INTERNATIONAL WATERS
EXPERIENCE NOTES

http://www.iwlearn.net/experience








2006-002

Lessons-learned Reporting on
Demonstration Site Selection and
Design: IWCAM



Abstract: The overall project sought to include demonstration projects in order to deliver actual
achievements in mitigation and resolution of threats and root causes. The agencies developing the
project needed to be politically sensitive to the possibility of not all countries running projects and manage
the process of criteria-setting in order to ensure that consensus was reached before any demo projects
were identified. The project chose demonstration projects using a methodology which included the
following steps: hotspot/sensitive area selection process, agreement on IWCAM GEF Operational
Program (OP) 9 eligible issues, adoption of selection criteria for project submissions, submission of
concept papers, development of full demonstration project Submissions, and adoption of the submissions
by the IWCAM Steering Committee. A partnership conference was organised, to involve potential
partners and donors in the elaboration of the demo submissions. This approach allowed for objective
evaluation at the country-level of the priority areas for attention and also allowed for some diplomacy and
negotiation, which is needed when consensus-building is a desirable outcome. The project experiences in
selecting and preparing the nine demonstration projects are applicable to similar SIDS projects under
similar conditions.

Vincent Sweeney
Vincent.Sweeney@unep.org
Integrating Watershed and Coastal Area Management in Caribbean
Small Island Developing States (IWCAM)
1

---

Lessons Learned Reporting on Demonstration Site Selection and
Design: IWCAM

Experience of the GEF sponsored

Integrating Watershed & Coastal Area Management in Caribbean Small
Island Developing States (IWCAM)

GEF Project ID: 1254

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
implementation began in May of 2006 when the

Project Coordination Unit (PCU) was established
The Integrated Watershed and Coastal Area
at the Caribbean Environmental Health Institute
Management (IWCAM) concept and approach
and a Regional Project Coordinator (RPC) was
provides a framework for countries to better
hired. CEHI and the Secretariat to the
address environmental management challenges
Cartagena Convention at the Caribbean
that they face. To this end, the Caribbean
Environment Programme (CEP) of UNEP are
Environmental Health Institute (CEHI), the
Co-Executing Agencies.
United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP) and the United Nations Development
The overall objective of the IWCAM Project is to
Programme (UNDP) developed the Regional
strengthen the commitment and capacity of the
Project on Integrated Watershed and Coastal
participating countries to implement an
Areas Management (IWCAM) in Caribbean
integrated approach to the management of
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) over a
watersheds and coastal areas. The long-term
period of 6-8 years, starting in 1998, through a
goal is to enhance the capacity of the countries
thorough consultative process in 13 countries of
to plan and manage their aquatic resources and
the Caribbean region. These countries include
ecosystems on a sustainable basis. The thirteen
Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba,
countries involved in the Project have agreed to
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti,
adopt IWCAM as a management approach. As
Jamaica, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent
such they will be required to re-orient their
& the Grenadines, and Trinidad & Tobago.
systems and mechanisms as well as address

the issue of policy and legislative re-alignment to
The Project went through two Block-B Phases,
fully mainstream IWCAM at the national level.
starting in 2000. At the end of the First Block-B
While support and resources will be provided by
Phase, and Experts of the Scientific, Technical &
the Project, the commitment and support will be
Advisory Panel (STAP) reviewed the Ful Brief in
required at the regional and national levels to
March 2002. Based on the STAP Roster
effect IWCAM as a "way of doing business".
Review, the GEF Secretariat supported a

Second
Phase
in
order
to
elaborate
The IWCAM Project has 5 major components:
Demonstration Project for inclusion in the Ful

Project Brief. These Demonstration Projects
· Demonstration, Capture and Transfer of
were developed by 2003. Eventual y the Ful
Best Practice
Project was approved by the GEF Council in
· Development of IWCAM Process, Stress
May 2004. The project wil be of 5-years
Reduction and Environmental Status
duration and has a total budget of US$ 112,660
Indicator Frameworks
for the Ful Project phase with US$14M of GEF
· Policy, Legislative and Institutional Reform
grant and the balance being contributions from
for IWCAM
the Governments themselves, NGOs, CEHI and
· Regional and National Capacity Building for
the private sector.
IWCAM

· Project Management and Coordination
Project documents were finalised by UNDP and

UNEP, the Implementing Agencies, in 2005.
Activities include review of IWCAM indicators as
Country launches of the project started in mid-
well as training in their use and demonstration of
2005 and continued into 2006. Ful project
their use; conduct of Hotspot Diagnostic
2

