MID TERM EVALUATION OF THEGEF PROJECT
(GF/1020-03-01) ENTITLED:
"Development and Implementation of Mechanisms to Disseminate Lessons
Learned and Best Practices in Integrated Transboundary Water Resources
Management in Latin America".
FINAL REPORT
Max Campos
August, 2005
1
MID TERM EVALUATION OF GEF PROJECT (GF/1020-03-01) ENTITLED:
"Development and Implementation of Mechanisms to Disseminate Lessons Learned and Best
Practices in Integrated Transboundary Water Resources Management in Latin America".
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................
4
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND..................................... 10
2. MID TERM EVALUATION PROCEDURE .................................. 11
3. MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE PROJECT DOCUMENT ............... 11
3.1 Project goals
3.2 Project components:
3.2.1 (COMPONENT 1) Foster dialogue among GEF-IW and other related water
resources management projects in LAC.
3.2.2 (COMPONENT 2) Foster the inclusion of lessons learned and best practices into
water resources management practices.
3.2.3 (COMPONENT 3) Strengthening of IWRN.
3.2.4 (COMPONENT 4) Monitoring and evaluation.
4. CURRENT STATUS OF PROJECT (REVIEW HORIZON) ............
14
5. PROJECT PERFORMANCE TO DATE ...................................... 14
5.1 Evaluation of project components in the context of the Pro Doc Workplan:
5.1.1 Component 1: Foster dialogue among GEF-IW and other related water resources
management projects in LAC establishing mechanisms to share recent accomplishments,
experiences from the planning and management of IW projects, lessons learned, and best
practices.
- Definition of a strategy with IWRN National Focal Points (NFP) for the
effective participation and involvement of the countries in this project.
- Sub Regional dialogues.
- Virtual Fora (VF).
- Documentation of Virtual Foro.
- Exchange of project officers amongst the projects in LAC.
5.1.2.
Component 2: Foster the inclusion of lessons learned and best practices into
water resources management practices.
2
- Definition of best practices in Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRMg).
- Identification of mechanisms to transfer best practices and lessons learned.
- Regional meetings to share best practices and lessons learned.
5.1.3. Component 3: Strengthening of IWRN
- Framework for strengthening IWRN as a hemispheric communication tool for
IWRMg.
- Upgrade IWRN Web site
- Establishment of a sub regional node in Brazil and other locations.
- Workshop to assess the need for training and equipment at the sub regional node in
Brazil.
- Linkages between IWRN and other regional and sub regional networks.
5.1.4 Component 4: Monitoring and evaluation.
5.2. Activities of the project Steering Committee.
5.3 Project enhancement beyond Pro Doc Provisions.
5.3.1 Project enhancement through country Government initiative.
- Brazil government initiative.
-Other initiatives
5.4 Overall project management and administrative arrangements.
5.4.1 Project coordination and management.
5.4.2 Institutional arrangements.
5.4.3. Financial management.
6.
SUMMARY OF ACHIVEMENTS AND PROGRESS TOWARDS OVERALL
PROJECT OBJECTIVES ...................................................
32
7.
SUSTAINABILITY ..........................................................
33
8.
REPLICABILITY .............................................................
35
9.
SCOPE, QUALITY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF PROJECT OUTPUTS TO DATE...
....................................................................................... 35
10. CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS 37
11. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................
40
12. LIST OF ANNEXES ...........................................................
40
13. RATING OF PROJECT SUCCESS .......................................
41
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The challenges that the water resources a facing nowadays require well-timed robust solutions
that considers the experiences from other related initiatives. DELTAmerica project is an effort to
contribute responding, from the Latin America perspective, to this need by developing a set of
tools for exchange information and strengthening the Inter American Water Resources Network
(IWRN) as the main organization that can act as water resources reference for the hemisphere.
DELTAmerica project is an initiative supported by GEF, the government of Brazil, OAS
(executing agency) and UNEP (implementing agency). Its main goal is to promote South-South
learning, development and implement mechanisms to disseminate the lessons being learned in
GEF International Waters-related projects (GEF-IW) in Latin America and the Caribbean, and
improve capacity to integrated land and water resource management..
This mid term evaluation follows the terms of reference provided by UNEP as well as the
recommendations made by the Team Leader and basic considerations agreed during the First
Evaluators meeting held in Brasilia in October and December 2004. For the evaluation there has
been a review of official documents provided by UNEP and OAS and at the same time there were
also interviews and conferences with key actors.
The project document for DELTAmerica provides good guidance and makes important
provisions for its execution, dividing the project into four major components. The first is to
strengthen the dialogue between GEF-IW projects community for sharing their experiences; the
second component explores the definitions of best practices in integrated water resources
management (IWRM) and their effective mechanisms for transferring into policies and
regulations. Component three pretend to give continuity to DELTAmerica's accomplishments by
strengthening the Inter American Water Resources Network (IWRN) in order to be this
organization a hemispheric reference for water resources management. Component four is related
with the monitoring and evaluation of the project.
DELTAmerica was a project intended to be executed in 18 months, starting March 2003;
however it was expanded until December 2005. Most of the activities for each component have
been accomplished by the end of 2004. For year 2005, what is going to be developed are
workshops (or meetings) for the presentation of results, some technical assistance, and editing
and printing of material as part of their promotion of results.
In Component 1 several actions were executed: strategic meetings with National Focal Points,
sub regional dialogues, Virtual Fora (VF), exchange of project officers (twining)
The promotion of dialogues for sharing experiences, best practices and lessons learned in
DELTAmerica have two main mechanism, one a face to face sub regional meting and another
which is a virtual follow up activity called Virtual Fora (VF). According with the Technical
Coordinator Quarterly Reports, interviews with governmental authorities and the Executing
agency personnel, in order to develop these activities it was necessary to develop a close
coordination with the Brazilian government as well as with the National Focal Points for IWRN.
A key for the project success and usefulness of their results is the active participation of the
4
countries, they have a major role for incorporating the results of DELTAmerica into policies and
management practices. The support and level of commitment provided by the Secretariat for
Water Resources from Brazil in this regard has been crucial for all the activities considered in the
Project.
It has been very positive that most of the meetings for DELTAmerica Steering Committee,
IWRN National Focal Points, Sub Regional Dialogues, etc, were schedule in combination with
other international conferences; this provided not only a major participation but also the
possibility of discussing and exchanging experiences with a larger group of experts from the
water management community.
There have been three strategic meetings with the national focal points for IWRN, one in
Arequipa, Peru, June 2003, another in Montevideo, Uruguay in September 2003, and another in
Lima, Peru, May 2005.
These activities were very valuable for DELTAmerica and for the countries themselves; a good
example for this was during the Arequipa meeting, where an identification of common interests
from Amazonian governments, lead to a request to GEF to support a multinational initiative on
"The Amazon for the Sustainable Management of Water Resources." This initiative aims to
prepare, reach agreement and execute a view and a framework for joint action for the sustainable
development of the Amazon Basin among the countries of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty
Organization (ACTO).
During these meeting there was a clear agreement among the participants that DELTAmerica sub
regionalization was not only geographical but based on the main IW projects taking place, they
provide a good indication of the government interest.
Even though there has been several efforts from Technical Coordinator and the Executing
Agency for having another IWRN National Focal Points meeting and DELTAmerica Steering
Committee meeting, it has been very difficult to schedule it, the amount of activities related with
water resources have increase exponentially during the last two years, leaving very little space to
program it.
Three very successful Sub Regional Dialogues took place; the first in Brasilia, Brazil the 23 -25
of July 2003, the second in Montevideo, Uruguay, September 26-27, 2003 and the third in Saint
Lucia, March 4-5, 2004.
Even though the Sub Regional Dialogues were expensive actions, they proved to be a good way
to stimulate discussions, exchange experiences and reach consensus around sub regional
important issues on water management. These dialogues set also discussion topics for future
Virtual Fora.
The combination of efforts with other organizations to share activities like dialogues and meeting
has been a practice frequently used by IWRN and OAS that continue to be highly positive in the
financing, the managing and the technical outcomes. For example, the value added to the sub
regional dialogues for DELTAmerica from the OAS/UNESCO initiative on transboundary
5
aquifers was welcome by participants. Regional Focal Points like the Regional Committee on
Hydraulic Resources for Central America (CRRH) and the Center for Environmental Health
Studies for the Caribbean (CEHI) play also an important role as structures that coordinate efforts
from many countries in the sub regions ranging from technical matters to policy making at the
Ministerial, Presidential and Prime Minister level. DELTAmerica has both, capitalized and
benefit these existing structures, producing a positive cross fertilization between Central
America, Caribbean and South America projects on IW.
The agreements y commitments from the participants to the three Subregional Dialogues to
continue discussions of important hemispheric and regional issues through Virtual Fora indicate
that this mechanism could reduce many costly long face to face meetings. Virtual Fora (VF)
required a number of facilitating activities, especially in the technological and communications
area, the outputs from DELTAmerica regarding VF will be tested throughout IWRN moderation
of the activity during 2005.
Twining can be an interesting option to be continued further in other projects. This normally is
not very expensive activity, saves a lot of execution time and there is an excellent way to
stimulate South-South cooperation, which is the objective of DELTAmerica. Twining also has
made short the distances between the problems in different parts of the America, this contribute
to promote local solutions to problems with global implications. This last issue is one of the
driving forces toward the IV World Water Forum (Mexico 2006).
Component 2: Foster the inclusion of lessons learned and best practices into water resources
management practices.
In this component there were difficulties to interact with IW LEARN, however DELTAmerica
project move forward producing two studies from very qualified consultants which were
presented for comments to the third Steering Committee meeting in Lima. The document
prepared by the consultant, Axel Dourojeanni, " Gestión Integrada de los Recursos Hídricos:
Mejores Prácticas y Lecciones Aprendidas en Proyectos GEF y Estrategia para su Difusión" ,
Mayo 2005, DELTAmerica Project, cover one of the most important areas of the project. The
definition for best practice (BP) evolves from the consultant knowledge and experience in the
field and it is comprehensive and well referenced to water resources. The comparison between
concepts like: "Successful Experiences, Lessons Learned and Best Practices" provides a good
orientation for their future systematizations, and gives additional strength to the main definition.
The criteria for selecting best practices is based on a very relevant consideration, a BP needs to
have the acceptance by the actors and technical personnel involved in the processes of water
management. This criteria also considers two necessary ingredients: "an scenario of"...... what is
planned to be accomplished with integrated water resources management in a particular area and
how the BP in going to contribute to it. The other ingredient is a "plan on".... what and how
integrated water management is going to be accomplished.
In this component there was also a document that summarized 10 years of products referred to
best practices and a document that promotes the inclusion of best practices in the technical and
political decision making process.
