UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
Terminal Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1030-03-06
(4728) Managing Hydrogeological Risk in the Iullemeden
Aquifer System (IAS)
Glen Hearns
Evaluation and Oversight Unit
January 2009

Acronyms
ABN
Niger Basin Authority
AGRHYMET Centre Regional de Formation et d'Application en Agrométéorologie et
Hydrologie Opérationnelle
CIDA
Canadian International Development Agency
ECOWAS
Economic Community of West African States
ESA
European Space Agency
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organisation (United Nations)
ETH
Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology)
GIRE
Integrated Water Resources Management
IAS
Iullemeden Aquifer System
IAEA
International Atomic Energy Agency
IGRAC
International Groundwater Resource Assessment Centre
IRD
Institut de Recherche pour le Dévelopment (French)
ISARM
International Shared Aquifer Resources Management programme
Min
Ministry of
NGO
Non Governmental Organisation
OSS
Sahara and Sahel Observatory
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
UNEP
United Nations Environmental Programme
UNESCO
United Nations Scientific and Cultural Organisation
iii

Terminal Evaluation of the UNEP GEF project
"Managing Hydrogeological Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer System"
1.
Executive Summary
The countries of Mali, Niger and Nigeria undertook a project to jointly identify and manage
the risks associated with sustainable water use of the Iullemeden Aquifer System (IAS). The
project was executed by the Observatoire du Sahara et du Sahel (Sahara and Sahel
Observatory - OSS) based in Tunisia. The OSS brought with it a high level of expertise in
transboundary aquifer mapping and modelling, having been the executing agency for the
North West Sahara Aquifer System project.1
The principle focus of the project was the establishment of technical capacity within the
region to undertake a cooperative framework to jointly identify, reduce and mitigate
transboundary risks to the IAS occurring from land use changes and climate change.
The immediate project objectives were to:
1. Establish joint mechanisms and capacity to identify risk and uncertainty issues in the IAS
related to:
a. land use change in recharge areas and humid zones,
b. climate change with reduced net precipitation, and
c. inappropriate development, extraction and surface based water pollution and
salinization.
2. Establish mechanisms to formulate policies for management of identified risk and
uncertainty issues, and
3. Establish a legal and institutional IAS cooperative framework
The project consisted of 5 major components:
Identification of transboundary risk,
Policy and institutional mechanisms for reducing transboundary risk (developing a
management framework),
Awareness participation and communication,
Project monitoring and evaluation, and dissemination of data, and
Project coordination and management
The total project budget was US$ 1,738,200 with US$ 958,000 funded by the GEF Trust Fund
and co-funding of US$ 780,000. The project secured an additional 150,151 from CIDA for
project management, and US$ 169,500 from stakeholder Governments in the form of in-kind
contributions for field studies and data gathering.
Key Project Findings2
1 Protection of the North West Sahara Aquifer System (NWSAS) and related humid zones and ecosystems,
GEF/2010-03-06.
2 (OSS (2007a). Analyse Diagnostique Transfronalière du Sistème Aquifère d'Iullemeden. l'Observatoire du
Sahara et du Sahal, Tunis, March, 2007)
Page 1 of 114

The main transboundary risks are the decrease in water resources, due to increasing
withdrawls; degradation of water quality, due to contamination; and impacts of
climate change;
Estimated extraction of the aquifer system exceeds estimated recharge to the system
by about 25%;
There is complex and dynamic interaction between the surface waters (River Niger)
and the aquifer systems, each supplying the other at various points; and
Deterioration of water quality due to pollution and natural fluorides in some locales.
There is consensus for the need to develop more cohesion between the countries to avoid
future problems associated with groundwater use through the establishment of a consultation
and management mechanism.
Evaluation
This evaluation is based on project-related documentation produced between January 2004
and October 2008; 29 stakeholder visits and interviews in Mali, Niger and Nigeria, as well as
the OSS offices in November 2008; and finally interviews with international experts and
program officers.
Main Conclusions
Promoting Cooperation
The project was very effective in initiating cooperation between the technical echelons of the
countries over shared groundwater resources. It was clear from interviews that there is a
strong cadre of hydrological professionals who are dedicated to advancing the sustainable use
of the groundwater resources of the region. This is an extremely important step forward in a
region which has traditionally focused on surface water cooperation, through organizations
such as the Niger Basin Authority (ABN), but where the vast majority of the water use is
derived from groundwater sources.3
Advancing scientific approaches:
Cooperation has predominantly focused on information and data exchange to build a greater
understanding of the principal risks and issues affecting groundwater use, through the
development of a TDA;4 knowledge of the aquifer system through the creation of a common
database of bore hole information;5 and the creation of a numerical model for the principle
aquifers.6 The project proponents, OSS in particular, appear to have ensured a relatively high
degree of scientific rigour in developing the tools; including the use of digitized topographic
maps to calculate piezometric levels; satellite imagery and remote sensing to help determine
land-use patterns;7 extensive recovery of existing information by national teams to provide
over 17000 water points;8 isotope studies for measuring recharge rates;9 amongst others.
3 Ibid..
4 Ibid.
5 OSS (2007b). A Common Database of the Iullemeden Aquifer System (Bases de Données Commun du Sistème
Aquifère de l'Iullumeden). Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, December, 2007.
6 OSS (2007c). Hydrogeological Model of the Iullemeden Aquifer System. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis,
December, 2007.
7 This was conducted as part of the ESA-TIGER initiative, where ESA (through GAF) supplied remote imagery
which subsequently land verified.
8 Note that only approximately 8% of them are of much use for hydrological modelling. But others can become
useful with the addition of simple data such as coordinates. Ould Baba Sy, M. (2008) Hydrogeologist and
Page 2 of 114

There is consensus among the stakeholders that the development of the database and model
have been excellent focal points for catalyzing cooperation, building trust and promoting
common goals of sustainable use (See section 4.1). Indeed this is acknowledged at the
Ministerial levels.10 However, due to differences in national data collection, there continue to
be marked gaps in information. Nigeria, for instance, while accounting for the bulk of water
extraction has only 300 data points (some 2%) in the common database.11 Consequently, it is
also acknowledged that to become a real driver to direct policy change and action, the model
will need refinement and updating to ensure its reliability.12
Examples include the potentially large uncertainty regarding the extrapolation methods used
to assess extraction rates from the different countries and the use of adjacent bore hole data,
which can be tens of kilometres away, to check for quality in piezometric levels,
transmissivity and other parameters. These are the most appropriate methods at this stage and
scope of the model. However, in certain areas of concern greater accuracy and reliability will
likely be needed to develop policy.
Increase the capacity of the participating countries
The project was designed and implemented to enhance regional capacity for dealing with
transboundary risks associated with the IAS. At the technical level training was given in
database development, harmonisation and modelling aspects. Within the appropriate line
ministries, each country has the hard-ware, soft-ware and human capacity to run the models.13
The promotion of the project has developed and stimulated increased awareness and activities
surrounding groundwater at the national level as well as the international level. In Mali, for
instance, this project has directly spawned the development of courses in groundwater
modelling at the university level to enhance the national capacity in the future.14 Moreover, it
is anticipated that tools developed under the project will be applied to some local issues in the
near future. At the regional level, the ABN is developing a new flow model for surface water
and are interested to integrate groundwater modelling information to better understand
integrated water management in the region.15
modeller, IAS Project, OSS. Personal communication 10-12 November. It should also be noted, that the vast
majority of these points, some 94%, are in Niger. OSS (2007b). A Common Database of the Iullemeden Aquifer
System (Bases de Données Commun du Sistème Aquifère de l'Iullumeden). Sahara and Sahel Observatory,
Tunis, December, 2007.
9 This was a parallel project headed by IAEA in several pilot sites in Nigeria and Niger.
10 Guero, A. (2008) Directeur de Ressources en Eau, Ministere de l'Hydrologique, Niger. Personal
communication 13 November, 2008
11 See page 9 OSS (2008o). Scientific Report: Management of the Hydrological Risks of the IAS. Sahara and
Sahel Observatory, Tunis, March, 2008; also see page 20 OSS (2007b). A Common Database of the Iullemeden
Aquifer System (Bases de Données Commun du Sistème Aquifère de l'Iullumeden). Sahara and Sahel
Observatory, Tunis, December, 2007, Ould Baba Sy, M. (2008) Hydrogeologist and modeller, IAS Project, OSS.
Personal communication 10-12 November.
12 Chabo, J. (2008) Director of Nigeria Hydrological Service Agency, Ministry of Agriculture and Water.
Personal communication 18 November, 2008, Guero, A. (2008) Directeur de Ressources en Eau, Ministere de
l'Hydrologique, Niger. Personal communication 13 November, 2008.
13 Bouare, D. (2008) Data base and modelling Expert for IAS Administrateur base SIGMA Centre de
Documentation et d'informatique de la DNH, Mali. Personal communication 21 November, 2008, Mukaile, B.
(2008) GIS and Modelling Expert for IAS, Hydrological Services Agency, Ministry of Agriculture and Water
Resources, Nigeria. Personal communication 19 November, 2008.
14 Traore, A. Z. (2008) Director of UFAE, Professor at Ecole National des Ingénieurs, Mali. Personal
communication 21 November, 2008.
15 Enoumba, H. C. (2008) Chef Division Etude de Planification, Autorité du Bassin du Niger. Personal
communication 14 November, 2008.
Page 3 of 114

