National S& T
Regional Task
7 National
suggestions
Regional Scientific
Force on Legal
Technical
& Technical
Matters
Working Groups
Regional S&T
Committee
guidelines
Advice & Guidance
Regional Working
Group on Mangroves
Regional Task
Force on
38
Economic
Regional Working
Specialised
Group on Coral Reefs
Valuation
National Data
Executing
UNEP
& Information
Governing
GEF
Agencies &
Regional Working
Council
Council
associated
Group on Seagrass
National
Regional
Committees
Guidelines
Regional Working
in 7
Group on Wetlands
Guidance
Countries
Regional
Regional Working
Reporting
Co-ordination
Group on Fisheries
Advice
Reporting
Regional Working
UNEP/DGEF
Project
Group on Land-based
Pollution
Co-ordinating
Unit
7
IW-Learn Knowledge document UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.1
Draft #1 February 28th 2005
DISCUSSION
Conclusions of independent evaluations regarding the management framework
The mid-term independent evaluation of the project undertaken between February and July 2004 by two
independent evaluators concluded that:
The project structure and consultative mechanism established by the Project Coordinating
Unit (PCU) and endorsed by the Project Steering Committee constitutes a model of project
management and administration that warrants emulation elsewhere. (Bewers, J.M. & J. Su,
2004, Executive Summary)
In addition, two further independent evaluations of the project conducted for different purposes in 2004
came to similar conclusions. The GEF Specially Managed Project review (GEF, 2004a) concluded that:
The management structure has been very effective on several grounds. The clear separation
of roles of the policy and decision-making structures from the scientific and technical
functions has been a key to the success of the project. The highest-level decision-making
structure is the Project Steering Committee (PSC) that consists entirely of government
officials from the participating countries. The main scientific and technical forum, Regional
Scientific and Technical Committee (RSTC), forms the bridge between the PSC and the
Regional Working Groups (RWGs) dealing with the scientific and technical aspects of the
project. The RSTC makes recommendations to the PSC as to the appropriate actions based
on the scientific work carried out within the RWGs and at the national level. This structure has
allowed the PSC make its decisions based on accurate and appropriate scientific and
technical advice.
Whilst the GEF 2004 review of the International Waters Portfolio (GEF, 2004b) concluded:
The advantage of this structure is that it provides a balance of political and technical inputs to
the Steering Group (sic), hopefully avoiding sectoral capture that affects many other projects.
(Page 23, GEF, 2004)
And on page 24
The innovative management structure of the South China Sea project is an interesting experiment
in how to achieve a transparent mechanism that balances the skills and interests of technical
experts and political representatives. It demands considerable project staff time for the
management of some 40 separate contracts with Specialised Executing Agencies and requires
considerable dedication from the staff of the PCU.
Design factors contributing to the success of the framework
It is perhaps worthwhile considering the elements that have contributed to this apparent success9 which
can be considered firstly, in terms of the structure itself, and secondly, in terms of the execution
modalities. With regard to the structure itself two significant features are apparent:
· The clear separation between scientific and technical discussions on the one hand and the policy
discussions on the other; and,
· The significant feedback loops within the system that, engage each individual and entity in two
directions.
9 In Section 5.6.1 the Mid-term evaluation notes: The apparent success of the project management structure appears to stem
from two key factors that clearly underpinned the design of the management framework. The first is a clear separation between
the policy and decision-making body, the PSC, and the scientific and technical forum, the RSTC. By separating these two
aspects of decision-making, each body is able to focus on its primary area of responsibility and scientific and technical
considerations do not become obfuscated by political discussions. The second factor is that all the expertise used in the project
is derived from within the region. All consultants and reviewers hired to date come from the participating countries and
Singapore. This has resulted in the PSC more readily accepting the recommendations of the RSTC, which wholly comprises
'insiders' who clearly have no external (i.e., extra-regional) agenda.