6
Component 3: Strengthening of IWRN is very important because it provides actions for the
sustainability of the project accomplishments. A priority for strengthening IWRN is to develop
their strategic plan. This activity was not successful because the consultant hired was not able to
accomplish what was indicated in the terms of reference leaving this chapter to be solved
urgently. IWRN committee on strategic planning prepared a document whose draft was presented
at the Steering Committee meeting in Lima and which still under discussion.
For upgrading of the IWRN Web Site to a dynamic interactive source of information exchange a
close coordination was established with an initiative from UNESCO, this contribute with the
optimization of time and resources.
Based on interviews with the technical and administrative personnel from CES and the
performance during the launching of the subregional nodes for Southern Cone and Brazil,
celebrated in Buenos Aires, 13 and 14 October 2004, there is evidence that the work is moving
forward with a lot of the enthusiasm and firm occupation from the nodes facilitators. The
constant interaction of all actors in this activity provides a positive orientation to the technical
work. This could become one of the more visible and positive outcomes of the project
representing a direct benefit to the regions.
As part of the strengthening of IWRN, sub regional nodes managed for facilitators and hosted by
national institutions were established. A sub regional node was established in Brazil hosted by
the Secretariat of Water Resources. In Argentina a Sub Regional node for the southern cone was
established at the Sub-Secretary for Water Resources. A Sub Regional node for the South
America Watershed and Amazon region was established at INRENA / Peru. A new node is being
established for Central America at CRRH in Costa Rica.
Most of the work is expected to be finished by the end of 2004; however, it is considered that
some tasks would still need to be developed in 2005, in particular in Peru and Central America.
The creation of sub regional nodes might become a very positive outcome for the future of
IWRN. Facilitators in each node could maintain a dynamic exchange of information,
experiences, lessons and practices with the National Focal Point as well as with a larger
community of water resources management. This exchange would make IWRN very visible and
it could take back his role as reference organization.
OAS has signed Memorandums of Understanding with most of the host institutions so far, which
means that national institutions and OAS as Executive Secretariat for IWRN are very much
committed with the work of the nodes. During this mid term evaluation missions in Brasilia,
Montevideo and Buenos Aires, October 2004 and December 2004, the exchange of opinions with
several water actors and stakeholders regarding the nodes activity always indicated a
manifestation of optimism for the work ahead.
Component 4, monitoring of project activities ranging from finances, administration and logistics
has been much appropriated. The work developed by implementing and executing agencies,
based on their long term experience, prove to be very positive. Project evaluation could have
been more beneficial if their mid term evaluation could have been done before, so positive
feedback could have been received for small but not determinant aspects.
7
The Steering Committee for DELTAmerica has met so far, three times. Their first meeting took
place in Arequipa, Peru in June 2003. The Second meeting was celebrated in Montevideo in
September 2003 and a third Steering Committee in Lima, Peru in May 2005.
The reports from these SC meetings indicate that the members have a strong participation in
particular with the sub regional activities, nodes and Virtual Fora. Mesoamerican members
maintain a balanced participation with those from Brazil and the Southern Cone, this indicates
that there is a hemispheric interest for the project and their results to be representative of the
Americas. The Steering Committee has done a good work providing indications and guidance to
the management of the project when there is a face to face meeting, however their virtual
interaction do not look very efficient, which sometimes causes difficulties to the Executing
Agency and Technical Coordinator for the decision making process.
Country initiatives like the lead by Brazil for the 2005 Presidential Summit for the Americas
where outputs from the component 2 will provide the base for a discussion text on water
resources, the initiatives from CRRH/SICA in Central America, UNEP, IUCN, OAS, UNESCO-
IHP and UNDESA for assisting the countries of Latin America to engage in the negotiation
process building on the tools developed by the DELTAmerica and other related activities
associated to water resources management, commerce, economics and integration processes have
enhance DELTAmerica during his execution time.
Financing management and institutional arrangements between UNEP, OAS and the Government
of Brazil were very effective, due to the permanent interaction that OAS has with the Secretariat
for Water Resources from Brazil through their offices in Buenos Aires and Brasilia. Staff and
other personnel from other important IW-GEF projects are also being executed from this location
in Brasilia, this experience has built a very robust mechanism between these partners which has
facilitated DELTAmerica execution.
Based on some of the interviews, it is clear that many of the saving of the project come from
work done through in kind contributions from OAS, Government of Brazil, UNEP and even from
other partners and organizations interacting with DELTAmerica. It is difficult to precise these
contributions at this stage, however it would be important that these organizations present a
statement in this regard to GEF and the Steering Committee.
Something that would probably need some clarification is the fact that some of the savings were
made on electronic editing and in consultants work. If one of the strengths for the future of
IWRN will rest on their Virtual Fora and sub regional nodes, it would be logical that all resources
dedicated for having available e-documents would be very important.
A set of important conclusions and recommendations originate from the project execution itself,
they can contribute with other similar initiatives in Latin America or other parts of the world.
Even though DELTAmerica project is qualified by this evaluation between very good an
excellent, it is important to indicate that a lot of this could be attributed to the vision of project
formulation. DELTAmerica's outputs are tailor made for the actual challenges that Latin America
8
and other developing regions are facing regarding water resources; if fully accomplished and well
lead by IWRN, could become the objective reference for water resource management and the fora
that supports political and management decision throughout the hemisphere.
9
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.
During the last ten years the world has been paying more attention to the problems that water
resources are facing. There have been many initiatives that try to cope with several of these
problems but most of them used a traditional sectorial approach, which normally ended with
partial and non sustainable solutions. Additionally, there has been also a flourishing of new
organizations in all scales and dimensions for dealing with water resources that introduce new
views which sometimes create disarticulations with the priority agendas of the countries.
Taking as a base the experiences being implemented by the Global Environment Facility-
International Waters (GEF-IW) projects like: San Francisco, Upper Paraguay, Putumayo River
basin and Guarani Aquifer, with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) as
implementing agency and the Organization of American States (OAS) as Executing Agency, the
Government of Brazil with the support of the countries from Latin America and the Caribbean, as
well as from other international organizations and programs presented the DELTAMERICA
project; whose main goal is to promote South-South learning, development and implement
mechanisms to disseminate the lessons being learned in GEF International Waters-related
projects (GEF-IW) in Latin America and the Caribbean, and improve capacity to integrated land
and water resource management.
DELTAmerica is an opportunity to establish a mechanism that allows countries to have an
objective reference that integrate experiences, lessons and best practices for management of water
resources in an integrated way.
Trough this project, a set of definitions for best practices which allow for their proper
identification and systematization would be established. Sharing them is a major element of the
project, where face to face, and virtual mechanisms need to be developed. Because
DELTAmerica's objective pretends to contribute to solve water resources management problems
through integrated solutions, the participation of the countries is crucial, these authorities are the
ones that define policies and set the priorities for development.
Any of the results from DELTAmerica will have a positive impact if they are not sustainable in
time; therefore the role of the Inter American Water Resources Network (IWRN) and their
members is very relevant. IWRN needs also to implement efficient mechanisms to cope with
modern times, ranging from technology to better interactions and decision making.
This document presents a mid term evaluation on, how the different activities from
DELTAmerica are executed, and how they are contributing with the accomplishment of the
objective of the project.
The present evaluation is the final report for this mid term evaluation and includes the comments
and review made by June 2005 to previous drafts.
10
2. MID TERM EVALUATION PROCEDURE.
This mid term evaluation follows the terms of reference provided by UNEP as well as the
recommendations made by the Team Leader and basic considerations agreed during the First
Evaluators meeting held in Brasilia in October 2004. Annex II.
For the evaluation there has been a review of the official documents provided by UNEP and OAS
which are listed as follow.
Official DELTAmerica documents:
Pro Doc for the project
Quarterly Reports from Technical Coordinator
Steering Committee Reports
Financial
Reports
Consultants´
Reports
Documents from workshops (sub regional workshops.)
In order to have complementary information there was a mission to cover relevant actors related
with the activities developed by the DELTAmerica project. The preliminary list persons
consulted is indicated in annex III.
Other non official DELTAmerica documents consulted:
Documents from GEF IW projects
Documents from Non GEF IW Projects
There were also conferences attended regarding some GEF-IW projects like San Francisco, upper
Paraguay and Guarani aquifer.
3. MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE PROJECT DOCUMENT.
3.1 Project goals
The main goal of the project is to promote South-South learning, development and implement
mechanisms to disseminate the lessons being learned in GEF International Waters-related
projects (GEF-IW) in Latin America and the Caribbean, and improve capacity to integrated land
and water resource management.
3.2 Project components:
The project is divided in four major components, the first is to strengthen the dialogue between
GEF-IW projects community for sharing their experiences; the second component explores the
definitions of best practices in integrated water resources management (IWRM) and their
effective mechanisms for transferring into policies and regulations. Component three pretend to
give continuity to DELTAmerica accomplishments by strengthening the Inter American Water
Resources Network (IWRN) in order to be this organization an hemispheric reference for water
resources management. Component four is related with monitoring and evaluation of the project.
11
3.2.1 (COMPONENT 1) Foster dialogue among GEF-IW and other related water
resources management projects in LAC.
The objective of this component is to promote a dialogue between GEF and Non GEF
International Waters in order to establish a mechanism to share experiences, lessons learned and
best practices in planning management in IW projects with government officials, local
authorities, stakeholders and participants of these projects. This dialogue would allow discussing
strategies on how to incorporate these experiences in IWRMg practices and policies.
National Focal point are key players that benefit directly for the exchange of experiences,
therefore, the project establish financial provisions for their participation. Another mechanism is
the celebration of 3 sub regional dialogues and a twining activity.
Because the project has a limited time a Virtual For a (VF) is an important activity to continue
with the discussions. Building from results of previous meetings like: the IV Inter American
Dialogue (Foz de Iguazu, Brazil, 2001) and Water for the Americas (México D.F., October 2002)
the VF will have discussions to provide inputs for the V Inter American Dialogue (Jamaica,
2005) and the GEF Conference on International Waters (Brazil, 2005).
IWRN Secretariat participation as a moderator of the discussion of the VF will be very important,
therefore, provision have been made to strengthen IWRN operational structure, its Web Site and
their protocols for communications and efficient networking (subregional Nodes and facilitators).
3.2.2 (COMPONENT 2) Foster the inclusion of lessons learned and best practices into
water resources management practices.
This component set the basis for the establishment of a systematic mechanism for exchanging
knowledge on best practices. First, the work on the definition of ¨Best Practices¨ evolves from
what have been advanced by other initiatives like IW/Learn and UNEP database on best
practices. Once the criterion to define BP is established, a system for identifying them, from other
projects, is developed.
Based on the above results, this component also identifies mechanisms to transfer practices and
lessons learned into policies and regulations and into new initiatives on water resources.
Three regional meetings have been schedule in order to provide a space for discussion of this
issue.
3.2.3 (COMPONENT 3) Strengthening of IWRN.