---

Analyses; development of Integrated Water
ensure that consensus was reached before any
Resources Management & Water Use Efficiency
demo projects were identified.
Plans; development of programmes to amend

legislation and policy related to IWCAM;
The Executing Agencies (UNEP/CEP and CEHI)
awareness raising and networking on IWCAM;
both were sensitive also to the need to be able
capacity building in IWCAM-related areas; and
to demonstrate direct and tangible benefits to be
project management.
derived by their respective Member States as a

result of the IWCAM Project. In this regard, the
ISSUE AND CHALLENGE
delivery of specific funding, directly to each

participating country was considered politically
A major focus of this regional IWCAM project is
desirable by both EAs, especially when one
to undertake specific demonstrations of targeted
considers that these EAs are competing with
IWCAM activities. The overall project sought to
other agencies for the small allocation of quota
include demonstration projects in order to deliver
contributions from Member States and therefore
actual achievements in mitigation and resolution
need to demonstrate "value-for-money".
of threats and root causes. As such, this

represents a discrete Component of the overall
In selecting demos, the existing capabilities of
project (Component 1 - The Demonstration,
government departments and NGOs had to be
Capture And Transfer Of Best Practices). Within
considered, as these vary from country to
this Component, a number of Demonstration
country. In some cases the government
Projects have been developed at the national
department might consist of one responsible
level. The objectives of the Demonstration
officer, compared with others involving a team of
Projects in respect to the overall regional
many persons. The ability to manage and
IWCAM project are as follows:
experience in managing funds by these officials

and/or NGOs was also a concern. In some
· To target selected national and regional
cases there were well established and funded
hotspots of watershed and coastal impacts
NGOs who were much better placed to manage
and threats, as well as sensitive areas which
the demos than government departments.
are particularly vulnerable to similar impacts
Further to this, the determination of the IWCAM
and threats
Focal Point, as distinct from the GEF
· To address OP9 eligible issues `on-the-
Operational Focal Point, was critical, as the
ground' through GEF funding supported by
expertise for managing the demos might not
significant co-funding
reside in the OFP offices.
· To deliver real and concrete improvements

and mitigation to IWCAM constraints and
EXPERIENCE
impacts

· To identify and mobilise reforms to policy,
The preparation and Steering Committee
legislation and institutional realignment
selection of the Demonstration Projects was
consistent with IWCAM objectives
guided, inter alia, by the following:
· To provide transferable lessons and best

practices which can serve to replicate
A. Hotspot/Sensitive Area Selection Process
successes elsewhere both nationally and

regionally
Each country was required to complete a

Hotspot, Sensitive Area and/or Overriding
A multi-country project such as this presented a
Issues Identification Sheet based on the GIWA
specific challenge related to satisfying all
Hotspot Selection Process. This required the
countries. In a region where country population
countries to rank their top 3 Hotspots and top 3
varies from under 10,000 to over 5 million there
Sensitive Areas on the basis of major GIWA
is always a need for balance and to ensure that
concerns such as freshwater shortages, types of
the smaller countries do not feel "left out" or
pollution, habitat modification or destruction, etc.
marginalized. IWCAM was immediately faced
These Hotspots or Sensitive areas were also
with the prospect of some countries not
further ranked on the basis of their geographical
receiving funds for individual demonstration
size, affected population, important natural
projects. The agencies developing the project
resources under threat to local livelihood,
needed to be politically sensitive to this and
national development etc. The nature of the
manage the process of criteria-setting in order to
threats and the main human activities were also
3

---

recorded. Careful guidance was given on how to
synthesis of budget and co-funding data in the
score these rankings and some rankings were
Full Regional Project.
weighted more than others. This process is a

standard part of the GIWA and followed the
Co-financing was a critical component of the
same approach. Selection of Hotspots and
preparation of the Full Demos. In this regard a
Sensitive Areas was to be done through a
Partnership Conference was organised, to
consultative process involving all relevant
involve potential partners and donors in the
stakeholder groups.
elaboration of the demo submissions. Each

demonstration project was presented in detail to
B. Agreement on IWCAM OP 9 Eligible issues
the potential partners at the Partnership

Conference. Their relevance with the national
Careful review of the eligible OP 9 issues
priorities was highlighted and the problems and
relating to SIDS identified the specific areas of
impacts discussed. Where applicable, the
eligibility. Fisheries and Climate Change were
various national partners were presented and
omitted as these are both the subject of
responsibilities described. Discussions followed
separate GEF regional initiatives in the
the project presentations. Many interventions
Caribbean which include the SIDS.
made by potential partners after specific

presentations of demonstration projects deserve
C. Adoption of Selection Criteria for Project
to be mentioned as they applied to all projects
Submissions
and impacted on how partnerships would be

developed and on the project brief itself. These
The Steering Committee, made up of all
include:
countries participating in the project, reviewed

and adopted a set of standard selection criteria
· The involvement of the civil society in
for all project submissions. Every submission
projects must be planned early in the
was required to meet these criteria. The criteria
demonstration projects;
are discussed below.
· Efforts to identify and include all

stakeholders and partners (including private
D. Submission of Concept Papers
sector) must take place;