Legal and institutional cooperation framework
Based on the understanding developed through the TDA and model, the project has advanced
the creation of an SAP through the development of high-level policy direction for the joint
management of the aquifer system;16 and an overview strategy for building public
awareness.17 As there is no appropriate existing institutional arrangement able to address the
IAS, the countries agreed that it is important to develop a functional legal mechanism to
address management issues of transboundary risks. To that end the countries agreed to create
a tripartite steering committee supported by a technical and scientific committee. It remains to
be decided if this structure would reside in an existing institution such as ABN or ECOWAS,
or whether a new institution should be created.18 Nevertheless, the project was able to develop
a draft protocol for a consultation and coordinated management mechanism for the IAS,
which has been supported at the Ministerial level in all countries. The relevant Ministers have
drafted letters the FAO, Development Law Services, requesting additional assistance to
complete a formalised mechanism,19 and Mali is advancing the process by mobilising its own
resources to host a meeting of Ministers in 2009.20
Moreover, it should be noted the countries have been able to engage in consultation and
information exchange without a formalised legal framework. The current temporary
consultation mechanism, where OSS receives updates from the different countries and sends
out a revised database to all countries, will likely function for the next two to three years at
least, providing modest support can be found for its operation, while the countries develop a
formalised mechanism.
16 OSS (2008g). Policy elements for transboundary risks reduction of the Iullemeden Aquifer System (IAS).
Managing Hydrological Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer System, Sahara and Sahel Observatory, March, 2008.
17 OSS (2008e). Participatory Management of Transboundary Risks. Managing Hydrological Risk in the
Iullemeden Aquifer System, Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, April, 2008.
18 OSS (2008i). Regional Workshop Report - Atelier régional sur le Mécanisme de concertation du Système
Aquifère d'Iullemeden (SAI), (Workshop on a Regional Consultation Mechanisim for IAS), Tunis, 23-26 June,
2008. Sahara and Sahel Obervatory, 26 June, 2008
19 See Annex D "Letters requesting support for FAO assistance"; also Burchi, S. (2008) Senior Legal Officer,
Development Law Service, FAO. Personal communication 5 November, 2008
20 Keïta, M. (2008) Senior Technical Council to the Minister, Ministère des Mines, de l'Energie et de l'Eau.
Personal communication 21 November, 2008
Page 4 of 114

2.
Introduction and background
2.1 Context
The Iullemeden Aquifer System (IAS) is situated in the arid and semi arid zone of West
Africa. It expands between the latitudes 10°30 and 22° N and the longitudes 0°50 and 9°20 E.
It covers 500.000 km2 and is principally shared among Mali, Niger and Nigeria, in the
approximate percentages of 6%, 82% and 12%, respectively. The IAS, as a whole, however,
also includes Algeria and Benin.21 Figure 1 shows that the system is characterized by two
major aquifers: the Continental Intercalaire (CI in green) and the shallower and smaller
Continental Terminal (CT - red). The
Fig 1 Iullemeden Aquifer System
aquifer system receives approximately 150
million m3/year modern recharge along its
basement fringes in the river valleys with
runoff from the bordering highlands in
Mali, Niger and Nigeria. However,
estimates of water use currently exceed 200
million m3/year, and aquifer levels have
dropped substantially in some areas over
the past decades.22
The basin is home to some 15 million, with
65 per cent in Niger, 34 per cent in Nigeria
and 2 per cent in Mali. This is projected to
grow to 28 million by 2025.23 Over the last
50 years, the land use in the recharge areas
has changed and affected the recharge to
the upper aquifer. With agriculture
expanding into marginal low-rainfall areas
and resulting land use change in recharge
areas and humid zones the environmental threats and transboundary risks in Iullemeden
Aquifer System (IAS) are growing. The project concluded that:
Aquifer levels have dropped markedly in some areas, particularly in the CT;
There is a complex and dynamic interaction between the surface water regime and
ground water regime, with each supplying the other at different locations and in
different seasons; and
Over exploitation is likely to exacerbate existing problems.
The adverse impacts are expected be amplified further from climate change with reduced
precipitation and increasing evaporation losses and impacts from declining water levels on the
vegetation cover in the humid zones. In addition, the risks for degradation in water quality,
with transboundary implications, from salinization, water pollution and inter-aquifer leakage
21 The TDA showed that the IAS also covers parts of Algeria, Benin, and Burkina Faso. OSS (2007a). Analyse
Diagnostique Transfronalière du Sistème Aquifère d'Iullemeden. l'Observatoire du Sahara et du Sahal, Tunis,
March, 2007, OSS (2008a). Integrated Management of the Water Resources of the Iullemeden Aquifer Systems,
the Taoudeni and River Niger: Identification Document of the Project. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis,
April, 2008.
22 OSS (2008o). Scientific Report: Management of the Hydrological Risks of the IAS. Sahara and Sahel
Observatory, Tunis, March, 2008
23 OSS (2008e). Participatory Management of Transboundary Risks. Managing Hydrological Risk in the
Iullemeden Aquifer System, Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, April, 2008
Page 5 of 114

and contaminant transport need to be identified and managed. Management of transboundary
aquifer issues are of thus paramount importance for sustainable development in the region.
2.2 Project Background
The concept of the project began with a UNESCO mission to Mali, Niger and Nigeria, in July
2001 and a subsequent project forming workshop in February 2003. With GEF endorsement,
the project began in January 2004, was given an extension of 18 months, and terminated in
June 2008.
Within the goal of sustainable environmental protection and sub-regional and national
development, the general objective of the project was to establish capacity under a sustainable
cooperative framework for joint management of risk and uncertainty, to jointly identify,
reduce and mitigate transboundary risk from changing land and water use and from climate
change in the shared Iullemeden Aquifer System.
In the Project Brief 24 the immediate objectives of the project were to:
(1) Establish joint mechanisms and capacity to identify risk and uncertainty issues in the IAS
related to:
a. land use change in recharge areas and humid zones,
b. climate change with reduced net precipitation, and
c. inappropriate development, extraction and surface based water pollution and
salinization
(2) Establish mechanisms to formulate policies for management of identified risk and
uncertainty issues, and
(3) Establish a legal and institutional IAS cooperative framework.
The Expected Project Outcomes were anticipated as:
a. Joint mechanisms for identification of transboundary risk issues in the IAS,
b. Joint mechanisms for policy formulation and implementation to address
transboundary risk issues in the IAS,
c. A joint development and conservation strategy for the IAS,
d. A joint tripartite legal and institutional cooperative framework for the IAS.
e. Joint programmes for awareness, participation and inter-government
communication
The Project Components were envisioned as follows:
Component 1: Identification of Transboundary Risk.
Component 2: Policy and Institutional Mechanisms for Reducing Transboundary Risk
Component 3. Awareness, Participation, Communication.
Component 4: Project Monitoring and Evaluation, and Dissemination of Data
Component 5: Project Coordination and Management.
2.2.1.
Technical Partners
As defined in the Project Brief, the following co-financing and technical cooperation partners
were identified:
24 GEF (2003a). Project Brief: Managing Hydrological Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer System, March 2003.
retrieved 10 November, 2008 from http://www.gefweb.org/Documents/Medium-
Sized_Project_Proposals/MSP_Proposals/Regional_-_Iullemeden_Aquifer_System.pdf
Page 6 of 114

a.
IAEA sub-project `Development of Water Resources in the Iullemeden Aquifer
System';
b.
FAO-TCP legal assistance on `Establishment of a mechanism for tri-partite
consultation in the management of the Iullemeden Aquifer System',
c.
IRD- HSM, `analysis of recharge in the IAS in Niger'.
d.
ETH, `capacity in aquifer modelling',
e.
UNECE, `monitoring of the transboundary IAS', and
f.
ESA-UNESCO Tiger, `Earth observation applications and technology at selected
sites in the IAS'.
2.2.2.
Program of activities
Initiation Period January- April 2004.
UNESCO/IHP administered the 1st Project Steering Committee, at UNESCO in Paris, on 23-
25 February 2004. Work included identification of the Project Steering Committee, National
Coordinating Committees, and Inter-Ministry Committees and the Scientific Coordinating
Committee, as well as project management structures.25
Period May 2004 December 2005.
Work included: finalisation of the UNEP-OSS agreement for project execution, and
formulation of a project management work plan based on the project brief; the OSS- Regional
Project Coordinator were established at the AGRHYMET Regional Centre in Niamey;26
regional and national meetings and workshops were held under the co-financed activities;
distant learning such as IAS digital windows with UNESCO assistance at the IW-LEARN and
IGRAC web-sites in mid 2005; the continuation of the development of National Coordinating
Committees and developing support at inter-ministerial level. Both the process to develop the
TDA and the tri-partite consultation mechanism, supported by the FAO, were initiated in
2005.
Certain technical relationships and activities were clarified after the project was initiated
which deviated from the anticipated workplan. For example the modelling training to be
conducted by ETH could not be conducted for the proposed cost.27 OSS then took on the role
of conducting capacity development and training with respect to the modelling. Another
change in activities was the fieldwork of studies for recharge proposed to be conducted by
IRD, which was altered to become an analysis of existing data.28
In light of the alterations in 2004 and the first half of 2005, a "New Orientation" for the
project was developed in June 2005, with significant changes in activities and corresponding
budget.29
In order to adequately assess and evaluate the project, it is important to note the shift in
activities and outputs that occurred. Figure 2 shows the general alteration in activities and
25 UNESCO (2008). DRAFT: Appraisal of GEF-IW MSP Managing Hydrogeological Risk in the Iullemeden
Aduifer System (IAS). UNESCO, October, 2008. Much of this section is based on this document.
26 Dr. Abdul Kader Dodo had his base in Niamey, Niger. However, he moved to Tunis to develop the OSS
project team in mid 2005.
27 ETH (2004). Letter from ETH regarding funding for modelling and capacity development. Eidgenössiche
Technische Hochschule Zürich, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Zurich, 1 January, 2004. It was
indicated that the initial $30,000 was not sufficient and that approximately $190,000 would be needed.
28 Dodo, A. K. (2005). Message regarding: Aquifer Recharge Study. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, 21, October,
2005. The original activity was for $85,000 and the reduced activity became $25,000.
29 OSS (2005d). New Orientation. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, June, 2005.
Page 7 of 114