In order for the DELTAmerica to continue as a process further than its financial period, it is
necessary that the Inter America Water Resources Network assume the role of an objective
communicator and a valid reference for integrated water resources management in the Americas.
There is a need to strengthen this body by providing modern elements of communications,
12
starting by upgrading their web site, establishing subregional nodes with specific subregional
thematic responsibilities, providing training to water actors and ensuring adequate linkages with
other networks involved in water resources.
3.2.4 (COMPONENT 4) Monitoring and evaluation.
UNEP in consultation with GS/OAS will coordinate two evaluations of project activities, one
mid-term and another at the end of the project. These evaluations are in addition to any operative
day to day monitoring actions from the Executing and Implementing agencies.
3.2.5 Other Provisions under Project Document
In order to accomplish the objective of the project it is important to build form the experiences
form other IW GEF projects. The San Francisco, Upper Paraguay, Putumayo river basing and the
Guarani Aquifer projects have are a good source for experiences, lessons and best practices that
can be shared with other initiatives in the Americas.
Brazil, as host of many of these projects and as Co Chair of IWRN can also facilitate the process
of promoting the exchange of experiences and best practices. Brazil will also have a fundamental
role in interacting with the National Focal Points for promoting the inclusion of project results in
their national/regional policies and their integrated water resources management practices.
Other initiatives like IW-Learn, as well as others from UNEP, GEF and OAS, and other IWRN
member's organizations, will contribute as baseline and support for many of the activities in each
of the project's components.
The support letters and project endorsements by governments and organizations, contained in the
Project Document, provide an indication of the level of commitment expressed to DELTAmerica.
It is important mentioning that there are provisions which are not directly expressed in the
documents and that are related with the value that organizations like UNEP and OAS have
regarding procedures for managing, including financial and personnel hiring as well as for legal
aspects. If DELTAmerica were supposed to establish this, as an additional activity, the project
execution would have been seriously delayed.
Therefore the project document's make provisions for guiding the project administration process:
1. Quarterly operational report.
2. Quarterly progress report.
3. Cash advance statement.
4. Quarterly project expenditure accounts for supporting organizations.
5. Terminal report.
6. Inventory of non expandable equipment purchased against UNEP projects.
13
Regarding financial provisions, all project components have their main activities being financed
by GEF funds. Some specific activities are also financed in cash by the government of Brazil.
In kind contributions are provided by the government of Brazil, UNEP and OAS.
The total financial provision for the project (funding and co funding) is US$1,587.000,
distributed accordingly: GEF 61%, Government of Brazil 26.5%, OAS 6.5% and UNEP 6.0%.
4. CURRENT STATUS OF PROJECT (REVIEW HORIZON).
The project was established to be executed in 18 months, starting Mach 2003, however it was
expanded until December 2005 (as mentioned in the terms of reference for this evaluation).
Most of the components have accomplished their tasks by the end of 2004. For year 2005, what is
going to be developed is a workshop-meeting for results´ presentation to the steering committee,
some technical assistance which includes the implementation of nodes for Central America and
Peru (Pacific South America), and editing and printing of material.
Even though the Technical Coordinator had expressed not to be able of continuing with the
project 100% of his time, he finally agreed to continue for the rest of the project. Therefore, it is
expected any delays in project execution due to the issue of management.
During the last Steering Committee meeting in Lima Peru, May 2005, there were presented a
comprehensive set of draft results for all components, the analyses for these documents should be
the scope of the final project evaluation, however, some of their contents and according with their
relevance, were used for this mid term evaluation report, in particular some projections of these
results were built from some of these documents.
5. PROJECT PERFORMANCE TO DATE
5.1 Evaluation of project components in the context of the Pro Doc Workplan:
The evaluation for the project components in the context of the Pro Doc are based on the
Technical Coordinator Quarterly Reports, Financial Progress Report and several interviews and
information exchanges with different actors related directly and indirectly with the project. As it
was mentioned before, some of the information from the draft reports presented to the Steering
Committee (Lima, May 2005) was also used for the component's evaluation.
5.1.1 Component 1: Foster dialogue among GEF-IW and other related water resources
management projects in LAC establishing mechanisms to share recent accomplishments,
experiences from the planning and management of IW projects, lessons learned, and best
practices.
14
Figure 1. Information table for component 1.
Objective Actors Action
what
On
Actors
To
into
To
IW-
Experiences I
WRMg
Promote
GEF
Establishing
Each other: GEF Discuss
practices
dialogue
projects a
Planning &
& Non GEF
strategies to
mechanism
Lessons
management in
Gov officials
incorporates
Non
to share
learned
IW projects
Local actors
them ....
Policies
GEF
Best
Stakeholders
projects
practices
The promotion of dialogues for sharing experiences, best practices and lessons learned in
DELTAmerica have two main mechanism, one a face to face sub regional meting and another
which is a virtual follow up activity called Virtual Fora (VF).
According with the Technical Coordinator Quarterly Reports, interviews with governmental
authorities and the Executing agency personnel, in order to develop these activities it was
necessary to develop a close coordination with the Brazilian government as well as with the
National Focal Points for IWRN. A key for the project success and usefulness of their results will
be the active participation of the countries, they will have a major role for incorporating the
results of DELTAmerica into policies and management practices. The support and level of
commitment provided by the Secretariat for Water Resources from Brazil in this regard has been
crucial for all the activities considered in the Project.
In this component several actions were executed:
-Strategic meetings with National Focal Points.
-Sub Regional Dialogues.
-Virtual Fora (VF).
-Exchange of project officers (twining).
It is important to indicate that most of the meetings for DELTAmerica, National Focal Points,
Sub Regional Dialogues, etc were schedule in combination with other international conferences;
this provided not only a major participation but also the possibility of discussing and exchanging
experiences with a larger group of experts from the water management community.
The first strategic meeting to promote participation of National Focal Points for IWRN took place
in Arequipa, Peru, June 7 and 8, 2003. This meeting was follow by the Ist Steering Committee
meeting of DELTAmerica (official launching of the project). The main results from these
activities lead to the approval of the contract for the project's technical coordinator, Dr. Gilberto
Canalli, and the discussion and approval of the work plan submitted by the Executing Agency
(OAS). The organization of the meeting was manly in charge of OAS through their national and
regional counterparts in Latin America and the Caribbean.
During this meeting there was a clear agreement among the participants that DELTAmerica sub
regionalization was not only geographical but based on the main IW projects taking place, they
provide a good indication of the government interest.
15
There was also a second DELTAmerica Steering Committee meeting in Montevideo, September
2003, where several Focal points were also present.
Even though there has been several efforts from Technical Coordinator and the Executing
Agency for having another IWRN National Focal Points meeting, it has been very difficult to
schedule it, the amount of activities related with water resources have increase exponentially
during the last two years, leaving very little space to program it. Therefore, provisions were
made to convene in May 2005 in Lima, Peru with the presentations of draft reports to Steering
Committee1. Because the project has been extended to the end of 2005, final products of the
project will be presented the following Steering Committee meeting in Jamaica, during the
DELTAmerica meeting at the V Dialogue.
Sub Regional Dialogues (SRD) was developed to promote the exchange of experiences and
information. Some specific objectives of these activities were:
· To identify and exchange experiences, lessons leaned and good practices from GEF IW
projects and other projects on integrated water resources management in Latin America
and the Caribbean.
· To identify priority issues for countries within the sub region, which contribute as basis
for wider discussions under a virtual foro.
· To identify and establish criteria for identifying good practices.
· To identify country needs for assistance in the formulation and implementation of policies
in water resources.
Because the spirit for integrated water resources management is to coordinate the efforts of all
actors in order for reduce the possibility of conflicts and to potentiate the opportunities of
working together, DELTAmerica participants to the Sub Regional Dialogues represented a large
group of actors, ranging from government officials to non governmental organizations, from the
academic sector to the private sector and from international organizations to local and community
groups.
The structure of the SRD were, working sessions with presentations from the participants under a
common format (Project background, analyses of GEF methodology, experiences and lessons
learned, good practices).
Three Sub Regional Dialogues have been realized, the first in Brasilia, Brazil the 23 -25 of July
2003, the second in Montevideo, Uruguay, September 26-27, 2003 and the third in Saint Lucia,
March 4-5, 2004.
The Sub Regional Dialogue celebrated in Brasilia was dedicated to the South Pacific Watershed
and the Amazon regions. Agreements were reached during this dialogue to continue sharing
experiences through a virtual forum and looking after opportunities to promote horizontal
cooperation amongst the countries on the following subjects: Institutional frameworks,
Education, Culture and Social Participation, and Legal Frameworks, as regards to water resources
management (QOR-July September 2003). Colombia, Ecuador and Peru emphasized the need of
1 Because this report has received comments on specific areas, it has been possible to include analyses for some
activities presented at this Steering Committee meting.
16
making the issue of Water Law Reforms a priority, since they are in the process of reviewing
their respective national legislation on this matter (QOR-July September 2003).
It is also important to indicate that the exchange of experiences during the Focal Points meeting
in Arequipa provided an identification of common interests from Amazonian governments which
was further discussed during the SRD-Brasilia. This actions lead to a request to the GEF to
support a multinational initiative on "The Amazon for the Sustainable Management of Water
Resources." This initiative aims to prepare, reach agreement and execute a view and a framework
for joint action for the sustainable development of the Amazon Basin among the countries of the
Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO) (QOR-July September 2003).
Participants also recommended to DELTAmerica project to promote discussions for developing a
common vision on policies for water management in LAC. This recommendation was well
attended by the project and in document 3 (Lima, Peru, Report to Steering Committee) there is a
complete strategy for accomplishing this in Latin America and the Caribbean countries. This
result is being incorporated within the political decision making process, (Brazil, Central
America, for example) and it is being evaluated for promoting it at the highest political level
meetings.
The second Sub Regional Dialogue, celebrated in Montevideo, was attended by 27 participants
from the four countries of MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay), Bolivia and
Chile, IWRN National Focal Points, GEF Project Managers, UNESCO, OAS and GWP
members.
The main objectives of this SRD were:
· To identify priority issues for this sub region, this can be the base for discussion through
the virtual foro.
· To discuss criteria to identify and share experiences, lessons learned and good practices
obtained from GEF IW projects and others, developed in the sub region and in water
management.
· To identify the needs for assistance from countries in order to continue and/or to improve
the process for national policies in water resources.
The SRD was based on group discussions, where consideration was given to lessons learned on
public participation and to the preparation and implementation of GEF projects.
It was also an agreement on 5 important issues to continue discussing on the Virtual Foro:
1. Tools for integrated water resources management.
2. Training of personnel.
3. Facilities for good practices distribution.
4. To promote public participation.
5. Harmonization and development of legal and regulatory frameworks.
A second Steering Committee meeting took place just after the sub regional dialogue. It was
reviewed the implementation of the project and some decisions on future steps were taken.