8
IW-Learn Knowledge document UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.1
March 31st 2005
Regarding the first point, the separation between scientific and technical, and policy related matters
results in clarity of discussion and decision-making at both levels and as noted in the mid-term review
"scientific and technical considerations do not become obfuscated by political discussions". Scientific and
technical issues and considerations are discussed and analysed in a strictly operational context, by
scientists and managers from the countries and the region, resulting in recommendations being made to
the policy level, decision making bodies (the Project Steering and Inter-Ministry Committees) solely on the
basis of the best available, scientific and technical, data and information. This separation is implicitly
recognised in the following extract from the mid-term evaluation report, which states:
The Project Steering Committee has fulfilled its role well in acting upon the information
provided to it by the other project bodies, especially the RSTC and the PCU. It has not shied
away from difficult decisions and has maintained an appropriate level of monitoring and
oversight. The RSTC has fulfilled its role equally wel by evaluating the technical aspects of
working group activities and products and making appropriate recommendations to the PSC.
A more subtle feature of the management structure is the presence of feedback loops within the structure
that provide two alternate pathways one direct and one indirect for any single individual or entity to
interact with every other individual or entity in the project. These feed back loops are designed to
enhance vertical as well as horizontal communication and interaction at all levels, resolve issues and
ensure that parties are able to, and in fact are, carrying out their agreed actions.
Such mechanisms are necessary to avoid problems identified in other regions. For example in many
regional and multi-lateral projects and programmes emphasis is placed on an hierarchical structure such
that a single country node or focal point is engaged by the co-ordinating agency or lead organization in
dialogue with counterparts from other participating countries. In general terms, a multi-country Project or
Programme Steering Committee is frequently constituted of high level, policy oriented, representatives
from each country, who delegate operational level responsibility for the execution of activities to
individuals or institutions within each country. Very often the operational level individuals or institutions
are not provided with a regional forum within which to raise concerns reflecting operational difficulties
within each country, nor indeed have any contact with their operational counterparts in the other
countries. More importantly the focus of their attention remains at the national level and regional and
global considerations are frequently not considered in a national context at all.
An hierarchical structure suffers from the problem that whilst the vertical lines of communication are
emphasized nationally, horizontal communication regionally is often weak or absent. The structure of the
South China Sea Project provides an opportunity for the operational level personnel from each country to
meet together and share individual experiences regarding difficulties and solutions to the resolution of
national level difficulties or impediments to successful completion of regionally agreed activities. This
system is enhanced though the direct engagement of the national operational institutions (the Specialised
Executing Agencies) and the focal ministries with a neutral third party, UNEP through Memoranda of
Understanding. These MoUs commit the operational institution (and the named individual) concerned to
complete agreed tasks according to an agreed work plan and timetable, while those with the Focal
Ministry, commit the Ministries of Environment, to undertake a national co-ordination role.
Consequently the Project Co-ordinating Unit has two channels of communication to reach the SEAs,
directly under the terms of the MoU or indirectly via the focal ministry and vice versa. A failure to
implement agreed actions at the national level on the part of the co-ordinating Ministry can be addressed
directly by the SEA or indirectly through communication with the Project Co-ordinating Unit. Since the
focal points for each component in each country are members of their respective regional working group,
direct communications between UNEP, represented by the PCU, and the component focal points is
possible, enabling direct solving of problems between the two parties concerned. In cases however,
where such communication is unsuccessful in resolving difficulties the PCU can approach the National
Focal Point and National Technical Focal Points in the Focal Ministries to intervene. Similarly if the PCU
fails to fulfil its responsibilities to an SEA and direct approaches do not solve the problem then the SEA
can enlist the support of the National Focal Point or National Technical Focal Point to approach the PCU
on their behalf.
9
IW-Learn Knowledge document UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.1
Draft #1 February 28th 2005
Operational factors contributing to successful management
Inter-agency linkages
This project is rather unusual for a GEF project in that project execution is undertaken by, national level
institutions contracted directly to UNEP as the Implementing Agency of the GEF. In contrast most projects
are implemented through an intermediate organization such as a regional commission or regional office of
an International agency or NGO that becomes responsible for the contractual arrangements, fund
management and due diligence monitoring of national level actions. Not only does this increase the
overall transactions costs but it removes by one further step the GEF from its client the countries. Since
no regional commission exists with a specific mandate focused on the environment of the South China
Sea, UNEP deals directly with the countries, which are now truly in charge, without filters, without false
ambassadors, and money starved intermediaries.