focus between the initial project components and the `New Orientation", and their relationship
to project outputs as evaluated in this report.
The major shifts in activities were associated with an emphasis on hydrological monitoring
and information collection at the national level. It was determined that a greater understanding
of the hydrological system would assist in policy development, the creation of a consultation
mechanism, and the development of a public awareness strategy. This shift resulted in
increased support at the national level for information gathering.
These shifts in activities coincided with appropriate budget shifts which were approved of by
UNEP.30
Period January 2006 - December 2006.
February saw the second Steering Committee meeting in Abuja, as well as continued national
and regional workshops. During this period substantial advances were made to the TDA and
the FAO supported consultation mechanism as well as the development of digitized mapping
for land use, supported by ESA, and modelling tools. The FAO terminated their support with
a regional workshop in Rome, October 2006.
This period also saw another shift in management focus regarding the Common Database
upon which the modelling tool would run. Initially it was conceived that the IAEA in
coordination with AGRHYMET (in Niger) would develop the electronic database.
Correspondence from OSS to AGRHYMET in both 2005 and November 2006, requested
information regarding the development of the database.31 As the database had either not been
developed or not shared, OSS determined that it would take the lead in developing the
database and model. Email correspondence with IAEA suggested that they did not participate
closely with this project, but had a parallel project dealing with isotopes32 and communicated
directly with the countries as opposed to with OSS.
Period January 2007-June 2008 (project extension 18 months).
The project activities were extended to June 2008 under the approval of UNEP.33 The bulk of
the workshops, training and output development took place during this period and the
extension allowed for the successful completion of the activities (see section 4.3).
2.3 Evaluation Background
The UNEP contracted Mr. Glen Hearns to carry out the Terminal Evaluation of the Managing
Hydrological Risks in the IAS. The TE was conducted between October and December of
2008; and included site visits to Tunis, Mali, Niger and Nigeria as well as interviews through
telecommunications and a review of relevant project documents (Section 3).
30 Ben Saoud, M. N. (2008) Internal Auditor, OSS. Personal communication 10-11November, 2008, Dodo, A. K.
(2008) Regional Coordinator, IAS Project, OSS. Personal communication 10-12 November, 2008. Nakamura, T.
(2008) UNEP/GEF International Waters SPO. Personal communication 27 November, 2008.
31 OSS (2005). Letter to AGRHYMET requesting information for a common database. Sahara and Sahel
Observatory, Tunis, 25 July, 2005; and OSS (2006). 2nd Letter to AGRHYMET requesting information for a
common database. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 8 November, 2006.
32 Aggarwal, P. (2008) Programme manager, Water Resources, Division of Isotope Hyrology Section, IAEA.
Personal communication Email correspondence, 18 November, 2008
33 Nakamura, T. (2008) UNEP/GEF International Waters SPO. Personal communication 27 November, 2008
Page 8 of 114

Figure 2: Schematic of Activities and Outputs
December 2008
Page 9 of 114

3.
Evaluation Scope, objective and methods
The following evaluation was conducted between October and December of 2008. It included
site visits to Tunis, Mali, Niger and Nigeria as well as interviews through telecommunications
(see Annex A: List of Interviewees) and a review of relevant project documents (See Annex
B: References, Documents Reviewed and Personal Communications).
3.1 Scope
The evaluation focussed on the activities and products of project from its inception in January
2004 until its termination in June 2008. It does however include developments resulting from
the project up to and including November 2008. A Phase II is being discussed in which it is
anticipated that the knowledge base acquired during the project will be further developed; a
legal mechanism is formalised; and the process of promoting transboundary groundwater
management is extended to include the Taoudeni-Tanezrouft aquifers and the River Niger.34
Naturally, elements of the proposed Phase II were brought up during the discussions and
interviews. However, focus was kept regarding their relevance to the evaluation of this initial
project.
3.2 Objective of Evaluation
The evaluation was conducted to assess the extent to which the project was able to:
a.
Establish cooperation among the participating countries in addressing the
issues related to the shared aquifer system?
b.
Promote scientific approaches as a basis for building cooperation among the
countries, including enhanced data information management, analysis of
transboundary issues, developing monitoring mechanisms, use of models, etc.?
c.
Increase the capacity of the participating countries in addressing the identified
transboundary issues related to the shared aquifer system?
d.
Establish a legal and institutional cooperation framework which can be firmly
sustained by the participating countries?
3.3 Methods
The evaluation consisted of:
1. A desk review of project documents including, but not limited to:
(a) The project documents, outputs, monitoring reports (such as progress and
financial reports to UNEP and GEF annual Project Implementation Review
reports) and relevant correspondence.
(b) Notes and reports from the Steering Group meetings, and other meetings and
workshops.
(c) Other project-related material produced by the project staff or partners.
(d) Relevant material published on the project web site.
(e) Correspondence
2. Interviews and email correspondence with project management and technical support
including the staff from the OSS, UNESCO, FAO. IAEA;
34 OSS (2008a). Integrated Management of the Water Resources of the Iullemeden Aquifer Systems, the
Taoudeni and River Niger: Identification Document of the Project. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, April,
2008
Page 10 of 114

3. Interviews and telephone interviews with intended users for the project outputs and
other stakeholders involved with this project.
4. Interviews with the UNEP project task manager
5. Field visit to Mali, Niger and Nigeria.
The interviews, while appropriately focussed, were guided by a general questionnaire (Annex
C: Questionnaire)
Page 11 of 114

4.
Project Performance and Impact
The following section provides a review of the project performance and impact based on
eleven evaluation aspects (A-K) as provided by the UNEP. The evaluation is generally
performed based on a 6 point constructed scale whereby:
HS
= Highly Satisfactory
S
= Satisfactory
MS
= Moderately Satisfactory
MU
= Moderately Unsatisfactory
U
= Unsatisfactory
HU
= Highly Unsatisfactory
4.1
A: Attainment of objectives and planned results:
4.1.1.
Effectiveness
The project has achieved the majority of objectives developed at the onset of the project, and
in some cases exceeded expectations. This is particularly impressive when considering that
some 18 months into the project a programmatic shift occurred to allow greater focus more on
national activities in Mali, Niger and Nigeria.
While the establishment of a legal and institutional IAS cooperative framework has not been
achieved to date, advances have been made this direction through the development of a draft
consultative mechanism and management protocol.35 Moreover, Mali has Ministerial support
for the formalisation of this mechanism with a proposed conference in 2009.36
The project has achieved one of its primary goals of developing a common database with
pertinent and available information. However, there are marked gaps and shortcomings
resulting from the targeted interests of the individual countries and the "data are inadequate to
the tasks expected from the IAS project".37 This remains true today, however, there are plans
to continually update the database through coordination of the OSS. Both Mali and Niger are
anticipating forwarding additional data to OSS in early 2009.38
The project enhanced technical capacity by enabling national teams to retrieve, collate and
analyse bore-hole data. In each country visited lap top computers with software, digitalised
maps, GIS, database and hydrological model were viewed.39 Several people from each
35 Annex 4 of OSS (2008i). Regional Workshop Report - Atelier régional sur le Mécanisme de concertation du
Système Aquifère d'Iullemeden (SAI), (Workshop on a Regional Consultation Mechanisim for IAS), Tunis, 23-26
June, 2008. Sahara and Sahel Obervatory, 26 June, 2008.
36 Keïta, M. (2008) Senior Technical Council to the Minister, Ministère des Mines, de l'Energie et de l'Eau.
Personal communication 21 November, 2008
37 See p20, OSS (2007b). A Common Database of the Iullemeden Aquifer System (Bases de Données Commun
du Sistème Aquifère de l'Iullumeden). Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, December, 2007.
38 Maïga, S. (2008) National Focal Point Ministère des Mines, de l'Energie et de l'Eau; Directrice Nationale de
l'Hydraulique. Personal communication 20-22 November, 2008, Rabé, S. (2008) National Focal Point, Divison
Chief for Pollution and Water Quality, Ministère de l'Hydrologique, Niger. Personal communication 13
November, 2008
39 Viewed at OSS, in Niger, Nigeria and Mali by Auditor (See Section 4.3 Table 1). Also, p 14, OSS (2008o).
Scientific Report: Management of the Hydrological Risks of the IAS. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis,
March, 2008.
Page 12 of 114