17
The third Sub Regional Dialogue was for the Mesoamerican region and took place in Saint Lucia
and was attended by 31 participants of 18 countries; these participants were representatives of
governments, NGOs, academic and private sector, and international/regional organizations.
During the activity there was an active exchange of experiences between IW GEF and non GEF
projects, experiences from the Caribbean on water management and the impact of the tourism
sector were shared with Central American countries whose tourism industry is growing very fast.
Even though only Dominican Republic and Haiti have a shared basin, it was considered that the
experiences along the close community of island on the Caribbean on sea pollution, is very
important to be discussed in a virtual Foro. Provisions made by the managing of the project in
order to have simultaneous interpretation during the meeting facilitated the discussions.
Sub regional Dialogues have proved to be an effective mechanism for sharing experiences,
lessons and best practices among IW-GEF project, and also with non GEF projects. As it will be
indicated in the activities financial analyses, this is an expensive activity, however the
achievements reached indicate that this mechanism continue to be one of the most valued.
The combination of efforts with other organizations to share activities like dialogues and meeting
has been a practice frequently used by IWRN and OAS that also continue to be highly positive in
the financing, the managing and the technical outcomes. The value added to the sub regional
dialogues for DELTAmerica from the OAS/UNESCO initiative on transboundary aquifers was
well as many others promoted by IWRN members. Regional Focal Points like the Regional
Committee on Hydraulic Resources for Central America (CRRH) and the Center for
Environmental Health Studies for the Caribbean (CEHI) play also a very important role as
structures that coordinate efforts from many countries in the sub regions ranging from technical
matters to policy making at the Ministerial, Presidential and Prime Minister level. DELTAmerica
has both, capitalized and benefit these existing structures, producing a positive cross fertilization
between Central America, Caribbean and South America projects on IW.
Document 2, presented to the Steering Committee in Lima, Peru, May 2005; offer a summary of
the SRD as well as other related meetings on water resources in which DELTAmerica had some
kind of participation.
Figure 2. Virtual Fora process.
Virtual Forum Process
IV Inter American
V Inter American Dialogue,
Building from
Dialogue (Foz Iguazu)
VF preliminary
Inputs
Jamaica
Water for the Americas,
results............ to.........
GEF IW Conference Brazil
Mexico DF.
The Virtual Fora was initially built from inputs from Dialogue IV and the Water for the Americas
Conference. I was designed to continue discussions for the agenda of Dialogue V and the GEF
International Waters Conference.
The agreements y commitments form the participants to the three Subregional Dialogues to
continue discussions of important hemispheric and regional issues through Virtual Fora indicate
that this mechanism could reduce many costly long face to face meetings.
18
Virtual Fora required a number of facilitating activities, especially in the technological and
communications area. These activities will be discussed later during the evaluation of component
3.
An important indication for the VF is that approximately 30% of their facilitating activities would
take place during the first semester of 2005, it is considered that this is a crucial time to provide
important inputs to Dialogue V and the GEF International Waters Conference. The
administration of the project has made financial provisions for this matter.
Exchange of Project Officers (twining) was another mechanism for exchange of experiences,
lessons and best practices. This mechanism provides the possibility that personnel from a project
could travel, to another project and develop work for sharing experiences. According to the
Technical coordinator reports and interviews with personnel from the Executing Agency there
were some activities reported, one where personnel from La Plata project (GEF-IW-Argentina-
Uruguay) assisted in specific tasks the San Juan River Basin Project (GEF-IW Costa Rica-
Nicaragua). Another, between the Alto Paraguay and San Francisco Project with the San Juan
River Basin Project. Also, there was twining between Alto Paraguay and San Francisco River
Basin with Lerma-Chapalla Project in Mexico.
Other projects also followed this initiative and within different frameworks of cooperation
(DELTAmerica and others) developed exchanges (QOR-January/March 2004 and QOR-
April/June 2004). Within these exchanges of personnel it can be also included the participation of
the Technical coordinator as lecturer in several conferences and meetings along the region.
Twining can be an interesting option to be continued further in other projects. This normally is
not very expensive activity in term of the particular benefits this can bring. Twining saves a lot
of execution time and there is an excellent way to stimulate South-South cooperation, which is
the objective of DELTAmerica. Twining also has made short the distances between the problems
in different parts of the America, this contribute to promote local solutions to problems with
global implications. This last issue is one of the driving forces toward the IV World Water Forum
(Mexico 2006).
Other aspects which can contribute to twining are the video conferences. Some examples in
Central America have proved to be cost effective, where more than 200 participants are
connected for the presentations and discussion of Climate Outlooks (virtual foro on climate
perspectives) reducing costs of face to face meetings and visits in almost 90%.
Finally, it is important to mention that twining in the context of DELTAmerica was more driven
by request from the interested side and not exactly by a structured program were some kind of
regional promotion or information exchange was made.
19
5.1.2 Component 2: Foster the inclusion of lessons learned and best practices into water
resources management practices.
Figure 3. Information table for component 2.
Action Inputs Results Products
To define Best Practice
Criteria to identify BP
Document C2-A
Establish a system to
IW- Best Practices
System for identifying
Document C2-B
identify Best Practices
database / IW-Learn
One of the important initiatives taken by the Executing Agency, as preparatory to DELTAmerica
project, was to build from known and proven experiences. In this regard there were plenty of
activities for establishing a fluid communication and coordination link with IW-Learn (GEF-
UNEP).
Several actions were recorded during this evaluation:
- A letter of support from IW-Learn to GEF, supporting DELTAmerica project.
- Memorandum of Understanding for cooperation between IW-Learn/USDE-OAS,
December 2002.
- Letter of agreement for implementation for institutional mapping of the San Juan river
Basin Project, between IW-Learn/USD-OAS
- Personal conversations between DELTAmerica officials during the III World Water
Forum in Japan with IW-Learn authorities.
- Several or e mail exchanges between DELTAmerica Technical Coordinator with IW-
Learn authorities.
- Several meeting attempts between parties.
Even though all these efforts, very recent conversations with DELTAmerica Technical
Coordinator indicate that there has been no possibility to put together a meeting between both
parties.
This experience with IW-Learn is a common signal for some activities within DELTAmerica
where there are difficulties to convene meeting between the organizations involved or to
accelerate process or speed the project execution.
In order to continue the progress for "Best Practices Criteria" and to establish a system to identify
them, two consultants worked on:
- A review of the last 10 years publications on best practices in Latin America and the
Caribbean.
- An Analyses of lessons learned for GEF IW projects and to propose a system to identify
them.
At the same time, there has been a very productive effort from the three sub regional meetings
where the participants shared their experiences and described lessons learned and best practices
within their projects. This is a solid input to the consultants. Besides, there were specific
recommendations from the Sub Regional Dialogues about the main issues where they would like
to share information.
20
The document prepared by the consultant, Axel Dourojeanni, " Gestión Integrada de los Recursos
Hídricos: Mejores Prácticas y Lecciones Aprendidas en Proyectos GEF y Estrategia para su
Difusión" , Mayo 2005, DELTAmerica Project2, cover one of the most important areas whose
initiation was very weak due to the reasons largely explained above.
The definition for best practice (BP) evolves from the consultant knowledge and experience in
the field and it is comprehensive and well referenced to water resources. The comparison
between concepts like: "Successful Experiences, Lessons Learned and Best Practices" provides a
good orientation for their future systematizations, and gives additional strength to the main
definition.
The criteria for selecting best practices is based on a very relevant consideration, a BP needs to
have the acceptance by the actors and technical personnel involved in the processes of water
management. This criteria also considers two necessary ingredients: "an scenario of"...... what is
planned to be accomplished with integrated water resources management in a particular area and
how the BP in going to contribute to it. The other ingredient is a "plan on".... what and how
integrated water management is going to be accomplished.
Because the definition for BP and the criteria for selecting them evolve from analyses of GEF
projects, a special consideration is given to "Strategic Action Plans", which is a norm for GEF
projects and a practice that is becoming common for other non GEF water related projects.
I consider that the selecting criteria is very elaborated and robust, however it is always also
necessary to recognize that, due to the complexity of water management issues, there would be
cases in which generalizations cannot be made and singularities of a basin, actors involved, etc,
need to be taken into account.
It is also important to mention that the consultant made important considerations for very
sensitive and even confusing issues like water management, basin management and natural
resources management. There are good examples on how these aspects can influence the efficient
administration of resources having implications on the countries economies.
GEF projects provide excellent material for best practices identification, systematization and
transferring. The methods to determine how GEF projects can contribute to BP and the
considerations of interacting factors such as institutional, legal, economic, social, environmental,
technological, etc, provides additional value to the concepts evolving from GEF projects.
It is still a necessary effort to be made by DELTAmerica for the inclusion of other non GEF and
non South America projects. This would provide not only a geographical balance, but also would
test the methods and definitions from this consultant's work. Even though there are common
aspects in the Americas, it is also true that in many small countries there is more access to
reaching the political level with the potential benefit of including best practices into norms and
legislation. Many other institutions like IUCN, Inter American Development Bank, Central
America Integration Bank, European Union, and particular countries, are allocating funding for
2 The document was available to the Steering Committee Meting, Lima, Peru, May 2005, a draft copy was provided
by the Technical Coordinator, and this comments were based on this draft.
21
integrated water resources management projects. A sample of these projects could have benefited
the objective of the work.
Another aspect which does not look covered is the Caribbean states examples. During the
DELTAmerica workshop in Santa Lucia, there were very interesting and specific examples on
inland influences on water resources with associated impacts on shared water oceans and the
implications on tourism and other socio economic activities.
The strategy for including BP into water resources management practices and policies needs to be
based in an active participatory process where non traditional sectors and actors were
incorporated. In this respect and as part of the strategy, it is suggested that IWRN moves from the
passive role of receiving information to a more active one based on the interaction with non
traditional water actors.
I share this considerations very strongly, and this is where it is necessary that this BP document
can be expanded to include other non GEF and small countries projects, where the possibility to
include non traditional actors is higher.
Special consideration for the strategy needs to be made to methods for reaching consensus and
finding convergence of interest in water management, in particular where non traditional actors
participate. The value of the academic sector in this processes are very positive because they
normally have a strong non bias credibility within the general population and the sectors.
However, I agreed with the consultant in the need for strengthening the academic program in the
Americas for Water resources management.
An effort is being made by the Secretary of Water Resources of Brazil in order to promote a
"Common Strategy for Water Management between Latin America and the Caribbean
Countries". This strategy is based on discussions that took place during sub regional dialogues
and a document was presented to the Steering Committee meeting held in Lima, Peru, May 2005.