Steering Committee composition
The second key to success of the management structure concerns the manner in which the framework
itself has been used, the nature of the consultations and participatory processes. There is a clearly
articulated sense of ownership on the part of the governments, institutions and individuals involved in the
project that stems in part from the fact that the Project Steering Committee is composed solely of two
representatives of each participating country (total 14 members) with the Project Director serving as
Secretary to the Committee. This composition was seen (implicitly) as being unnecessarily restrictive by
the evaluators responsible for the International Waters Programme review who, in discussing the
composition of various GEF Project Steering Committees state:
The Project Co-ordinator is generally present as an observer, and in some cases (but not
all), donor and NGO representatives are also given observer status. The chosen formula
depends upon political and cultural realities; in the extreme case of projects such as the
South China Sea and FREPLATA, the Steering Committee exclude all observers, except
for the project co-ordinator. (GEF, 2004 page 31)
In the case of the South China Sea the political reality is that all seven countries are in disagreement with
one or more of their neighbours regarding various territorial issues and sovereign rights. Under such
circumstances it is perfectly understandable the countries do not wish to present an opportunity for
external interference, whether direct or indirect in what was, in 2001, the only multi-lateral
intergovernmental forum addressing issues specific to the South China Sea.
The composition of the Project Steering Committee, results in the country representatives themselves
deciding upon what will and will not be done and the allocation of budgets to activities, within the overall
limitations set by the GEF and presented in Table 1 of this document. The Project Steering Committee is
therefore neither agency driven nor is its agenda unnecessarily influenced by the goals and objectives of
international and regional organisations or the donor community. Many such organisations use inter-
governmental bodies for purposes other than those for which they were created, frequently resulting in
loss of momentum and in extreme cases breakdown of the communication mechanism itself. A further
aspect of the operation of the present system is the use of experts and consultants from within the region
as noted by both the Mid-term evaluation and the SMPR.
All consultants and reviewers hired to date come from the participating countries and
Singapore. This has resulted in the PSC more readily accepting the recommendations of the
RSTC, which wholly comprises 'insiders' who clearly have no external (i.e., extra-regional)
agenda. (Bewers, & Su, 2004).
Transparency and decision-making
The sense of national and regional ownership is further enhanced by the fact that the regional working
groups have conducted substantive work during their meetings to develop processes and procedures for
assembling, analysing and synthesising data and information, and actually conducting such syntheses
10
IW-Learn Knowledge document UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.1
March 31st 2005
and analyses during the meetings10. This results from the fact that the project document does not detail
"how" certain actions are to be implemented or decisions taken, rather it specifies "who" will be
responsible for designing or developing the processes, and take the required decisions. This leads to
enhanced collaboration and co-operation between individuals both during the meetings and during the
following inter-sessional periods. This is not to say that the processes used have been developed in a
vacuum, rather that the groups have examined alternatives from both within and outside the region and at
least in one instance, that of demonstration site selection, developed a unique, transparent and semi-
objective process for their selection, accepted and agreed by all parties, at all levels throughout the
project.
National and regional ownership is further enhanced by the open and transparent manner in which the
project is implemented. All information, at all levels, including detailed itemised budgets are publicly
available on the project website and financial allocations are reviewed, discussed and agreed by the
Project Steering Committee, which can when it so decides, direct the Project Director to re-allocate funds
for other purposes within the overall limitations set by the GEF grant terms. In addition, proposals for
courses of action are provided to the different regional bodies, which decide on their common work plans
and timetables, the structure and content of outputs, the manner of implementing decisions, and make
recommendations to the Project Steering Committee. Thus the regional bodies have real decision-making
and discretionary powers and are not simply following a guidebook and externally imposed time line.
The working groups although governed by detailed terms of reference and rules of procedure are
operated in an open, friendly and collegial manner, which fosters a group-identity and sense of common
purpose. As evidence of this it should be noted that, rather that electing officers on the basis of seniority,
or according to the country hosting each regional meeting, the regional level committees and working
groups have adopted the practice of encouraging younger members of the groups to assume
responsibility for acting as Chairperson, Vice Chair or Rapporteur, thus contributing to the overall goals of
the project with respect to building capacity in the region.