relevant ministry were trained on database development and modelling in April and
November of 2006, and June 2008.40 At a minimum, there is one individual in each of the
countries who feels comfortable operating the database and conduct modelling and
simulatons.41 However, it is generally acknowledged that additional training is needed to
develop the capacity of the countries to fully utilize the tools and increased refinement of the
database will be needed to advance policy and decision making.
Nevertheless, the database and numerical model, developed through scientific review,
provided a tangible focal point to catalyze regional cooperation around the management of
the IAS. This was acknowledged throughout the evaluation and at the highest political
levels.42
The project has resulted in the creation of a cadre of regional professionals at the technical
level who appear committed to continue the work started over the last several years and
promote cooperative management of the IAS.
The cooperation that has been initiated to date is likely to have a long-term impact on the
hydro-politics of the region. Awareness has been developed at political levels, and regional
organisations are increasingly looking at groundwater issues. The ABN, for instance, which
previously only dealt with surface waters has recently included groundwater issues to its
portfolio.43 Also, neighbouring countries such as Burkina Faso, Benin and Algeria have all
expressed an interest in expanding the process.
Table 1 : Level of Achievement of Project Indicators.
Process indicators
Level of Achievement
i. Existence of a jointly prepared and politically accepted Yes -TDA developed and
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis, based on the country positions approved. (OSS, 2007a)
and perceptions, identifying transboundary concerns, risk and
uncertainty in the IAS;
ii. Existence of an inclusive and consistent joint basin-wide process
of risk identification and policy formulation to address identified
risk and implement identified policies, including:
(a) a common database with capacity for selected,
focused Yes Database developed and
modelling of the IAS for identification of transboundary risk issues;
used. (OSS, 2007c)
(b) a joint mechanism at basin level for: (a) Identification of (a) Yes TDA process
transboundary risk and uncertainty issues; (b) Development of (b) Yes (OSS, 2008g)
policies to address identified risk issues, (c) A joint development (c) Partially
and conservation strategy for the IAS, and (d) Implementation of (d) Partially
agreed risk reduction policies.
40 See Section 4.3 Table 1: Project Output Verification.
41 Bouare, D. (2008) Data base and modelling Expert for IAS Administrateur base SIGMA Centre de
Documentation et d'informatique de la DNH, Mali. Personal communication 21 November, 2008, Mukaile, B.
(2008) GIS and Modelling Expert for IAS, Hydrological Services Agency, Ministry of Agriculture and Water
Resources, Nigeria. Personal communication 19 November, 2008, Rabé, S. (2008) National Focal Point, Divison
Chief for Pollution and Water Quality, Ministère de l'Hydrologique, Niger. Personal communication 13
November, 2008.
42 Chabo, J. (2008) Director of Nigeria Hydrological Service Agency, Ministry of Agriculture and Water.
Personal communication 18 November, 2008, Issaka, I. (2008) General Secretary, Ministère de l'Hydrologique,
Niger. Personal communication 14 November , Keïta, M. (2008) Senior Technical Council to the Minister,
Ministère des Mines, de l'Energie et de l'Eau. Personal communication 21 November, 2008
43 Enoumba, H. C. (2008) Chef Division Etude de Planification, Autorité du Bassin du Niger. Personal
communication 14 November, 2008
Page 13 of 114

iii. Existence of a joint legal and institutional Iullemeden
cooperative framework, including:
(a) recognition of opportunities for institutional sustainability and
Partially discussions with
integration with parallel initiatives (NBA, NNOCC) for cross-
ABN, ECOWAS etc.
border land and water management and conservation,
(b) mechanisms for harmonization of national policies and Mostly through draft protocol.
legislation,
(OSS, 2008i)
(c) a basin organization structure approved and committed for No only temporary structure
continuing support by the countries and their development partners, in place.
and
(d) existence of a transboundary aquifer monitoring system with Mostly Temporary structure
basin-wide and national components.
is functioning
Stress Reduction Indicators
iv. Transboundary risk and uncertainty issues from land use change, Identified, not addressed. To be
climatic change and extractions and pollution are jointly identified
addressed under an SAP
and addressed;
v. Development of common agreed policy and management Policies identified, but no
measures for groundwater development and extraction, pollution `common policy' agreed to.
and salinity control and land use management in the recharge areas (OSS, 2008g)
and humid zones and outflow sections of the IAS, reflected in a
joint development and conservation strategy for the IAS,
vi. Existence of a legal cooperative framework and institutional and Informal mechanism for
communication mechanism to address transboundary risk and water consultation exists. And Draft
conflict,
protocol exists.
vii. Existence of an inter-government communication programme
Mostly, the Inter-governmental
for effective, timely contact and consultation between national
tool has been developed and
water resources institutions
agreed to. (OSS, 2008d)
Environmental Status Indicators
viii. Jointly adopted environmental goals and criteria identified in a TDA does not list adopted goals
joint Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis, including quantitative and indicators, this is partially
and qualitative indicators upon which priority actions can be covered in the Policy Elements
identified and implemented,
document. (OSS, 2008g)
ix. Land use change in recharge areas and humid zones with Joint monitoring is occurring
transboundary risk of adverse environmental impacts on the IAS, through the update and sharing
jointly monitored and managed,
of the database.
x. Actual and planned groundwater abstractions and pollution Joint monitoring is occurring
pressures and salinization hazard are jointly monitored for through the update and sharing
transboundary risk and adverse environmental impacts on the IAS,
of the database.
xi. National governments and local communities are involved in the National programs to date focus
management of transboundary risk and uncertainty related to the on monitoring and awareness
IAS,
building.
xii. Existence of a pilot project in the perspective of scaling up to a The IAS project itself has
global aquifer focal area for information sharing across GEF- IW served this purpose to date.
Page 14 of 114

projects.
Experiences have been shared
by the GEF IW community.44
Both the complexity and magnitude of the tasks are accounted for when assessing the overall
effectiveness of the project. While several of the project indicators remain only partially
achieved, the project was effective at meeting its overall objectives to:
1. establish joint mechanisms and capacity to identify risk and uncertainty issues in the
IAS related to:
a. land use change in recharge areas and humid zones,
b. climate change with reduced net precipitation, and
c. inappropriate development, extraction and surface based water pollution and
salinization
2. establish mechanisms to formulate policies for management of identified risk and
uncertainty issues, and
3. establish a legal and institutional IAS cooperative framework.
The Effectiveness of obtaining the main project objectives: Satisfactory
4.1.2.
Relevance
The project objectives are consistent with GEF Strategic Priorities under the International
Waters portfolio.45 It directly addresses "Undertaking Innovative Demonstrations for
Reducing Contaminants and Addressing Water Scarcity and Competing Water Uses" (SP 3).
The IAS project is one of a handful of international projects dealing with Transboundary
groundwater issues46 and only the second to use modelling tools to illustrate the need for
cooperative management.
In terms of SP-2, "Expand Global Foundational Capacity Building and Support for Targeted
Learning", the project has enhanced the ability of national teams to retrieve bore-hole data
and information, manipulate databases and modelling tools; and develop coherent monitoring
programs. The development of broader level policy documents47 and draft consultative
protocol will help pave the way towards an articulate SAP and hopefully future investment
partnerships for the mitigation of risks to the IAS, corresponding to SP-1.
The Relevance of the project to GEF priorities: Highly Satisfactory
44 DGEF (2009) Comments on Draft Report of TE submitted December 2008. UNEP Task Manager comments as
received by email on January 14, 2009.
45 See (www.gefweb.org/Projects/focal_areas/iw/iw_ops.html).
46 Others include the Guarani, Northwest Saharan, and Nubian aquifers.
47 OSS (2008f). Policy elements for transboundary risks reduction of the Iullemeden Aquifer System (IAS).
Managing Hydrological Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer System, Sahara and Sahel Observatory, March, 2008
Page 15 of 114

4.1.3.
Efficiency
The overall project budget was $1,738,200 (GEF 958,000 and co-funding 780,000).
Additional funding from CIDA for 150,151 (US$ 220,000) and from national governments
in-kind contribution of US$161,500 brought the overall costs to approximately US$
2,119,700.
A similar project "The Protection of the North West Sahara Aquifer System (NWSAS) and
related humid zones and ecosystems" developed a database, model and consultation
mechanism for aquifer information. It was conducted for $1, 416,000 (GEF $600,000 and co-
financing $816,000).
Delays: The project took approximately 18 months to develop the relationships with the
technical partnerships, create national committees, move the Project Coordinator from
Niamey to OSS offices in Tunis, and develop a `New Orientation' (See Project Background
Section 2.2). It was further extended an additional 18 months, from January 2007 to June
2008.
The initial delays clearly set everything back by approximately 18 months, however the
project proponents were able to complete the majority of their objectives within the agreed
budget. Development of risk reduction policies and joint development and conservation
strategy were never fully developed, as projected for months 18-26; however, policy elements
for risk reduction were developed at a 2 day workshop in March 2008.48
Building on other initiatives:
The project built on the project management, facilitation, modelling and tool development
expertise of the OSS developed during the Northwest Saharan Aquifer System Project.
The project also relied on the information and knowledge of the local country ministries,
universities, and other organisations both international and regional such as ESA, UNESCO,
ABN, AGRHYMET.49
The Efficiency of the project to meet objectives: Moderately Satisfactory
48 OSS (2008f). Policy elements for transboundary risks reduction of the Iullemeden Aquifer System (IAS).
Managing Hydrological Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer System, Sahara and Sahel Observatory, March, 2008
49 (OSS (2007b). A Common Database of the Iullemeden Aquifer System (Bases de Données Commun du
Sistème Aquifère de l'Iullumeden). Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, December, 2007)
Page 16 of 114