(Doc-3 Lima May 2005) as part of DELTAmerica outputs. The document has been promoted by
the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Brazil and a process of consultations with the countries of Latin
America and the Caribbean will follow. The Secretary for Water Resources of Brazil has
discussed also this initiative with the Secretary General for the Central America Integration
System (SICA) and other organizations that were very positive with the initiative. It is also
expected that the document would be presented at the meeting of Minister of Environment and
Water that will take place in Venezuela in November 2005.
Therefore, the results from DELTAmerica project are going to have a very important place within
this strategy, in particular if IWRN and OAS are important actors.
It can be mentioned that up to now the process by which "best practices" were defined, selected
and promoted into policies and management practices is very positive. The contribution of
DELTAmerica in this matter is very relevant not only for water management discussions, but
form many other sectors. Nowadays there is a tendency to promote discussions based on
experiences and lessons; this is can be considered a manifestation for optimization of resources
and for reducing duplication of actions and activities.
22
Practical examples and applications on this matter will determine how successful this activity has
been which, at the same time would also depend on how DELTAmerica and IWRN promote this
results, particularly using it as a methodological step for their discussions.
5.1.3. Component 3: Strengthening of IWRN
The main actions under this component include to provide financial and technical assistance for
the elaboration of an strategic Plan for IWRN. Another activity is to upgrade the Web Site for
IWRN and the creation of sub regional nodes, all these with the intention of strengthening IWRN
and to establish the basis for the sustainability of the project accomplishments.
Strengthening of the Inter American Water Resources Network3:
A coordinated effort has been made between the Executing Agency, IWRN and the Technical
coordinator in order to support a "strategic planning" study for IWRN. A technical committee
was established within IWRN to give guidance and reference to the consultant. The consultant
hired was not able to accomplish what was indicated in the terms of reference (personal
communications with DELTAmerica management) leaving this chapter to be solved urgently.
This kind of tasks depend a lot on the efficient and timely interaction with the main actors of the
organizations, in this case IWRN members and their executive Secretariat. A break or
interruption on inefficient communication can cause late reactions for making corrections to the
task, ending with loses of time, funds, between others.
A Strategic Planning Group (SPG), which was established by IWRN for supervising and work
together with the hired consultant for this purpose, had to assume the job of assembling the
strategic planning4 . This has been an add hoc initiative and means great effort from those who
participate.
Based on the most recent exchange of communications between SPG members', there is still
some discussions on some points of the planning, for example on membership and structure.
Even though there was a draft report presented at the meeting for Executive Council of IWRN
(May 16, 2005, Lima) for comments, the finalization of this task is not expected to take place
before the V Dialogue (Jamaica, October 2005).
This strategic plan is considered the most important step for IWRN continuity and adjustment in
times since their origins; now depends on their members to agree objectively on their content and
leave away particular interests.
One of the main activities for component 3 is the Upgrade of the IWRN Web Site to a dynamic
interactive source of information exchange. In this regard a close coordination was established
3 Integrated Water Resources Network (IWRN-RIRH) general description is presented in Annex VIII
4 The process by which the consultant for this task was selected followed normal personnel recruitment procedures
and was back up by the executing agency. Unfortunately the documents and reports presented by the consultant were
not in agreement with the terms of reference, due to this the IWRN Strategic Planning Group agreed to cancel the
contract.
23
with an initiative from UNESCO in order to optimize time and resources, this was an agreement
made during the 2nd SC meeting in Montevideo. Both initiatives are being developed by the
Florida Atlantic University trough the Center for Environmental Studies (CES) with whom
USD/OAS signed a letter of Understanding describing the contractual terms.
Based on interviews with the technical and administrative personnel from CES and the
performance during launching of the subregional nodes for Southern Cone and Brazil, celebrated
in Buenos Aires, 13 and 14 October 2004, there is evidence that the work is moving forward with
a lot of the enthusiasm and hard work from the nodes facilitators. The constant interaction of all
actors in this activity provides a positive orientation to the technical work. This could become
one of the more visible and positive outcomes of the project representing a direct benefit to the
regions.
As part of the strengthening of IWRN, sub regional nodes managed for facilitators and hosted by
national institutions were established. A sub regional node was established in Brazil hosted by
the Secretariat of Water Resources. In Argentina a Sub Regional node for the southern cone was
established at the Sub-Secretary for Water Resources. A Sub Regional node for the South
America Watershed and Amazon region was established at INRENA / Peru. A new node would
be established for Mesoamerica at CRRH in Costa Rica.
Most of the work was expected to be finished by the end of 2004; however, it is considered that
some tasks would still need to be developed in 2005, in particular in Peru and Mesoamerica.
The creation of sub regional nodes might become a very positive outcome for the future of
IWRN. Facilitators in each node could maintain a dynamic exchange of information,
experiences, lessons and practices with the National Focal Point as well as with a larger
community of water resources management. This exchange would make IWRN very visible and
it could take back his role as reference organization.
OAS has signed Memorandums of Understanding with most of the host institutions so far, which
means that national institutions and OAS as Executive Secretariat for IWRN are very much
committed with the work of the nodes.
During the launching of the Sub Regional Nodes for southern cone and Brazil, Buenos Aires, 13
and 14 October 2004, interviews with authorities for the Foreign Affairs Ministry for Argentina
and with Sub Secretary for Water Resources of Argentina, both expressed a very strong
commitment for the work to come with the nodes and the possibility to continue providing
resources for its operations. The same manifestations have been made by Secretary for Water
Resources for Brazil, and the work of the facilitators so far is a strong indication of this
commitment.
Based on the reports from the Steering Committee and the Technical Coordinator, a small delay
in this task was produced because the preliminary agreement made with IDEAM/Colombia,
regarding the Sub Regional node for the South America Watershed and Amazon region, did not
work as expected. However the arrangements made by DELTAmerica's management with the
National Institute for Natural Resources (INRENA) in Peru are moving forward in a very positive
24
way. During the launching of the Sub Regional Nodes for southern cone and Brazil, Buenos
Aires, 13 and 14 October 2004, there were very qualified participants from Peru and Central
America.
During the evaluation missions in Brasilia, Montevideo and Buenos Aires, October 2004, the
exchange of opinions with several water actors and stakeholders regarding the nodes activity
always indicated a manifestation of optimism for the work ahead.
The commitment between the Executing Agency and those organizations in charge of the nodes.
is a step forward for future sustainability. It is urgent, that the Executing agency finish
implementing them. It is also necessary to give more exposition to the good work being
developed from Brazil and Argentina's nodes, particularly to other non traditional actors in water
management whose decision influence this activity.
The work developed at these two operating nodes is becoming very important for the regional
interaction on water management issues, in table 1 information regarding the virtual foros
developed is presented. Therefore, it is not expected that, once DELTAmerica finishes, the nodes
will disappear. It is also a further responsibility for IWRN to take advantage of an efficient
mechanism for maintaining their WEB and communications updated.
5.1.4 Component 4: Monitoring and evaluation.
Monitoring of project activities ranging from finances, administration and logistics has been
appropriated. The work developed by implementing and executing agencies, based on their long
term experience, prove to be very positive. It is important to monitor the execution plan in,
particular the timing of activities, in order to take full advantage of the project's extension until
the end of 2005. Another activity important to be monitored is the strategic plan. This is going to
be crucial for the next evaluation due to their implication with the sustainability of IWRN.
Project evaluation could have been more beneficial if their mid term evaluation could have been
done before, in order to identify difficulties along progress and timing. The nature of
DELTAmerica is a lesson learned by itself, because their outputs are strongly dependant of many
previous developments, therefore it should have been identify that a longer period of execution
was going to be necessary.
Even though the recommended evaluation method is highly comprehensive, for the stage where
DELTAmerica mid term evaluation was initiated, not all outputs were ready to be evaluated;
therefore, it was necessary to project, from what was available, the potential progress for future
months. Because of the comments from UNEP and others to the drafts it has been possible to
continue incorporating new output, interviews, results, etc; however, final evaluation must
incorporate total impacts of these materials.
25
Table 1: Expected and actual outputs from each project component.
Components Expected
Outputs
Actual
Outputs
Observations5
1
Strategic meeting
I Meeting Steering Committee,
International Workshop
with National
Arequipa, Peru, July 2003
on basins and water
Focal Points
resources.
II Meeting Steering Committee,
OAS-UNESCO
(Doc-2 Lima May
Montevideo, Uruguay, Sept. 2003
initiative on
2005)
transboundary aquifers.
III Meeting Steering Committee, Lima,
International Workshop
Peru, May 2005
on transboundary basins
Sub regional
Brasilia, July 2003
Multinational initiative
Dialogues
on the "Amazons for
the sustainable
(Doc-2 Lima May
management of water
2005)
resources".
Montevideo, Sept 2003
OAS-UNESCO
initiative on
transboundary aquifers
Santa Lucia, March 04
CES-CRRH
institutional and
political outreach.
Non programmed
Common Strategy for Water
This strategy is based
output
Management between Latin America
on the discussions that
and the Caribbean Countries.
took place during sub
(Doc-3 Lima May 2005)
regional dialogues.6
Virtual Foro
1. Virtual Fora Sub region Southern
List of active virtual
Cone.
fora based on
(Doc-7d, Lima
2. Virtual Fora Sub region South Pacific communications with
May 2005)
watershed and Amazons
node's managers.
3. Virtual Fora related to Dialogue V
and IV-WWF
Virtual Fora using Yahoo groups and
other system:
1. Dialog-Agua-L
2. Water Web
3. Pantanal Everglades
4. IWRN Executive Committee
5. IWRN Strategic Planning Group
6. Organizing Committee for D-V
7. Node´s Networks Managers
8. Web-editors Brazil
9. IWRN managers for regional nodes
Twining Twining
between:
-La Plata river basin project and San
Juan River Basin Project.
-Alto Paraguay and San Francisco
Project with San Juan River Basin
Project.
5 Most of these outputs have reference documents. At the same time the activities were organized in parallel to other
national/regional/international events providing a wider exposure to DELTAmerica project and reducing project's
costs.
6 The strategy is political effort to transform best practices into policies and management practices.
26
-Alto Paraguay and San Francisco River
Basin with Lerma-Chapalla Project in
Mexico.
Horizontal cooperation between:
Brazil and DELTAmerica Project
Coordinator participation in Colombia
and Peru workshops regarding exchange
of experiences in water laws.
2
-Definition of best
-Contributions to the definitions of best
Conferences presented
practices
practices, lessons learn and good
to Steering Committee
experiences.
(Lima, May 2005).
(Doc-5a Lima May 2005)
All documents provided
-Systematization
-Virtual library of case studies in good
to the members.
for identifying best practices in IWRM for Latin America
practices.
and the Caribbean. (Portuguese docs)
(Doc-4 Lima May 2005)
-IWRM in transboundary regions of
LAC: best practices and lessons learned
from GEF projects and their
communication strategy. (English-
Spanish docs).
(Doc-5a Lima May 2005)
(Doc-5b Lima May 2005)
-Mechanisms and tools for
disseminating experiences and lessons
learned in IWRM for the Inter american
Water Resources Network.