Networking
The project structure emphasises and fosters networking in several different ways. The opportunities for
groups of specialists from each country to meet together is perhaps the simplest, but through the project
structure they meet not as individuals but as representatives of the community of specialists in their
country. Hence they serve as a conduit for ideas and information in two directions: upward from the
national to the regional, and downward from the regional to the national. Too frequently, large-scale
projects if they create any kind of forum for scientific and technical specialists to meet, do so in the form of
a single body advising the single political decision-making body. The flaws in such structures are not
immediately obvious since those deciding on project design features rarely consider the range of
"science" that is necessary to provide a sound basis for decision making.
A committee of scientists of twenty people for example is unlikely to contain adequate specialist
knowledge with respect to six project components and the differing socio-economic, legal and
environmental situations in seven countries. Putting coral reef biologists, mangrove foresters and
seagrass scientists together will not result in sound advice on "coastal habitat management" since the
nature of the environmental and ecological processes in these three systems; their use by human
populations; and the management measures required for their sustainability; are fundamentally different,
and frequently not part of the "shared" body of ecological knowledge. By creating a more specialised
lower level forum the opportunity exists to consolidate a wider body of highly specialised knowledge and
experience before sharing it with specialists having other, often very divergent interests and concerns.
Thus not only are the mangrove scientists networked together but also, they are linked to and networked
both nationally and regionally with other habitat specialists, pollution experts, fisheries specialists, lawyers
and economists. By having each regional entity working together the opportunities for learning are
expanded with for example the economic forum providing advice on matters such as economic evaluation
to the biologists, and the legal specialists providing advice to the national committees regarding the needs
for strengthening of the national legal regime.
10 The medium of communication throughout the project is English, which is not the first language of any participating country this
necessitates individual concentration and effort on the part of all participants and frequently leads to better interactions since
individuals with greater facility in English tend to assist those with more limited understanding or capacity.
11
IW-Learn Knowledge document UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.1
Draft #1 February 28th 2005
Planning time
Finally the lengthy process of project development (6.5 years, see appendix A) resulted in more detailed
itemisation of the execution arrangements than would have been possible in a shorter time frame. In
addition, time was available for discussion and clarification of the structures, their roles and responsibilities
at least at the level of the focal ministries resulting in a common understanding among the major parties.
Consequently what might have been seen as purely bureaucratic and political delays have proved to be
beneficial since the management framework was fully outlined prior to commencement of project activities.
The interpretation of this framework has been flexible and modifications have been made to it during the first
three years of project execution as circumstances demand, as for example in the creation of a Regional
Task Force on economic valuation not foreseen in the original project document.
In conclusion, one must add two cautionary notes. Whilst this framework appears to work successfully in
the context of the present project it would be unwise to simply replicate this in other regions where
different social and cultural contexts are apparent and different government structures and processes are
used. Careful consideration needs to be given during project or programme design to existing committees
and their linkages at both the national and regional levels. Where possible, management of new projects
and programmes should build on existing structures rather than duplicating them simply for the purpose of
simplicity of project management.
Secondly the amount of management time required to ensure smooth operation of a management
structure such as this together with its associated networks, should not be under-estimated. All too
frequently funding agencies try to cut costs by reducing management and in particular, personnel costs, in
the mistaken belief that such structures and processes are "not integral" to the project or programme. In
reality however a well-operated management structure provides numerous opportunities for cross-
sectoral leaning and hence serves the dual purposes of not merely addressing the problem itself but also,
building capacity to solve future problems.
Conclusions
It may be concluded that the management framework designed for the implementation of the UNEP/GEF
project entitled "Reversing Environmental Degradation in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand" has
proved far more effective than was originally anticipated.
It is suggested that contributing factors to this success include:
· The design of a management framework that permits both "horizontal" (inter-country) and
"vertical" (intra-country) interactions and networking between individuals at all levels of project
implementation and execution;
· A management framework that includes a body (the RSTC) that serves as a forum for reconciling
both sectoral and national interests and priorities;
· The clear separation between discussions of scientific and technical matters from discussions
dealing with policy and principles at both the national and regional levels;
· A management framework that facilitates the incorporation of sound scientific and technical
advice and information into politically based decision-making;
· The use of regional experts and consultants from the participating countries;
· Restriction of the membership of the Project Steering Committee to government representatives
only, and exclusion of observers from regional and international agencies and institutions other
than UNEP;
· The framework allows for adaptive management and is not a rigid unchanging structure; and,
· Adequate time for detailed planning of the execution arrangements.