4.2
B: Sustainability
4.2.1.
Financial resources.
The current investment has laid the initial ground for an SAP to help develop investment
opportunities in the future. The relevant ministries while enthusiastic to continue fieldwork
and augmentation of the knowledge base, may not to have sufficient funds to undertake the
necessary work. In the case of Nigeria, the central government has initiated a national
`Hydrological Mapping of Nigeria' program which includes both surface and groundwaters;
however the Sokoto region (which corresponds to the IAS) is only one of many regions in the
country and is not a priority.50
Niger is interested to continue the project and has made available some financial support from
the Ministry for increased data and information monitoring. They have installed some 19 data
loggers in the field are ready to have local staff in the districts take charge of them.51 It is
unlikely, however, that extensive fieldwork or new pilot areas will be developed without
additional support.
Mali appears committed to devote financial resources for the continuation of the project, to
the extent that it is willing to host the ministers meeting to advance a consultative mechanism
for the IAS.52 They received data loggers from IAEA in 2003; however, they are not
operational as they have never been trained in their use.53 Nevertheless, Mali provided budget
alterations for the eastern regions to support data gathering for the IAS, and in 2008 created
the CDMT (Cadre de Dépense à Moins Termes) with the World Bank for investment in water
related projects.54
At this stage there appears to be no private sector investment, and modest support from the
national public sector. While the benefits of the current project will continue, in terms of
awareness and cooperation building, further assistance is needed for several years to enhance
capacity and maintain momentum in activities to have a lasting impact on policy
development.
In assessing the financial sustainability consideration has been given to the fact that the
project was groundbreaking in terms of political awareness regarding groundwater issues, and
that in such a short period of time it is unlikely that there would be complete financial
sustainability.
Financial Sustainability: Moderately Likely
50 Mukaile, B. (2008) GIS and Modelling Expert for IAS, Hydrological Services Agency, Ministry of
Agriculture and Water Resources, Nigeria. Personal communication 19 November, 2008
51 Issaka, I. (2008) General Secretary, Ministère de l'Hydrologique, Niger. Personal communication 14
November
52 Keïta, M. (2008) Senior Technical Council to the Minister, Ministère des Mines, de l'Energie et de l'Eau.
Personal communication 21 November, 2008
53 Maïga, S. (2008) National Focal Point Ministère des Mines, de l'Energie et de l'Eau; Directrice Nationale de
l'Hydraulique. Personal communication 20-22 November, 2008
54 Traoré, K. (2008) Project Director, Rual Water, Ministère des Mines, de l'Energie et de l'Eau; Directrice
Nationale de l'Hydraulique, Mali. Personal communication 22 November, 2008
Page 17 of 114

4.2.2.
Socio-political:
There are no apparent social or political risks that may jeopardize the sustenance of project
outcomes. All indications suggest that national governments are keen to continue to work
towards greater understanding or and cooperation around the use of groundwater in the IAS,
and that it is in their long term interests to do so. As one senior official pointed out "there are
no conflicts over groundwater use at the moment, and we are intending to keep it that way [by
continuing the IAS project]".55 The awareness of how important the continued benefits of the
project is evidenced by the letters of support, at the ministerial level, for the continuation of
the IAS project (Annex D).
Socio Political Sustainability: Likely
4.2.3.
Institutional framework and governance.
In terms of data and information exchange to update and integrate new bore-hole and water
point information into the database for model development, the current situation will function
well in the short-term (2-3 years). The current structure has OSS as the focal point where the
database and model are principally housed and run. National Focal Points are to send data to
OSS for quality control and updating and will receive an updated database on an annual basis,
or as often as needed.56 Currently, there is no single institution in the region with the
experience to perform quality control checks on submitted data that has been charged with
housing the database. It is envisaged that handing over responsibility for these tasks will be a
priority in a second phase of the program.57
Key to the ongoing success of the program will be identifying a regional institution which will
be able to take over the role that OSS currently plays, not only in terms of technical oversight,
but also facilitation and administrative oversight. Discussions have ranged from an existing
institution such as ABN, ECOWAS, to the creation of an entirely new entity dedicated to
groundwater management.58 During the final evaluation of possible institutional frameworks
an assessment of transparency and financial management will be needed. This will be in
addition to a set of clear evaluation criteria agreed by all stakeholders (See Section 6
Recommendations).
Institutional Framework Sustainability: Moderately Likely
55 Keïta, M. (2008) Senior Technical Council to the Minister, Ministère des Mines, de l'Energie et de l'Eau.
Personal communication 21 November, 2008
56 Ould Baba Sy, M. (2008) Hydrogeologist and modeller, IAS Project, OSS. Personal communication 10-12
November
57 Nakamura, T. (2008) UNEP/GEF International Waters SPO. Personal communication 27 November, 2008;
OSS (2008a). Integrated Management of the Water Resources of the Iullemeden Aquifer Systems, the Taoudeni
and River Niger: Identification Document of the Project. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, April, 2008
58 OSS (2008i). Regional Workshop Report - Atelier régional sur le Mécanisme de concertation du Système
Aquifère d'Iullemeden (SAI), (Workshop on a Regional Consultation Mechanisim for IAS), Tunis, 23-26 June,
2008. Sahara and Sahel Obervatory, 26 June, 2008
Page 18 of 114

4.2.4.
Environmental.
It is beyond the scope of this report to give a detailed assessment of the major environmental
risks which could undermine the future benefits of the project. However, a cursory review
suggests the principle environmental risks are those which the project seeks to directly
address, namely:
1. increasing extraction of groundwater beyond a sustainable level
2. potential pollution of near surface aquifers, or increased reliance on deeper more
mineralised aquifers; and
3. alteration in precipitation patterns due to climate alterations.
While climate change will likely exacerbate the situation59 and negative trends seen,
increasing demand and extraction appears to be the most precarious problem. This is
consistent with the findings of studies comparing the effects of climate change with increased
demand.60 There already exists both physical and anecdotal evidence of groundwater table
decline in all countries.61 Analysis of data from the project shows that some aquifers have
declined as much as 60m over the last 35 years.62
Environmental Sustainability: Moderately Likely
59 Modelling has shown that the Sahel region of West Africa will likely experience less runoff and precipitation
in the next 25 years. See Arnell, N. (2003). Eftects of IPCC SRES emissions scenarios on river runoff: a global
perspective. Hydrology and Earth Sciences. 7 (5):619-641.
60 Vörösmarty, C., P. Green, J. Salisbury and R. Lammers (2000). Global Water Resources: Vulnerability from
Climate Change and Population Growth. Science. 289 (5477):284-288
61 Chabo, J. (2008) Director of Nigeria Hydrological Service Agency, Ministry of Agriculture and Water.
Personal communication 18 November, 2008, Maïga, S. (2008) National Focal Point Ministère des Mines, de
l'Energie et de l'Eau; Directrice Nationale de l'Hydraulique. Personal communication 20-22 November, 2008,
Rabé, S. (2008) National Focal Point, Divison Chief for Pollution and Water Quality, Ministère de
l'Hydrologique, Niger. Personal communication 13 November, 2008
62 Page 10-11 OSS (2008o). Scientific Report: Management of the Hydrological Risks of the IAS. Sahara and
Sahel Observatory, Tunis, March, 2008
Page 19 of 114

4.3
C: Achievement of outputs and activities
Figure 2 (Section 2) above shows the relationship between the initial project outputs and
components, the revised set following the `New Orientation', and the actual outputs. Table 2,
Project Output and Verification, details the major project outputs as conceived at the onset of
the project (A)63 and as reframed under the `New Orientation'(WP).64 The main project
outputs at the project inception were:
Component 1: Identification of Transboundary Risks
1.1 Trans-diagnostic Analysis (TDA).
The TDA was developed in March 2007 and approved at a regional workshop in
February 2008 (see 1.1(b) Table 2). The TDA identifies and sets priorities for the major
environmental problems with a transboundary characteristics and identifies their
immediate causes.
While the TDA is an excellent first step at collating the various environmental and
socio-economic issues surrounding the IAS, at its current level of development, it "does
not equip the countries with elements to help better plan the use of common water
resources".65 However, the TDA is an iterative document and will require periodic
updating as information is obtained and situations change. It can provide a solid
foundation for developing an SAP for the basin.
1.2 Modelling and Capacity Building
A numerical hydrogeological model of the aquifer systems was developed, 3 training
sessions were conducted on the use of the database and model, equipment was
purchased and software installed and provided to each relevant ministry (See 1.2 (a)
and (b), Table 2). It is acknowledged that while there is at a minimum one individual
in each country that can run the models more training is needed for the ministries to be
considered fully functional (See Section 4.1). While the model will require refinement,
it is an excellent first step to develop a planning tool for policy development.
The model uses the Processing Modflow 5 software and is based on two main aquifer
systems: the Continental Intercalaire and Continental Terminal. The model was
calibrated using control points of known value over time. It provides for calculations of
piezometric levels, transmissivity, recharge (in flow), extractions and outflow, and
other hydrodynamic parameters. After verification and calibration, initial simulations
have been conducted on piezometric levels up to 2025 and have assisted in highlighting
vulnerable zones, such as along the boarder between Niger and Nigeria.
1.3 Field Studies of Aquifer Recharge
The field studies anticipated to be carried out by IRD were not conducted. Instead,
IRD carried out analysis of existing data and the national ministries themselves
conducted extensive collection and collation of existing data in the field and district
offices (See Program Activities, Section 2.2).
63 GEF (2003a). Project Brief: Managing Hydrological Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer System, March 2003.
retrieved 10 November, 2008 from http://www.gefweb.org/Documents/Medium-
Sized_Project_Proposals/MSP_Proposals/Regional_-_Iullemeden_Aquifer_System.pdf
64 OSS (2005d). New Orientation. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, June, 2005
65 OSS (2008o). Scientific Report: Management of the Hydrological Risks of the IAS. Sahara and Sahel
Observatory, Tunis, March, 2008
Page 20 of 114