(Doc-7a Lima May 2005)
3
Strengthening of
New WEB site for IWRN inter connected Virtual fora capacities.
IWRN (RIRH).
with sub regional nodes.
(Doc-7b Lima May 2005)
-Upgrade IWRN
(Doc-7c Lima May 2005)
WEB site.
(Doc-7e Lima May 2005)
-Brasilia node, created October 2004,
Strong commitment
-Creation of sub
operates from the Secretary of Water
from host organizations
regional nodes
Resources of Brazil
for sustainability of the
-Southern cone node, created in October
nodes.
2004, operates from Sub Secretary for
Water Resources in Argentina.
-Central America node, created July
2005, operated from CRRH in Costa
Rica.
Strategic planning In progress, expected to be discussed
IWRN (RIRH)
during Dialogue V in Jamaica, October
2005.
(Doc-6 Lima May 2005)
27
5.2. Activities of the project Steering Committee.
The Steering Committee for DELTAmerica has met so far, three times7. Their first meeting took
place in Arequipa, Peru in June 2003. The Second meeting was celebrated in Montevideo in
September 2003. A third Steering Committee meeting had been proposed to the members for
September 2004, but it was not possible to agree with most of the members' schedules. Finally
the meeting originally scheduled for the beginning of 2005 in Mexico, was celebrated in Lima in
May 205.
The reports from the SC meeting indicate that the members have a strong participation in
particular with the sub regional activities, nodes and VF. Mesoamerican members maintain a
balanced participation with those from Brazil and the Southern Cone, this indicates that there is a
hemispheric interest for the project and their results to be representative of the Americas. The SC
has done a good work providing indications and guidance to the management of the project when
there is a face to face meeting, however their virtual interaction do not look very efficient, which
sometimes causes difficulties to the Executing Agency and Technical Coordinator for the
decision making process. As mentioned before, the amount of activities taking place on water
resources have increased exponentially, therefore water managers maintained a very busy agenda
and because of the scale of the project it is difficult to have them available simultaneously. As
part of the lessons learned it is necessary that SC consider a virtual protocol for decision making,
this speed up and facilitate project execution. He third SC meeting was different form the others,
those members that have continuity in the SC have are more active and focus participation.
5.3 Project enhancement beyond Pro Doc Provisions.
5.3.1 Project enhancement through country Government initiatives
Brazil government initiatives
The Government of Brazil has promoted, under the DELTAmerica project, the
development of a set of directives that can be presented with the tools developed for
IWRN to the Presidential Summit of the Americas that will take place in Buenos Aires,
Argentina, towards the end of 2005. Another possibility is to present it also to the Water
and Environment meeting that will take place in Venezuela in November 2005.
Other
initiatives
One of the main concerns throughout the Americas is the process leading to the
negotiations and implementation of the Millennium Goals
(www.un.org/millenniumgoals). It has been noted that many countries in the LAC region
are not well prepared to undertake these important international negotiations. A group of
organizations led by CRRH/SICA in Central America, UNEP, IUCN, OAS, UNESCO-
IHP and UNDESA are organizing a process to assist the countries of Latin America to
engage in the negotiation process building on the tools developed by the DELTAmerica
project.
7 This includes the last meeting that took place in Peru, May 2005.
28
Commercial economic blocks of countries are becoming the main characteristic for the
beginning of XXI century. Very recently, several presidents from south America met in
Lima, Peru, in order to discuss about the convenience to for a south America integration
community. The idea is progressing and a new meeting has being schedule for Brazil,
therefore it would be interesting that IWRN, in close coordination with their partners and
members, interact with the authorities in order to contribute providing information on
integrated water resources management for regional integration purposes associated to
commerce, economics, and in general for sustainable development in south America.
IWRN as a network should also be aware of other important future initiatives like the
Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) in which many countries and
organizations, ranging from governments to private sector, are participating. This system
is promoting the integration of information and products for improving world security, in
this respect IWRN could use the tools developed by DELTAmerica for contributing in the
area of water resources exchange information and products.
Another initiative that is taking place in Central America is the Tri Ministerial meeting for
discussing water issues common to their sectors. A preparatory will take place in
Managua in September 2005 and some considerations to DELTAmerica project's results
will be given.
5.4 Overall project management and administrative arrangements.
5.4.1 Project Coordination and Management
Based on the interviews it is evident that there is a lot of support to the project from the different
organizations and institutions in Brazil. The networking developed by the Technical Coordinator
has been very effective. He has been using many of his personal contacts in favor of the project
objectives. It is also recognized that a great effort has been done also to promote the project along
the Americas; however the final result of the management will be seen once the nodes and virtual
foro became fully operative. According with interviews with DELTAmerica consultants and
personnel there have not been any management aspects that could be considered or interpreted as
bad management or delays in payments or contracts due to negligence of anyone involved in the
coordination structure.
5.4.2 Institutional arrangements and structures.
Institutional arrangements between UNEP, OAS and the Government of Brazil were very
effective, due to the permanent interaction that OAS has with the Secretariat for Water Resources
from Brazil through their offices in Buenos Aires and Brasilia. Staff and other personnel from
other important IW-GEF projects are also being executed from this location in Brasilia, this
experience has built a very robust mechanism between these partners which has facilitated
DELTAmerica execution.
29
5.4.3. Financial Management.
Project activities for each component, originally financed for 18 months, were extended until July
20058 based on agreements between the implementing and executing agencies with the financing
agency.
This action was indicated to the project Steering Committee on August 3, 2004, with the
consideration of study for their approval the Project Operational Plan for July December 2004
prepared by USDMA/OAS in coordination with the Technical Coordinator for the project. This
document provides a detailed description of the main expenditures including projections to July
2005.
An analysis of the document provides a good indication of whole administration of the project.
By the end of 2004, it is expected that 95% of the funding for the coordination of the project were
executed. In order to continue the management operations as well as providing technical
assistance to Brazil and Argentina during the first semester of 2005, a budget modification was
made, adding 45% more of the original budget for this category.
In Component 1, it was already executed 80% of the budget, what is requested for 2005 would
not need any adjustment because it can be covered with the actual provision.
A more detailed analyses of the finances for this component indicates that under activity 1.1
related with the strategy for countries' participation exceed 45% of their original budget, and for
2005 this increment would be 87% of originally budgeted. Workshops, printing and distribution
of materials are the main reason of this increase.
Activities 1.2 and 1.4 only used 75% and 40% of their budget. There were important savings in
the sub regional dialogue for Mesoamerica, in consultant's fees and in printing, editing and
electronic editing of Virtual Fora materials.
Activities 1.3 and 1.5 were close to budget.
In component 2, 91% of the budget was executed and there are no requests for 2005.
A close look of the activities under this component indicate that the activity 2.1 only executed
36% of their budget due to savings in consultant fees, editing, printing and electronic editing.
Project execution for this activity is consistent with what has been commented on the difficulties
to create good operative contacts with the IW-Learn project.
Activity 2.2 was executed 95%, and activity 2.3 was over budget 25%. The main reason was the
costs for travel of participants to sub regional workshops.
8 During the interviews for this evaluation it was informed that there is an agreement between the implementing and
executing agency with GEF for continuing the project until the end of December 2005.
30
In component 3 the execution of the budget was close to 75%, for 2005 a request is made of the
lasting 25%.
Activity 3.1 was over budget in approximately 15%, this was mainly due to consultant fees. The
additional 25% for Component 3 is requested from this activity, mainly for document's
translations, editing and printing.
Activity 3.2 executed 53% of the budget; economies were made for the design of web site for
IWRN.
Activity 3.3 executed 87% and activity 3.4, 62% of their budget. For the last case a consultant
was not required leading it to a large saving in the budget.
Activity 3.5 only executed 55% of their budget.
Component 4 on monitoring and evaluation of the project would use only 55% of the budget.
Other categories like software and equipment would be totally executed by the end of 2004.
Based on some of the interviews, it is clear that many of the saving of the project come from
work done through in kind contributions from OAS, Government of Brazil, UNEP and even from
other partners and organizations interacting with DELTAmerica. It is difficult to precise these
contributions at this stage, however it would be important that these organizations present a
statement in this regard to GEF and the Steering Committee.
Something that would probably need some clarification is the fact that some of the savings were
made on electronic editing and in consultants work. If one of the strengths for the future of
IWRN will rest on their virtual foro and sub regional nodes, it would be logical that all resources
dedicated for having available e-documents would be very important.
According with the Technical Coordinator sometimes the decision making process is not very
fluid. Consultations for budget execution and hiring of consultants may take some extra time.
One reason is that some processes, particularly accounting, depend on activities that take place at
the Executing Agency's headquarters in Washington D.C. Consulted on that, the authorities for
OAS explained that the workplan is adjusted to the procedures for management and that in the
case of the accounting there is a monthly reporting procedure for all OAS projects. These
difficulties, even though not determinant for DELTAmerica, have been solved due to the good
communication and flexibility between Technical Coordinator and Executing Agency personnel.
Charges for specific outputs were within a positive financial range; this is evident from some of
the savings derived from contracts and services. The experience and networking from the
Executing Agency contribute for this matter.
Overhead and administrative charges were within a mid and low range, the in kind contributions
and governments commitments benefit this.
31
Consultant and services providers consider that the mechanisms for disbursements were very
effective, within a reasonably period of time and under very fare bases. In some cases regional
focal points facilitate advance financial resources to contribute with the project rapid execution of
activities; this is based on good networking and partnerships built by OAS with these regional
organizations.
Regarding co financing, in cash contributions from Brazil were provided for activities that took
place during the IV Inter American Dialogue (Foz de Iguazu) where some of their results are
being used as the input for discussion of Virtual Foro in order to stimulate discussions for the V
Dialogue and other international relevant meetings. On this matter, some discussion are been
taking place between UNEP, OAS and the Government of Brazil in order to clear this matter.
In kind contributions from OAS, UNEP and the Government of Brazil, have been an important
factor for project activities. The Executing and implementing agencies have provided all their
facilities, contacts and networking as well as personnel for the project. At the same time the
contributions from the experiences from projects like San Francisco, San Juan, and others has are
fundamental for many of the activities to take place. Experiences from these projects are not only
on the technical matter but administrative too.
The Government of Brazil is providing a many resources trough the Secretariat for Water
Resources. Besides the space that this organization provides for the project, there are personnel
for its operation too. One of the reasons for the great advance on the Brazilian subregional node
is due to the technical personnel and support provided by the Secretariat.
Considering only GEF financial support, by the end of 2004 the budget is expected to be
executed in approximately 72%, US$ 698.000. Requests for 2005 are mainly for a workshop, for
documentation, management and technical assistance. Based on the expenditures and projections
for 2005 it looks that there were no a clear need for additional finances for the original activities
submitted under the Pro Doc.