12
IW-Learn Knowledge document UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.1
March 31st 2005
APPENDIX A
HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT
During 1996, the Co-ordinating Body for the Seas of East Asia (COBSEA) requested assistance from the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to prepare a proposal for grant assistance from the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) in addressing the water related environmental problems of the marine
environment in the region (UNEP, 1996). The GEF provided a project development facility grant of 325,000
US dollars to undertake an analysis of the water-related issues and problems of the South China Sea and to
design an appropriate multi-country intervention to address the agreed priority issues.
During the project preparation phase (1997-1998) each of the seven participating countries11 nominated a
national focal point from within the ministries responsible for the environment. The focal points were charged
with responsibility for co-ordinating the work of other individuals and institutions in the preparation of a
national review of priority, water-related environmental issues and problems. Three expert meetings
involving the national focal points and invited experts from the region were convened during this period
(UNEP, 1997; 1998a; 1998b) to review the draft national reports, and determine priority areas of
intervention. The seven national reports12 were published in 1999 (UNEP/EAS/RCU, 1999a; 1999b; 1999c;
1999d; 1999e; 1999f; and 1999g) and formed the basis for the compilation of a Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis (TDA), (Talaue-McManus, 2000) and a draft Strategic Action Programme (SAP), (UNEP, 1999).
The Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis included a prioritisation of the identified issues and problems
prepared on the basis of a Delphi-type exercise conducted during the second expert meeting. The Strategic
Action Programme outlined the priority actions required over the subsequent five-year period, to address the
issues and problems identified and quantified in the TDA.
The Country Reports, the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and the draft Strategic Action Programme
were presented to the thirteenth meeting of COBSEA (UNEP, 1998c), which took note of the Country
Reports and TDA and analysed and approved in detail the draft Strategic Action Programme (UNEP, 1999).
On the basis of this draft SAP, the project brief was prepared for consideration by, the GEF Council meeting
in March 1999. Not all countries had endorsed the proposal by that time however, and the problems were
reported to the fourteenth meeting of COBSEA in November 1999 (UNEP, 1999h). There followed an
extensive period of negotiation between UNEP and the participating countries during which changes to the
document were made to accommodate the concerns of some participating countries. A revised version of
the project brief was presented to, and endorsed by the fifteenth meeting of COBSEA in September 2000,
which was preceded by an expert meeting of national co-ordinators (UNEP, 2000b). This project brief took
account of the desire of participating countries to retain full control over the management and execution of
the project without involvement of outside parties. The document was included in the GEF Work Programme
presented to, and endorsed by the GEF Council in December 2000 for grant support.
The project brief (UNEP, 2000b, Appendix) contained only a brief outline of the proposed management
framework and did not contain details of the instruments that would be used to transfer funds to the national
executing agencies. An elaborated management framework (Figures, 1, 2 and 3) and Memoranda of
Understanding, together with the terms of reference for, and details of, the proposed membership of the
national and regional bodies listed in the management framework were prepared in consultation with the
focal ministries in each country during 2001. They were annexed to the operational project document
submitted to the GEF Secretariat for final CEO endorsement in December 2001 (Annex G of the Project
Document and Annex VI of UNEP, 2001a). Prior to this submission the full project document was presented
to, and approved by the first meeting of the Project Steering Committee in October 2001 (UNEP, 2001a)
and approved by the sixteenth meeting of COBSEA (UNEP, 2001b). The project became operational at the
time of final signature of the project document by, UNEP on January 21st 2002.
11 Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam.
12 All project related documents cited in this paper can be found on the project website at www.unepscs.org.
13
IW-Learn Knowledge document UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.1
Draft #1 February 28th 2005
REFERENCES
Bewers, J.M. & J. Su, 2004. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf
of Thailand: Mid-term Evaluation. 73pp. UNEP, Evaluation and Oversight Unit, Nairobi, Kenya.