1.4 (a) Establishment of a Common Risk Identification Database and (b) Targeted Pilot
Area Surveys
(a) The database which was anticipated to be developed by AGRHYMET in
conjunction with IAEA was not developed (See Program Activities, Section
2.2). Nevertheless, OSS took the lead to establish a database of bore-hole and
water point information from which to develop the hydrogeological model
(See 1.4 (a) Table 2). The database also included digitized topographic and
geological maps, land use, land cover, rainfall, evaporation, evapo-
transpiration, water balance, dynamic of surface water, and Digital Elevation
Model which were not initially envisioned (1.5 and 1.6, Table 2).
The data collected within the limits of the system were processed, analysed,
harmonized and filed in the database. The data focuses on capturing the
Continental Intercalaire and Continental Terminal aquifers as well as the
rainfall, hydrometric, piezometric, chemical, geological records and
abstractions, amongst others. There are more than 36 parameters for each bore-
hole listing.
The database includes around 17 200 inventoried water points, with: 740 in
Mali (4%), 16 170 in Niger (94%) and 300 in Nigeria (2%).
The IAS Geographic Information System (GIS) is linked to the common
database, and is used for processing and analysis of data as well development
of maps. For example the evolution maps of the number of water sources, of
piezometric levels, of transmissivity, as well as geological cross sections.
(b) Countries submitted reports of isotope studies conducted by the IAEA.66 In
the case of Niger some 19 data loggers were installed.67 Mali received 10 data
loggers from IAEA in 2003, but as yet have not installed them as they are
awaiting training.68 Nigeria has not been able to conduct as much fieldwork as
it would like due to funding restrictions, however, it hopes to have some
additional field data by mid 2009.69
Component 2: Policy and Institutional Mechanisms for Reducing Transboundary Risk
2.1 Establishment of Mechanisms for Formulation of Risk Reduction Policies and a Joint
Development and Conservation Strategy for the IAS
The project produced a Policy Elements document following a two day workshop, in
which countries presented their national policies (See 2.1(b), Table 2). The Policy
Elements document covers a large range of background in hydrology, socio-economic
issues and legal issues as they pertain to groundwater use. Many potential actions are
listed as possible solutions and warrant further attention. The paper however falls short
of developing a strategy in terms of actions, timelines and outputs.
2.2 Development of a Joint Legal and Institutional IAS Cooperative Framework
66 Confirmed by National Focal Points and by OSS.
67 Issaka, I. (2008) General Secretary, Ministère de l'Hydrologique, Niger. Personal communication 14
November
68 Maïga, S. (2008) National Focal Point Ministère des Mines, de l'Energie et de l'Eau; Directrice Nationale de
l'Hydraulique. Personal communication 20-22 November, 2008
69 Chabo, J. (2008) Director of Nigeria Hydrological Service Agency, Ministry of Agriculture and Water.
Personal communication 18 November, 2008
Page 21 of 114

Through work with the FAO, the project analysed the legal structures in each country
and developed a general policy document putting forward several possible structures
for the consultative mechanism in October 2006 (2.2 (a) and (b), Table 2). The
countries requested additional assistance from the FAO and UNEP to formalise a
mechanism (Annex D). They developed a draft protocol for the consultation
mechanisms to manage the IAS in June 2008 (2.2 (c), Table 2). This is a very advanced
document outlining management roles and responsibilities for various ministerial
committees, technical committees and secretariat. It was spearheaded by Niger and
based on existing documents such as the Niger Basin Water Charter of the ABN.70
While a formalised legal and institutional framework was not developed, great
advancement was made towards this end during the project. Moreover, a functioning
institutional mechanism for data and information exchange is operational, with OSS as
a facilitator and focal point.
2.3 Mechanisms for Transboundary Aquifer Monitoring
Guidelines for monitoring in the IAS was produced by OSS and approved of at a
regional workshop in Niamey, 8-9 February, 2008 (2.3 in Table 2) Though the
document was never actually viewed, it was confirmed by several people, including the
National Focal Points.
Component 3: Awareness, Participation, Communication
3.1 Common Public Awareness Program
Based on a consultants report, the Participatory Management document was adopted
(with revisions) following a Regional Workshop (28-29 March, 2008) (3.1, Table 2). It
outlines the technical and scientific information, gives an overview of the socio-
economic situation in various sectors (including forestry and mining), briefly discusses
water use and conflict, and lists various possible mechanisms for building awareness
depending on user groups. It is an excellent source document for developing public
awareness and participation, however stops short being a strategy document for a
program. There are no programs of action, timeframe, amongst others.
3.2 Inter-governmental Communications Tools
At a two day workshop (12-14 March, 2008), a report on Inter-governmental
Communication Tool was approved (3.1(b), Table 2). This report focuses on building
awareness at political and technical levels, and the practical nature of data and
information exchange between the three project countries and OSS. It supports the
development of the Tirpartate Consultative Mechanism by elaborating practicalities of
information exchange.
The report also reviews the areas where information is held in the various countries,
discusses the mode in which the information is held (for example in Lotus 123 etc.);
discusses capacity or human resource needs for continued exchange of information;
and outlines a potential organizational structure for information exchange (with OSS as
the data repository).
Summary
70 Kiari, K. N. (2008) Director de la Législation, Ministère de l'Hydraulique, Niamey, Niger. Personal
communication 17 Novmber, 2008; ABN (2008). La Charte de l'Eau du Bassin du Niger. Niamey, 30 April,
2008
Page 22 of 114

It is difficult to assess the achievements of the project in a single rating. Some of the projected
outputs were not achieved, such as recharge field studies; some were developed, though were
perhaps less than anticipated, such as the Program for Common Awareness; others resulted in
the development of tools which exceeded initial expectations, such as the database and
hydrogeological model.
The outputs of the project, on the whole, appear above average for a project of this size and
complexity.
Achievement of outputs: Satisfactory
Page 23 of 114

Table 2: Project output verification.
A 71
WP72
Expected outputs
Outputs generated
Verification
1
10000
Component 1: /Identification of Transboundary risk (Development of Transdiagnostic Analysis)
1
National Workshop Report: Transbondary Diagnostic
Analysis and Consultation Mechanism on the GEF/UNEP
'Managing Transboundary Hydrological Risks in the IAS,
Abuja 6-8 February, 2006. Sahara and Sahel Observatory,
February, 2006 (OSS, 2006b).
Minutes of the inter-
2
National Workshop: Increased Development of a TDA
11000
Reports of the Inter-ministerial committees
ministerial committee
and Consultation Mechanism, Abuja, 18-20 December,
1.1(a)
meetings (Mali, Niger, Nigeria). Numerous
12000
meetings, and country
2006. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 29 December,
reports of National Scientific Committees
input
2006 (OSS, 2006d).
3
National Workshop Report: Development of TDA and
Consultation Mechanism, Niamey, 14-15 February, 2008.
Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 15 February, 2008
(OSS, 2006c)
4
Numerous reports of National Scientific Committees.
1
Transdiagnostic Anaysis of the Iullemeden Aquifer System
Tunis, March, 2007. (OSS, 2007a)
1
Report of final TDA
13000
1.1(b)
Report of the final TDA
14000
2
Regional Workshop Report: Validation of the TDA for
workshop
2
Report presented and approved during
regional workshop (Niamey, Feb. 08)
IAS, Niamey, Niger, 6-7 February, 2008. Sahara and
Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 13 February, 2008 (OSS,
2008l).
2000
Reinforcing the state of knowledge
1
PM5 model for IAS viewed at OSS offices, 10-11
1
Model: PM5 developed for IAS in OSS
November 2008.
1.2(a)
24000
Computer models with
headquarter and operational for countries
operational guidelines
2
2
Final report on IAS Model: Dec 2007
Hydrogeological Model of the Iullemeden Aquifer System.
Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, December, 2007
71 A corresponds to the workplan of the original project document and listed under the terminal report.
72 WP relates to the Work Plan # associated with the New Orientation (OSS (2005d). New Orientation. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, June, 2005).
Page 24 of 114

A 71
WP72
Expected outputs
Outputs generated
Verification
(OSS, 2007c)
1
Regional Training Workshops
1.a
Regional Workshop: Training for Capacity Building for
Mathematical Modelling, Tunis, 18-29 April, 2006.
Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 29 April, 2006
(OSS, 2006g)
Reports of training on
1
Training sessions on management tools
1.2(b)
24100
1.b
Regional Workshop: Training for Capacity Building for
the models
(Database, GIS, model) organized in OSS
Mathematical Modelling of IAS, Tunis, 29 November-8
December, 2006. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis,
11 December, 2006 (OSS, 2006f)
1.c
Regional Workshop: Training of Trainers for Database,
GIS and Model, Tunis 18-27 June, 2008. Sahara and
Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 12 July, 2008 (OSS, 2008n)
1
The field surveys changed to data collection
1
Field surveys exchanged during training sessions.
Report of the field
filed by countries and not by IRD to
1.3
22000
surveys and institutional
strengthen IAS knowledge mainly during
set-ups and training
training sessions
- IAEA database elaborated by AGRHYMET not
A Common Database of the Iullemeden Aquifer System (Bases
available and then operational to the project. OSS
de Données Commun du Sistème Aquifère de l'Iullumeden).
Data table contained in
elaborated IAS database
Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, December, 2007 (OSS,
1.4
21000
the database and reports
2007b).
(a)
23000
- Three reports of training sessions: April 2006,
of training
Nov-Dec 2006 and June 2008.
Viewed at OSS offices, and in Niger, Mali and Nigeria.
- Final report: Database & GIS, Dec 2007
IAEA worked in independent manner. Reports of
Confirmed by OSS and National Focal Points
1.4
Reports of the isotope
22300
the isotopes studies obtained by the countries not
(b)
studies
by IAEA
Reports of the isotopes studies obtained by
Confirmed by OSS and National Focal Points
1.4
Reports of the pilot area
23300
countries not by IAEA. Scientific equipments
(b)
studies
installed in the countries (automatic recorders)
Topographical and
Viewed as part of the IAS model housed in OSS.
1.5.
22300
Two digitalised maps : Topography and Geology
Geological digitalised
Page 25 of 114