6.
SUMMARY OF ACHIVEMENTS AND PROGRESS TOWARDS OVERALL
PROJECT OBJECTIVES.
The main achievements until the present evaluation for DELTAmerica can be summarized as:
1. To maintain an active participation of the countries through their National Focal Points to
IWRN and OAS.
2. To develop effective three Sub Regional Dialogues, one in Brasilia, another in Montevideo and
a third in Saint Lucia. All three SRD were representative of their sub regions. Participation on all
was very large and focused on Project objectives with sub regional views.
3. Virtual Fora are being implemented, even though they are still in its initial face, the basic
structure is solid enough to future activities.
4. The exchange of personnel between IW GEF projects (twining) was very useful, however
some more resources could have been assigned to this activity due to their positive results.
32
5. Advances in definitions of best practices and mechanisms for their identification were
produced. More progress could have been achieved if contacts with IW-LEARN project
authorities were successful.
6. Large advances were made on mechanisms to transfer best practices; the regional dialogues
prove to be a good mechanism to exchange and transfer experiences. Twining and the
participation of Technical coordinator in national and regional water management activities
contribute also with the accomplishment of the project's objective.
7. Some achievements intended to IWRN strengthening can be identified. The strategic planning
activity, even though it has not been finished in a very successful way, the initiative is crucial for
the future of the IWRN. Very successful have been the upgrading of the IWRN web site and the
establishments of the nodes.
8. Discussions to internalize the results of DELTAmerica into national activities related to water
management.
9. Promotion of a Common Strategy for Water Management between Latin America and the
Caribbean Countries.
10. Linkages of IWRN & other networks through different efforts carried out by Technical
Coordinator and Executing Agency.
7. SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainability for DELTAmerica is a function of the outputs, in other words, it is necessary to
identify what elements of the project need to be sustainable. There are also other elements that
are only contributions to a wider effort to find solutions of the problems associated to water and
in which many organizations need to participate.
In component 1, the main objective is to establish a dialogue among GEF-IW project with other
related resources management projects in LAC. DELTAmerica contribute with this objective
supporting meetings with IWRN national focal points, through Sub Regional Dialogues, and
promoting Virtual Fora and twining.
IWRN National Focal Points are government representatives; they are an important part of this
institution´ structure and will have to organize periodic strategic meetings.
Sub Regional Dialogues initiate the process of discussing best practices, concepts and
systematization. They also identify priority discussing issues for Virtual Fora, which would be
developed through the activity of the nodes.
Regarding twining, this is an activity that requires funding, one alternative would be that the
interested projects include in their budgets some resources for this activity. In this regard it is also
important that sponsor organizations recommend this practice to their projects. An alternative to
reduce costs for twining would be the use of video conferences. There are a large amount of
equipments available in LAC and in many cases they can be used with no financial costs; many
of these equipments are located in banks and international organizations that are strategic partners
for future project activities.
Sustainability for this objective is possible because there will always be a need for projects to
communicate and interact between each other.
33
Component 2, contribute to define best practices and their systematization. Sustainability of the
process could be determined on how IWRN and their partners use this result which must be used
as guidance for IWRN future projects and activities. In order to promote this, is necessary to have
a wide dissemination of the documents related to Best Practices (doc 5a and 7a, Steering
Committee, Lima, Peru, May 2005).
Component 3 is related to the strengthening of IWRN where 3 main activities were developed,
the upgrade of IWRN WEB site, the creation of the Sub Regional Nodes and the strategic
planning for IWRN.
DELTAmerica is a project whose outputs not only contribute with the advance and knowledge of
water management but also provide energy for the sustainability of IWRN.
In this respect, for the IWRN WEB site arrangements have been made between OAS, as
Executive Secretary for IWRN, and CES (creators of the new WEB site) to continue with this
operation.
Regarding the Sub Regional Nodes they are operating very efficiently (Table 1) and with a good
dynamic, stimulating discussions and follow up through Virtual Fora. The node for Central
America is being installed and their operation is expected to be initiated soon.
As mentioned before (on sub regional nodes) there is a commitment from the host countries to
the nodes, Brazil, Argentina, Costa Rica and Peru, to contribute operating the nodes after
DELTAmerica has ended. It is important to mention that the contribution of the project has been
basically for hardware and software and design, the operation costs is being assumed by the
countries and regions.
Strategic planning (doc 6, Steering Committee Lima, Peru, May 2005) draft document was
presented to the Steering Committee meeting in Lima, Peru, and it was open to comments for a
period of 40 days for DELTAmerica SC members. A new meeting for IWRN Strategic Planning
Group is scheduled to attend comments on the draft; at this point it is difficult to have a final
opinion other than to stress the importance of this document for the future of IWRN.
A positive factor is that DELTAmerica project has provided to IWRN and good environment for
reviewing their role and their relevance as an actor in water resources, not only in LAC but in the
world. The new commitments from national and regional organizations for nodes sustainability
and the positive discussions leading to new strategic plan for IWRN are good symptoms that this
network can take their protagonist role.
Financial sustainability of IWRN needs to be redefined at the strategic plan; this network should
be a place for convergence of experiences where their members (other networks for example)
develop all kind of interactions identifying the major findings, gaps, knowledge and experiences
leading toward a continental dialogue to promote new thinking in water management. Because
the interest of their member is such, IWRN financial sustainability should be focus in
maintaining the nodes and a dynamic virtual Fora, and their administrative structure should be a
contribution of their members. Operation of IWRN in this way will create ownership from their
stakeholders, which are representatives of private and academic sector, governments, NGOs and
individuals experts in water management.
34
It is important to mention that GEF funds through DELTAmerica were a very important input
that is contributing for the above mention elements, however, IWRN has a singular value that
make it attractive for financing, this is: the convergence of many water managers representing all
sectors of society in the whole continent.
8.
REPLICABILITY
All the project outputs are not yet completed and there still remain some activities that are being
executed. From what has been accomplished to date, it appears that DELTAmerica project could
have benefited from being a longer-term project. The range of activities taking place under GEF
IW projects and non-GEF projects is very large and diverse; therefore, it is not appropriate to
expect an 18 month project to identify, systematize and develop mechanisms, and transfer and
share lessons, practices and experience in an entirely efficient manner. The creation of a new, but
similar, project to DELTAmerica might give the impression of starting the process again.
Nevertheless, continuation of the activities commenced by the DELTAmerica project over an
extended period with additional resources would considerably improve the chances of having an
efficient network (IWRN) up and running that can easily be adopted and sustained by the LAC
countries into the future.
9.
SCOPE, QUALITY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF PROJECT OUTPUTS TO DATE
The Millennium Goals, the Johannesburg Sustainable Development agreements and some other
international relevant agreements among the countries in the LAC region provide an important
context for assessing the outputs and products of the DELTAmerica project. Accordingly, the
nature of the subordinate responsibilities of governments in the LAC region is a useful measure
of the relative success and significance of the DELTAmerica project.
The quality of the products of the project is tested starting with the Project Steering Committee
and the subsequent IWRN meetings, (Peru, May 2005, Jamaica, October 2005). Obviously, the
outcomes of these meetings will provide a valuable perspective on the products and success of
the DELTAmerica project but these cannot be completely foreseen at the present.
Based on the information available for the evaluation it is also possible to estimate, scope, quality
and significance of the outputs by components and also the projected impacts after the project
finalization
Component 1, (strategic meetings with focal points, subregional dialogues, Virtual Fora and
twining).
Regarding strategic meetings with national and regional focal points, DELTAmerica financial
support contribute for this wide participation making it very adequate. Besides, there was the
possibility for IWRN focal point to participate in other thematic events aggregating value to the
exchange of experiences activity and quality of the event which was not only a strategic policy
related discussion but technical too, this increased also their significance (Table 1).
35
The sub regional dialogues were excellent activities in all aspect, there was a wide participation,
good content and organization, and the dynamic involvement of people in the activity provides a
clear sense of interest.
Virtual Fora is an activity that is being implemented, but based on the actual setting of sub
regional nodes and their regional/national commitments, what has been done so far indicates that
this is going to be one of the more significant outputs from DELTAmerica. Even though their
scope and quality would need to be valued latter in time, based on recent communications with
node coordinators, the amount of VF in process and the kind of issues under discussion, indicates
very value results from this promising mechanism (Table 1). The professional profile and
expertise of the coordinators is a strong point on favor of an excellent work demonstrated in their
performance.
Twining could have included more activities; however it is recognized that the budget allocated
is very limited. Outputs from the activity were significant because they provided, the opportunity
to create synergies between projects and to exchange views on methods and practices. Twining in
the project has been concentrated in exchanging personnel and field experiences, however,
twining needs to become a practice within IW projects, in particular for exchanging experiences
and to see in the field practical applications. DELTAmerica outputs and systematization on best
practices must be the references that lead future twining.
Component 2 includes the definition of best practices and their systematization. Besides the
situation with IW LEARN, at the time of this evaluation the project execution and management
were taking positive steps, and from the preliminary results from both consultants that work in
this area an excellent final product is expected. The significance of this output will depend on the
follow up and that IWRN gives to it through the Virtual Fora and trough the promotion of their
use in other IW projects. Because definitions of best practices are not circumscribed to water
issues, a whole list of other application can be given to this project result, therefore all
management included in DELTAmerica should promote their use.
Component 3, regarding the strengthening of IWRN, contemplates two activities: upgrade of
IWRN web site and the creation of the subregional nodes. In both cases the outputs were
excellent. The creation of the subregional nodes might contribute with the future administration
and operation of IWRN, their web site is the contact point with other organizations and regions of
the world.
Although the DELTAmerica project has now been extended to run through 2005, it can
reasonably be anticipated that those components whose outputs are being finished, will not have
any problem to be completed in a very positive manner.
Even though the future of many DELTAmerica products will depend on IWRN empowerment
and strategic use of them, there are activities like twining, the SR nodes and the Virtual Fora that
have their own energy to continue in time with or without DELTAmerica.
36
10. CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS9.
It can be concluded that, at the time of this mid-term evaluation, the DELTAmerica project has
achieved a commendable level of accomplishment, particularly during the year 2004 and has
been progressively added during this evaluation in 2005. These accomplishments include the
completion of the sub-regional workshops, the implementation of the nodes and the upgrading of
the IWRN website. In contrast, it is unfortunate that the DELTAmerica project's interaction with
IW-Learn was not more productive. However, this experience constitutes one of the lessons
learned in the sense that there are always limits to the success that can be achieved in establishing
contacts and cooperation with other organizations having differing objectives.
The management and financial administration of the DELTAmerica project has been competent.
There are no reasons to believe, subject to the completion of appropriate project coordination
arrangements approved by the Project Steering Committee, that the planned activities cannot be
completed successfully within the revised project life extending to December 2005.