GEF. 2004a. Program Study on International Waters. GEF/ME/C.24/Inf.3. 82pp. GEF Washington, USA.
GEF. 2004b. Global Environment Facility Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, Specially Managed Project
Reviews 2004. GEF/ME 38pp. GEF Washington, USA.
Talaue-McManus, L. 2000. Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis for the South China Sea. 106pp.
EAS/RCU Technical Reports Series No.14. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP. 1981. Report of the Intergovernmental meeting on the East Asian Seas Action Plan, Bangkok,
9 11 December 1981. 15pp. + VIII Annexes. UNEP/IG.31/6. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP. 1996. Report of the Twelfth Meeting of the Coordinating Body on the Seas of East Asia
(COBSEA) 23pp. + VII Annexes. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP. 1997. Report of the first meeting of national coordinators for the formulation of a transboundary
diagnostic analysis and preliminary framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea, Bangkok, Thailand 31 March - 4 April 1997. 10pp. + VIII Annexes.
UNEP(WATER)/EAS/SCS/NCM.1/3. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP. 1998a. Report of the second meeting of national coordinators for the formulation of a
transboundary diagnostic analysis and preliminary framework of a Strategic Action Programme
for the South China Sea, Bangkok, Thailand 23 29 June 1998. 8pp. + X Annexes.
UNEP(WATER)/EAS/SCS/NCM.2/3. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP. 1998b. Report of the third meeting of national coordinators for the formulation of a transboundary
diagnostic analysis and preliminary framework of a Strategic Action Programme for the South
China Sea, Bangkok, Thailand 15 17 November 1998. UNEP(WATER)/EAS/SCS/NCM.3/3.
UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP. 1998c. Report of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Coordinating Body on the Seas of East Asia
(COBSEA) on the East Asian Seas Action Plan. 11pp. + VI Annexes. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP. 2000. Report of the fifteenth meeting of the Coordinating Body on the Seas of East Asia
(COBSEA) on the East Asian Seas Action Plan (Special Session for the UNEP/GEF Project in the
South China Sea) and report of the meeting of National Experts for the UNEP GEF Project in the
South China Sea. 80pp. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP. 2001a. Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
Thailand, report of the first Project Steering Committee meeting. 10pp. XIII Annexes.
UNEP/GEF/SCS/PSC.1/3. UNEP Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP. 2001b. Report of the Sixteenth meeting of the Coordinating Body on the Seas of East Asia
(COBSEA) on the East Asian Seas Action Plan, 24 - 26 October 2001, Bangkok, Thailand. 26pp.
UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP/EAS/RCU. 1999. Strategic Action Programme for the South China Sea (draft version 3,
24th February 1999). 69pp. UNEP. Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP/EAS/RCU. 1999a. National Report of Cambodia on the formulation of a Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis and preliminary framework of a Strategic Action programme for the South China Sea.
122pp. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP/EAS/RCU. 1999b. National Report of China on the formulation of a Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis and preliminary framework of a Strategic Action programme for the South China Sea.
76pp. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP/EAS/RCU. 1999c. National Report of Indonesia on the formulation of a Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis and preliminary framework of a Strategic Action programme for the South China Sea.
140pp. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
14
IW-Learn Knowledge document UNEP/GEF/SCS/Inf.1
March 31st 2005
UNEP/EAS/RCU. 1999d. National Report of Malaysia on the formulation of a Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis and preliminary framework of a Strategic Action programme for the South China Sea.
68pp. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP/EAS/RCU. 1999e. National Report of Philippines on the formulation of a Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis and preliminary framework of a Strategic Action programme for the South China Sea.
94pp. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP/EAS/RCU. 1999f. National Report of Thailand on the formulation of a Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis and preliminary framework of a Strategic Action programme for the South China Sea.
107pp. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP/EAS/RCU. 1999g. National Report of Viet Nam on the formulation of a Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis and preliminary framework of a Strategic Action programme for the South China Sea.
128pp. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand.
UNEP/EAS/RCU. 1999h. Report of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Coordinating Body on the Seas of East
Asia (COBSEA) on the East Asian Seas Action Plan. 8pp. + VI annexes. UNEP. Bangkok,
Thailand.
15