A 71
WP72
Expected outputs
Outputs generated
Verification
maps
Maps of land use, land cover, rainfall,
Viewed as part of the IAS model housed in OSS.
Outputs from Remote
evaporation, evapotranspiration, water balance,
1.6.
23400
sensing
dynamic of surface water, Digital Elevation
Model
2
3000
Component 2:
Policy Mechanisms for Management of Transboundary Risk (Formulation of Political and Institutional Framework)
31100
Reports of the Policy
Not viewed. Mentioned in workshop report.
2.1a
Reports of national expertises
development committees
1
Workshop Report: Policy Elements for the Reduction of
Tranboundary Risks in the IAS, Tunis, 24-28 March,
2008. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 2 March,
2008 (OSS, 2008k)
2.1b
IAS policy and strategy
Report obtained during regional write-shop
2
Policy elements for transboundary risks reduction of the
Iullemeden Aquifer System (IAS). Managing Hydrological
Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer System, Sahara and Sahel
Observatory, March, 2008 (OSS, 2008g)
32000
1
Reports referred to in final FAO consultant report.
1
Reports done by each country
Policy options
2
Preliminary Proposals for a Consultative Mechanism for
2.2a
2
Policy options assessment report done by
assessment report
FAO experts : Review and assessment of
the IAS, TCP/RAF/3001. By Marcella Nanni, United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome,
existing national legal and other documents
August, 2005 (FAO, 2005)
1. FAO mission and national level meetings
1 Mission Reports (OSS, 2005a, 2005c, 2005b)
(conducted in 2005, prior to regional
workshop in June, 2005)
2 Workshop Report: Development of Tripartate Consultation
Mechanism for the IAS, Niamey, 29 June-1 July, 2005.
2. Reports of the review done during regional
Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Niamey, (Date
32100
Reports of the review
workshops (Niamey, June 2005, and Roma,
submitted?)(OSS, 2005e)
2.2b
October 2006)
32200
committees
3 National workshops
3. Review and improvement of the documents in
a validation workshop at the national level
3.a Report of the National Workshop on Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis and Consultation Mechanism on the
4. Review and improvement into a common final
GEF/UNEP 'Managing Transboundary Hydrological
draft document (Regional workshop, Roma,
Risks in the IAS' 6-8 February, 2006 Abuja. Nigeria
Page 26 of 114

A 71
WP72
Expected outputs
Outputs generated
Verification
October 2006)
(OSS, 2006b)
3.b National Workshop on Consultation Mechanism,
Niamey, Niger, 14-15 February, 2005 (only mentioned
in FAO, 2006 and)
3.c National Workshop on Consultation Mechanism,
Bamako, Mali, 20-22 June, 2006 (only mentioned in
FAO, 2006)
4 Discussion Document: Mise en place d'un mécanisme
tripartite de concertation pour la gestion du Système
aquifère d'Iullemeden (SAI) (A Tripartate Consultation
Mechanism for Management of the IAS), TCP/RAF/3001,
Rome, 19-20 October, 2006.United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization, Rome, September, 2008 (FAO,
2006)
1. Countries approved the basic consultative mechanism
1. Countries adopted the structure and the draft-
structures as developed in Rome (October, 2006)
Agreement of the tripartite consultative
mechanism (Regional workshop, Roma,
2. Draft text developed. Annex 4 of Workshop Report -
42000
2.2c
Adopted legal agreement
October 2006)
Atelier régional sur le Mécanisme de concertation du
42300
2. Countries updated the Draft-Agreement to its
Système Aquifère d'Iullemeden (SAI), (Workshop on a
adoption during Ministries meeting (Regional
Regional Consultation Mechanisim for IAS), Tunis, 23-26
Workshop, Tunis, June 2008)
June, 2008. Sahara and Sahel Obervatory, 26 June, 2008
(OSS, 2008i)
Report of the final inter-
Not seen.
2.2d
32000
Report done by FAO
governmental meeting
1
Regional Workshop: Monitoring Transboundary Aquifers
of the IAS, Niamey, 8-9 February, 2008. Sahara and Sahel
Proposal for IAS
1
Workshop to validate monitoring guide.
Observatory, Tunis, 13 February, 2008 (OSS, 2008m)
2.3a
monitoring system
2
Guidelines for monitoring IAS done by OSS
2
OSS (2007g). Monitoring tranboundary aquifers:
Guidlines. Observatoir du Sahara et du Sahel, December,
2007.
Report of the pilot
Only Niger had established the equipment in the
Reports confirmed by Mr. Sanoussi Rabé (Ministère de
2.3b
monitoring activities
pilot area for monitoring transboundary aquifers
l'Hydrologique, Niger, (Rabé, 2008).
Page 27 of 114

A 71
WP72
Expected outputs
Outputs generated
Verification
(Continental Terminal)
Niger report done and sent to IAEA
3
4000
Component 3:
Awareness, Participation and Communication (Awareness, Participation and Capacity Building)
1.
Regional Workshop Report: la gestion participative des
risques transfrontaliers du SAI (Participative
management of transboundary risks in IAS), Tunis, 28-
29 March, 2008. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis,
2 March, 2008 (OSS, 2008j)
Joint program for
1. Workshop to validate consultant report
3.1 a
41000
awareness building
2. Report on participatory management
2. Participatory Management of Transboundary Risks.
Managing Hydrological Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer
System, Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, April,
2008 (OSS, 2008e).
Reports of stakeholder
Regional report of awareness and participation on
As above
3.1a
41100
consultation meetings
risks management
Awareness raising
As above
3.1a
41100
See regional report
materials
Stakeholder assessment
As above
3.1b
41100
See regional report
report
1
Iullemeden website built.
1
URL: http://iullemeden.iwlearn.org
Report of training
session on inter-
2
Training session done by OSS during
2
3.2a
42200
governmental
regional workshop (March 2008)
communication tools
1
Workshop on Communication tools (March,
1
Regional Workshop Report: Communication Tools
2008).
between Countries, 12-14 March. Sahara and Sahel
Intergovernmental
Observatory, Tunis, 2 March, 2008 (OSS, 2008p).
3.2b
42200
communication tools
2
Report on practical methods and an
organizational structure for continued
2
Outils de Communication entre les Pays du Système
information exchange.
Aquifère d'Iullemeden SAI (Communication Tools
between Countries of Iullemeden Aquifer System). Sahara
Page 28 of 114

A 71
WP72
Expected outputs
Outputs generated
Verification
and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, April, 2008 (OSS, 2008d)
4
5000
Component 4:
Monitoring, Evaluation and Dissemination of Data
Report of mid-term
see UNEP (2006). Midterm review was not
Mid term review conducted between UNEP and OSS resulting
4.1a
51000
review
conducted as planned.
in a proposal for the "New Orientation" (DGEF, 2009)
Report of the terminal
4.1b
51000
Not yet
evaluation
1. PIR (1 July, 2005-30 june, 2006). Sahara and Sahel
Observatory, Tunis, June, 2006 (OSS, 2006e)
There were three annual PIR reports during the
2.
51000
Annual reporting (PIR)
PIR (1 July, 2006-30 June, 2007). Sahara and Sahel
course of the project in 2006, 2007, 2008
Observatory, Tunis, June, 2007 (OSS, 2007d)
3. PIR (1 July, 2007-30 june, 2008). Sahara and Sahel
Observatoy, Tunis, June, 2008 OSS, 2008f)
1. Progress Report: 1 July - 31 December, 2007, (OSS,
2007f)
51000
2.
Progress Reports
Progress reports for 2006, 2007 and 2008
Progress Report: 1 January - 30 June, 2007. June,
53000
2007 (OSS, 2007e)
3. Progress Report: 1 January-30 June, 2008. June, 2008
(OSS, 2008h)
Report of ISARM
4.2a
No information from UNESCO/ISARM
reference information
Scientific Supervision, Diagnostic Supervision Report.
Report of the
UNESCO, February, 2006 (UNESCO, 2006)
Scientific report and activities to advance TDA
4.2b
strengthening of aquifer
and consultative mechanism.
DRAFT: Appraisal of GEF-IW MSP Managing
knowledge
Hydrogeological Risk in the Iullemeden Aduifer System (IAS).
UNESCO, October, 2008 (UNESCO, 2008).
Report of data provision
4.3
Not completed as of November, 2008
to global database
5
Component 5: Project Management
5.1
52000
PSC meetings and
Done.
First Steering Committee Meeting, Paris, February 2004. (No
Page 29 of 114