The countries of the Americas are now confronted by a new process for negotiating actions on
water and development within the United Nations framework. The results of the DELTAmerica
project will be important in this context because they hold the promise of providing the tools that
facilitate the negotiations and the subsequent implementation of the results. There is a real
opportunity for GEF, UNEP, OAS and IWRN to provide the greatest leadership in supporting the
countries' needs for efficient negotiation and the achievement of associated goals.
Currently, there are significant international developments in relation to Free Trade Agreements
and a variety of other political and social initiatives in the LAC region. All of these have
implications in relation to natural resources management, including water resources management,
in the countries of the region. Several of the activities within the DELTAmerica project, such as
the creation of nodes, the Virtual Fora and the strengthening of the role and influence of the
IWRN, can make a substantial contribution to these subordinate discussions and the associated
mechanisms for resource management.
CONCLUSIONS:
a. It is necessary to keep track of in-kind contributions. There have been additional co-
financing contributions from IWRN and national and regional partners that might not
have been accounted for.
b. There is a need for the outputs from the DELTAmerica project to be widely disseminated.
These products could be the basis for a new generation of activities and a primary
mechanism for the coordination of water management policies and actions among the
countries of Latin America. Virtual mechanisms and tools developed buy DELTAmerica
must be empowered by IWRN and "their network members" in order to promote widely
best practices in water management and experiences from policies built upon these
systematizations. GEF-IW future projects should incorporate within their methodological
requirements the experiences obtained from DELTAmerica, this would created a
homogeneous platform for discussion and a better potential for the solution of water
9 Structure of this section is based on comments provided by UNEP.
37
related problems. It is also important for GEF and members from IWRN to promote the
use of the results to other relevant sectors like, climate change, desertification,
biodiversity, etc. For this specific, it would be very positive if GEF could invest some
resources for sharing these outcomes with other programs and to promote a feedback
discussion.
c. The IWRN and the countries responsible for the nodes need to be more active in devising
and disseminating to the rest of the water management community in the region a
coordination and communication mechanism that promotes effective discussion and
improves the exchange of experience and best practice.
LESSONS LEARNED:
d. It would have been preferable for the project coordination unit to be co-located with the
office of the executing agency for the project. The existing arrangement in which the
project coordinator is located in Brasilia but the OAS office responsible for project
execution is located in Buenos Aires is far from ideal. This conclusion is drawn less from
the perspective of financial administration of the project but more from the perspective of
facilitating day-to-day contacts and discussions between the responsible executing agency
office and the technical coordinator. It is recommended that for future projects of this
kind, the project coordination unit be co-located with the executing agency office directly
responsible for the project.10
e. The DELTAmerica ProDoc did not contain an adequate level of detail regarding the
administrative arrangements, specifically the division of responsibilities and permitted
delegations of authority that would have simplified the coordination of project activities
and reduced opportunities for confusion between the executing agency office and the
technical coordinator. It is recommended that in future similar projects, especially those in
which the project coordination unit is not co-located with the executing agency office
directly responsible for project execution, such arrangements be fully documented in an
memorandum of agreement annexed to the ProDoc prior to project execution.
f. A major impediment to the organization of critical project activities has been the frequent
need to reschedule activities at relatively short notice. This causes difficulties because
National Focal Points and other important actors are invariably busy people and need
advance notice to enable their participation to be included in their schedules. It is
recommended that project coordinators undertake sufficiently advanced planning of
activities and, once plans have been made and agreed to; adhere to the schedule, only
making further revisions under exceptional circumstances.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
g. The DELTAmerica project was intended to be executed in a period of 18 months. This is
a relatively short period of project execution in the context of the anticipated objectives
and outcomes specified in the ProDoc. A longer period of implementation would have
increased the probability of achieving all the anticipated project outputs and outcomes. As
10 This aspect has been already considered and the coordination for project and OAS execution is in Brazil.
38
a means of partly compensating for the difficulties associated with the limited period of
project implementation, it is recommended that UNEP consider applying to the GEF for a
small supplementary GEF grant to ensure that all the project outputs are professionally
completed and that appropriate follow-up measures are adopted.
h. The meetings of the Project Steering Committee were well attended and adequately dealt
with all items addressed to it in a timely and professional manner. However, some
members of the Steering Committee were clearly less well informed about their roles and
responsibilities in relation to project oversight. Furthermore, there were deficiencies in the
communication and decision-making procedures for dealing with matters during inter
session periods. While the new IWRN capacity for Virtual Fora, established under the
DELTAmerica project, should improve matters in this respect in the future, these
deficiencies lead to two generic recommendations. First, it is recommended that
comprehensive briefing material be prepared and distributed at the commencement of the
project for members of project steering committee to ensure that each member
understands his/her role and responsibilities. Second, it is recommended that this briefing
material include specifications of the procedures for consultation and decision-making
during inter session periods. Both these recommendations have been followed in some
other GEF IW projects to considerable advantage in the smooth execution of the projects
concerned.
i. OAS, in its role as the Executive Secretariat of IWRN, should continue the preparation of
arrangements and the construction of mechanisms, through the media of memoranda of
understanding (MoUs), for the implementation of the IWRN network. This should include
the completion of an agenda for the sustained maintenance and enhancement of the
regional nodes, promotion of the access to, and use of, the nodal facilities for both sub-
regional and regional applications and widening of the distribution of nodes in the entire
LAC region. It should be recognized that the crucial final step in the DELTAmerica
project is the incorporation of the products of the project into the development and
implementation of policies and integrated management of water resources. It is
recommended that the OAS, as the IWRN Secretariat, ensure the completion of the IWRN
strategic planning process.
j. The IWRN needs to maintain surveillance and evaluation of major new initiatives in the
Americas, such as new Free Trade and other agreements that would benefit from the
strengthened IWRN network and its tools and promoting their use.
k. Implicitly, the products of the project encompass the concepts of lessons learned and best
practice gleaned from the sub-regional workshops rather than from the IW:Learn
database. The DELTAmerica project has succeeded in devising criteria for defining best
practice and developing procedures for identifying best practice as it relates to integrated
water resources management, despite the unsuccessful efforts of the project coordinator to
develop an intimate level of collaboration with IW:Learn. Accordingly, it is
recommended that IWRN subsequently undertake the incorporation of the lessons learned
and best practice identified in the DELTAmerica project into the wider regional arena of
39
integrated water resources policy and management in the region. Besides this is still
necessary to make an additional effort to work together with IW-Learn and with other
organizations as expressed in conclusion b.
l. The Virtual Forum concept should be presented at the GEF-IW conference in 2005 and,
more importantly, tested as a tool for the organization of Dialogue V in Jamaica.
11. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.
This evaluation has been possible thanks to the support and technical cooperation made by the
Implementing Agency (UNEP) and their staff in Nairobi.
Cooperation from the Executing Agency, OAS, has been determinant in order to have all the
documentations and access to the members of their staff and those of IWRN members. It is also
important to mention the role that personnel of projects like San Francisco, Bermejo, San Juan,
Guarani, etc, have played in this evaluation, as providers of views and as indirect evaluators of
what an operative system for exchanging experiences and best practices could be.
Special recognition to the Government of Brazil, in particular his Secretariat of Water Resources
for providing to the evaluation team access to their highest authorities, this is a clear indication of
the strong commitment that the country has for DELTAmerica.
A recognition to the OAS personnel involved in DELTAmerica and with IWRN for their
comments and contributions for having access to all information needed and requested.
Thanks to the Technical Coordinator for DELTAmerica for his continue support to this
evaluation.
A special recognition needs to be made for those who dedicated time to DELTAmerica mid term
evaluation in particular those who participate in the interviews.
Thanks to Mike Bewers (Team Leader) and Pat Bewers, as well as UNEP staff for their valuable
comments and important discussion hours during the process of this evaluation.
12. LIST OF ANNEXES.
ANNEX I .........................Project Document
ANNEX II. ......................Terms of Reference for mid term evaluation
ANNEX III.......................Conceptual mapping of the process of evaluation
ANNEX V........................Quarterly Reports from Projects´ Technical Coordinator
40
ANNEX VI ....................... Financial Reports for Steering Committee
ANNEX VII ..................... List of interviews
ANNEX VIII .................... Documents on Inter America Water Resources Network.
13. RATING OF PROJECT SUCCESS.
For the rating of the project success it was used the method suggested in the terms of reference
adding comments and observations on the scores
Aspects evaluated
Rate
Observations
Timeliness: how the project met the
2
Because of the fact that the project had to be extended
schedule and implementation
according with what established in first Project document.
timetable cited in the project
document and later revisions thereof.
Achievement of results/objectives
1
The project during the 2004 period achieved most of its
(the extent to which the project's
objectives and created a platform for a very important agenda
environmental and development
for IWRN full of opportunities. In favour of this was the
objectives were achieved)
extension of the project to December 2005 where most of
products became a tangible reference.
Attainment of outputs
1
Excellent outputs and relevant to new worldwide initiatives and
activities in water resources.
Completion of activities
2
All activities were completed even some past the initial
intended time.
Project executed within budget
1
The project was well within budget for the initial period
established in the project document.
Impact created by the project
2
The project have created an important impact in those
communities that were close to their activities execution,
however a more important impact will be created once their
products be widely distributed and used. The recent initiatives
regarding common strategies on water management for LAC
promoted by Brazil using DELTAmerica products, and the
following discussions on this matter at the highest political level
is a clear manifestation of the impacts that the project is
producing in the region.
Other important manifestations can be inferred from table 1.
Sustainability
2
Sustainability of the project will depend on how IWRN could
include, motivate and lead its members toward the new
opportunities on water resources management.
This sustainability also depend on the possibility to promote
this results in the methodological requirements for project
financing. This latest observation could also be applied to areas
different from water resources.
Stakeholder participation and Public
2
There was a very important participation of stakeholders, in
Involvement
particular during the Sub Regional Dialogues, however many
resources and efforts were dedicated to large countries of Latin
America. During the SC meeting in Lima there were
manifestations from representatives on the need that
DELTAmerica could be extended to more countries.
41
Monitoring & Evaluation
2
Evaluation for the project could have been made before, this
could have contribute to receive positive feedback .
Monitoring is very adequate by implementing and executing
agency, from financing to technical matters.
Because most of the products from DELTAmerica were not
available yet during this mid term evaluation, many of the items
to be evaluated needed to be on drafts, therefore it is important
for the next evaluation to verify the projected estimations from
the mid term.
System applied:
1=Excellent
(90% - 100% achievement)
2=Very
Good
(75%-89%)
3=Good
(60%-74%)
4=Satisfactory
(50%-59%)
5=Unsatisfactory
(49% and below)
Based on the above considerations the final qualification given to the project in this mid tem
evaluation is very good (2). It is important to take into account that extension of the project and
other special arrangements made were done during the process of this evaluation, therefore they
were not considered as negative alterations from the original project agreement.
42