· The IWCAM concept and its application
Each country then developed at least one
must always be clearly stated in each
Concept Paper based on their hotspots and
project;
sensitive areas, and aligned with the GEF OP9
· Comparative Analysis of alternatives must
eligible issues. In some cases, the development
be provided in terms of environmental and
of concepts was supported by a Project
economic impacts;
Development Specialist, funded by the project.
· The sustainability of the demonstration
These concepts were carefully reviewed by the
projects must be demonstrated;
Executing and Implementing Agencies as well
· Incorporate into the projects the capacity to
as by technical experts, and were shared with
carry out work (e.g. field research) by
the GEF Secretariat for their comments on
making sure, among others, to emphasize
eligibility. Countries were guided as to the
the use of national sources before looking
eligibility of their Concept Papers and given
outward (regional, international);
recommendations on how to proceed with their
· Develop synergies with other initiatives (e.g.
Full Demonstration Project Submissions.
land degradation/desertification)


E. Development of Full Demonstration Project
The comments and concerns expressed were
Submissions
further discussed on a bilateral basis when

looking at concrete partnerships for each
Based on feedback from the GEF and the
demonstration project and the national focal
Implementing Agencies, countries proceeded
points were invited to consider all of them when
with the development of their Full Demonstration
producing the final proposal to be evaluated by
Submissions. These were required to follow a
the Steering Committee.
pre-selected format as agreed by the Steering

Committee. This procedure was adopted to
In the final analysis, 9 national Demonstration
ensure equity of opportunity and to allow for
Projects were submitted to the Executing and
accurate comparison. It also allowed for easier
4

---

Implementing Agencies for inclusion in the Full
account the need to alleviate poverty and
Project. Some countries were unable to meet
promote economic growth;
the deadline for submission due to constraints of

time and limited human resources, as well as
· Capacity Building:
Projects should
difficulty with meeting the requirements for co-
integrate capacity development needs as
financing.
part of their planned activities


F. Final Adoption of Full Demonstration
· Maximize utilization of regional expertise:
Submissions by IWCAM Steering Committee
Projects should aim at maximizing the

utilization of local experts and institutions;
The Steering Committee for the IWCAM PDF

project phase, at its second meeting, reviewed
· High rate of replication: Projects should be
the 9 Full Demonstration projects as submitted,
designed to ensure replication and
and confirmed their eligibility under both GEF
dissemination of good practices and
requirements and in respect of the Steering
experiences.
Committee's own criteria for selection, as

follows:
· Sustainability of activities: Projects should

have activities whose benefits are
· Global, regional, sub-regional and
sustainable beyond the life cycle of the
multinational nature of projects: The
interventions
Demonstration Projects should clearly

respond to the environmental benefits in the
· Funding and Co-Financing: Only projects
region and contribute to overall global
likely to attract adequate domestic funding
environmental benefits. In this respect
and/or external support would be
Projects developed and selected should
considered. Projects demonstrating strong
have a sub-regional or regional outlook or
co-financing were given priority.
involve several countries.


· Promote sharing of experiences and
· Demonstration projects must target the
learning: Projects should aim at promoting
hot spots identified by the countries using
sharing of experiences, enhancing regional
the methodology based on the GIWA
co-operation and collective learning
approach as agreed by the Steering

Committee. Its lessons and best practices
· Performance criteria: Projects should
will be then replicated in the other hot spot
contain clear objectives, performance
areas within the Caribbean SIDS region.
indicators and monitoring mechanisms


· Multi-focus: Projects should aim as far as
· Thematic balance: Balance between the
possible at integrating the thematic
thematic areas should be sought
coverage within the IWCAM concept.


· Geographical balance: Balance between
· Participatory nature: Projects should
the 13 Caribbean Countries should be
demonstrate development and
sought.
implementation through a participatory

approach with strong ownership by all
The overall development of the IWCAM project
partners including the government, the
involved two PDF-B phases. After the First
private sector, civil society including NGOs
phase it was expected that a Full Brief would
and the scientific community. The projects
have been approved, without elaborated
should also have a gender balance;
demonstration projects. This approach, which

had been accepted by the GEF in the past, was
· Programmatic approach: Projects should
not accepted and the GEF funded a Second
be integrated in a comprehensive,
PDF-B phase, in which the demos were to be
programmatic and, as far as possible,
elaborated. In future, it should be clearly stated
strategic approach;
(and understood by all parties) that the PDF-B

phase will require full elaboration of the demos,
· Sustainable Development Perspective:
prior to submission to the GEF Council.
Projects should be designed taking into
5

---

many important development actors in the
The selection process for demos involved both
region, with specific interest in IWCAM. Although
an evaluation of technical issues (s.a. using the
the number of development agencies and
Hotspot and GIWA approach with scoring
donors present was relatively small, those
system) and political sensitivities. This approach
present showed a clear interest in being a part
allowed for objective evaluation at the country-
of the IWCAM project and offered to develop
level of the priority areas for attention and also
mechanisms to concretise these interests. On
allowed for some diplomacy and negotiation,
the other hand, the Partnership Conference was
which is needed when consensus-building is a
very successful in engaging the interest and
desirable outcome. However, the fact that
further involvement of Civil Society groups,
Hotspots were not compared across the region,
especially the regionally-active NGOs. There
and only at the national level, means that some
was a general understanding and agreement
critical Hotspots might have been left out at the
between the national focal points, the potential
expense of less sensitive areas, in order to
partners, the IAs and the EAs that partnerships
ensure geographic balance. It however must be
were to go beyond co-financing and must also
recognized that endorsement and commitment
take the form of technical support, exchange of
to co-financing may have been more difficult had
information and experiences, and definition of
it not been for the geographic balance.
common goals and approaches. The importance

of a continuous effort to secure more co-
The final decision was made easy by the
financing was often repeated and the EAs jointly
number of qualifying submissions received. All
with the national focal points were urged to act
but one could be considered and the total
accordingly, within the timeframe agreed upon.
amount of funding required fell within the

estimated budget for the demos. Whereas the
REPLICATION
final decision was easy, the criteria which

influenced most that decision probably had to do
The project experiences in selecting and
with geographic balance. In the end, 8 countries
preparing the nine demonstration projects are
and 9 demos were selected. The process for
applicable to similar SIDS projects under similar
selecting the demos was influenced entirely by
conditions. These include scenarios where a
the participating countries. Consensus was
number of independently-governed countries
always achieved and the criteria were accepted
agree to collaborate on a regional initiative,
by all countries at the earliest possible stage in
around a common geographic focal point, in this
the project development.
case a sea (the Caribbean Sea). Had these

countries been part of some Confederation or
The capacity which existed in order to prepare
dependencies, the political dimension might
and select demos varied from country to
have been completely different. In the case of
country. In some cases the local inter-sectoral
IWCAM, the politics could not be overlooked as
committees were very strong and needed little
each country had influence among the
assistance from the IAs in order to elaborate the
Executing and Implementing Agencies.
concepts and Full demos. In other cases the

demo concepts and Full submissions were
The experiences are also applicable to small
almost completely drafted by a Project
sized states with small populations and limited
Development Specialist hired by the EAs.
in-country technical capacity. Determination of
Eventually agreement had to be reached by the
the most effective modalities for elaboration of
country team before the demo would be
the full demos can be informed by the
submitted. As such, the demos were driven by
experiences with IWCAM. A combination of self-
the country needs and supported by consultants
help and technical assistance will likely be
and agencies. However, in some cases, the
necessary for most other SIDS regions.
responsiveness of countries was so poor that

some missed the submission deadlines. This
Implementation challenges include the
related largely to capacity at the country level to
requirement to identify co-financing, usually 1:1,
respond.
in order to permit consideration of the demo
submission. This proved a challenge and
The Partnership Conference, convened to
required some "creativity" and innovation in
secure broader participation of partners in the
identifying the in-kind contributions that
demo project development, brought together
countries and partners could provide. It is also a
6

---

challenge to generate interest among other
donors after the concept has been identified. In
the IWCAM project development phase, donors
and other partners were included at a stage
where concepts were elaborated and were
seeking co-funding. Future projects should seek
to involve the donors at the earliest possible
stage, in order to seek ownership.

Finally, it may be useful to incorporate into future
projects the possibility of developing additional
projects (Medium-Sized or otherwise) through
these projects. The IWCAM intends to assist
those countries with Hotspots and which were
not recipients of demo projects to prepare
relevant additional projects.

REFERENCES

Vincent Sweeney
Regional Project Coordinator, UNEP Integrating
Watershed & Coastal Areas Management
(IWCAM) Project c/o CEHI
P.O. Box 1111, The Morne
Castries, St. Lucia
Tel: +1.758.452.2501 or 452.1412
Fax: +1.758.453.2721
Email: Vincent.Sweeney@unep.org
Website:
http://plone-dev.unep.org:8050/iwcam
(Temporary);
www.iwcam.org (Under construction, June 30,
2006)

KEYWORDS

S Small island developing states
S Demonstration project
S Caribbean
S Project preparation


The Global Environment Facility (GEF)
International Waters Experience Notes series
helps the transboundary water management
(TWM) community share its practical
experiences to promote better TWM.
Experiences include successful practices,
approaches, strategies, lessons, methodologies,
etc., that emerge in the context of TWM.

To obtain current IW Experience Notes or to
contribute your own, please visit
http://www.iwlearn.net/experience or email
info@iwlearn.net.
7

---