A 71
WP72
Expected outputs
Outputs generated
Verification
reports
direct documentation seen, but referred to in various reports).
In the beginning (Feb. 2004),
mid-term (Feb. 2006),
Steering Committee Report: Meeting of the Steering Committee
of the GEF/UNEP Assisted Project `Managing Hydrological
and the end of the project (May 2008)
Risks in the Iullemeden Aquifer System' of Mali, Niger and
Nigeria; Abuja, 25-26 February, 2006. Abuja, February, 2006
(OSS, 2006j)
Mission Report: Regional Steering and Scientific Steering
Committee Meetings, Bamako, 4-12, May, 2008. Sahara and
Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 14 May, 2008 (OSS, 2008c)
1
Report of Abuja Meeting in Feb, 2006.
2
Scientific Coordinating
National Mission Reports
1
Report in the mid-term (Feb. 2006) and
5.2
54000
Committee meeting
2.a
Mission Report: Regional Steering and Scientific
reports, national level
2
The end of the project (May 2008)
Steering Committee Meetings, Bamako, 4-12, May,
2008. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 14 May,
2008 (OSS, 2008c)
Final Project Meeting with UNEP to validate
Mission Report: Final Project Meetings with UNEP, and
Final Project Meeting
project, review accounting, and discuss future
inititial discussions for Phase II, Nairobi, 18-25 May, 2008.
with UNEP
Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 24 May, 2008 (OSS,
steps.
2008b)
Page 30 of 114

4.4 D: Catalytic Role
The project has had a catalytic effect in terms of:
Scaling up efforts in the region through the promotion of a second phase, which is to
include the Taudeni-Tanezouft aquifer systems which includes Algeria, Mauritania
and Burkina Faso.73
The ABN has developed an interest in groundwater resources as part of its `integrated
water management programme'.74
Generating interest in the IAS process at international meetings such as the 4th World
Water Forum, Mexico City, March 16-22, 2006. The project was presented as
workshops organized under the IWLEARN project. This carried a strong catalytic
effect since many of the other groundwater projects wanted to see the IAS case, since
the IAS project carried out the TDA for a shared groundwater aquifer system for the
first time.75
Replication of the process in the region. Mali is looking to replicate the process used
to develop cooperation under the IAS program to other aquifers it shares such as in the
region of Le Fosse de Naras, which are shared aquifers with Mauritania; and the Plan
de Gondo aquifers, which are shared with Burkina Faso.76
At a national level, academics in Mali are developing university courses in
groundwater modelling to build future capacity and capability, and looking to use the
tools for national issues.77
Catalytic Role: Satisfactory
73 OSS (2008a). Integrated Management of the Water Resources of the Iullemeden Aquifer Systems, the
Taoudeni and River Niger: Identification Document of the Project. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, April,
2008
74 Enoumba, H. C. (2008) Chef Division Etude de Planification, Autorité du Bassin du Niger. Personal
communication 14 November, 2008
75 DGEF (2009) Comments on Draft Report of TE submitted December 2008. UNEP Task Manager comments as
received by email on January 14, 2009.
76 Traoré, K. (2008) Project Director, Rual Water, Ministère des Mines, de l'Energie et de l'Eau; Directrice
Nationale de l'Hydraulique, Mali. Personal communication 22 November, 2008
77 Traore, A. Z. (2008) Director of UFAE, Professor at Ecole National des Ingénieurs, Mali. Personal
communication 21 November, 2008
Page 31 of 114

4.5
E.
Assessment of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems.
4.5.1.
M&E design
The monitoring and evaluation program as laid out in Annex 27 of the official GEF Project
Document: Managing Hydrogeological Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer System78 is
comprehensive including:
i. methodology and reporting requirements, detailed roles and responsibilities,
ii. organizational structure and relationships
iii. monitoring of impacts and outcomes
iv. monitoring of outputs, time frame for activities and reporting requirements (Annex E).
v. monitoring of stakeholder participation
vi. monitoring of financial disbursements and expenditure
vii. Monitoring of partnerships
viii. Monitoring of building sustainability and replicability
ix. Evaluation plan, including annual self evaluations as well as external evaluations.
Indicators: The indicators for the project were separated into Process, Stress Reduction, and
Environmental Status indicators and are detailed in the LogFrame Matrix (Annex F). This
framework outlines baseline indicators at the onset of the project as well at target indicators
for the project, both in terms of project implementation as well as outcomes.
Specific: The indicators are in general specific. The only indicators which do not meet
this criteria are those associated with Environmental Status which indicated areas of
salinization, recharge, or sustainable water extraction with xxxx and yyyy. However,
these values were somewhat refined through the TDA.
Measureable: The indicators are all measurable or quantifiable.
Achievable and Attributable: The indicators are all achievable, though the indicator for an
"IAS tripartite agreement concluded" was very ambitious. All may attribute directly to
activities undertaken by the project.
Relevant and Realistic: The indicators are all relevant and realistic in terms of reflecting
the interests expressed by the national stakeholders.
Time-bound, Timely, Trackable and Targeted: All indicators are time-bound and targeted.
Baseline Assessment: The Project Document contains an assessment of the baseline situation
and environmental benefits of incremental action (Table 2, page 18 (GEF, 2003b)).
Environmental base line indicators are to be identified through the development of a TDA,
recharge field studies (which were not conducted), hydro-geological surveys, isotope surveys;
legal and social indicators through analysis of legal and institutional structures, and
assessments of participation and awareness building methods.
Reporting: Section 5 of the Project Document (GEF, 2003b) contains details for monitoring
and reporting as well as a table outlining reporting requirements (Annex F).
78 GEF (2003b). Project Document: Managing Hydrogeological Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer System. GEF, 12
December, 2003
Page 32 of 114

M&E Design: Satisfactory
4.5.2.
M&E plan implementation.
Project reporting appears sporadic for the first 18 month period (January 2004 June 2005).
During this time the Project Coordinator was in Niamey and was moved to OSS offices in
Tunis, where a full project team and support staff were available. Subsequently, progress
implementation reviews and progress reports were submitted on a more regular basis,
including those reviewed:
PIR (1 July, 2005-30 june, 2006). Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, June, 2006
(OSS, 2006e)
PIR (1 July, 2006-30 June, 2007). Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, June, 2007
(OSS, 2007d)
PIR (1 July, 2007-30 june, 2008). Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, June, 2008 OSS,
2008f)
Progress Report: 1 July - 31 December, 2007, (OSS, 2007f)
Progress Report: 1 January - 30 June, 2007. June, 2007 (OSS, 2007e)
Progress Report: 1 January-30 June, 2008. June, 2008 (OSS, 2008h)
These reports appear to be complete and comprehensive in nature.
The major alteration in direction of the project occurred in June, 2005 with the development
of the "New Orientation" document which significantly altered focus and budget lines
accordingly. Subsequently, the reporting and reviews helped to keep the project on track,
with the 2nd Steering Committee (SC) meeting making the bulk of recommendations to adapt
to changes. There were three SC meetings during the project:
1st Inception and Steering Committee Meeting, Paris, February, 2004
2nd Steering Committee Meeting, Abuja, 25-26 February, 2006
3rd Steering Committee Meeting, Bamako, 4-12, May, 2008
The mid-term meeting in Abuja made numerous recommendations for advancement
including:
Deepen the TDA process in the IAS countries by quantitative assessment of pertinent
risks
The IAS countries unanimously agreed on the creation of coordination mechanism.
The Steering Committee meeting calls on FAO and OSS to pursue the process of
establishment of the above mechanism
With a view to a more effective execution of the project, the Steering Committee
members recommend to realign certain activities, notably those concerning the
Page 33 of 114

identification of risks, with a view to adapting them to the attainment of the main
objective. In this perspective, a work programme will be developed in two to three
weeks time.
The Steering Committee members recommend continuation of the process leading to a
Strategic Action Plan (SAP), in cooperation with the different interested partners
Senior level ministry officials from Nigeria, Niger, and Mali; as well as representatives from
UNESCO, UNEP, FAO, ABN, AGRHYMET and an observer from Algeria attended the 2nd
Steering Committee meeting. Lists of participants for the final Steering Committee meeting
in Bamako have not been viewed at the time of writing.
Project reporting appears to have assisted in providing management with information needed
to make changes to the project activities and time frame. This is particularly true with the
extension of the project and development of numerous outputs during that time.
M&E Implementation: Satisfactory
4.5.3.
M&E Budget and Financing
The Monitoring and Evaluation plan was fully budgeted with $30,000 US for External
Monitoring and Evaluation (Terminal Evaluation) (Annex F), as well as sufficient project
personnel, project management and coordination and administrative support (Annex 10 of
GEF Project Document (GEF, 2003b)).
M&E Budgeting: Highly Satisfactory
Page 34 of 114

4.6
F.
Preparation and Readiness
The project's objectives and components were clearly laid out, practical and generally feasible
within the timeframe of the project. The only objective that was perhaps overly ambitious
was the `establishment of a legal and institutional IAS cooperative framework'. As one of the
indicators associated with this objective, under Component 2, is `an IAS tripartite agreement
concluded'79, this suggests that a formal legal consultation agreement was envisioned within
the time frame of the project. To put things in perspective, the Columbia Treaty between
Canada and the US took 20 years to develop, including engineering studies. A similar time
was needed between India and Nepal to develop the Mahakali River Treaty. The fact,
therefore, that within a 4 year period a functioning temporary mechanism is in place, a draft
protocol developed, and the countries have all committed to promote a formal consultative
mechanism is not to be underestimated.
The components, and subsequent activities, were developed to build upon each other to
achieve the project objectives and outputs in a timely fashion as per the LogFrame in the
Project Document and in terms of the `New Orientation' (See Figure 2, Section 2.2).
The executing institution, OSS, had extensive experience and knowledge, both technical and
in terms of facilitation, having been played a similar role in the development of the North
West Sahara Aquifer System between Tunisia, Algeria and Libya. This was clearly used to
advance the project, particularly within the reframing of the project in June 2005 under the
`New Orientation'.80
The capacities of OSS and its counterparts, IAEA, UNECE, ESA, ETH, IRD, UNESCO, and
FAO appear to have been adequately considered when the project was designed. However,
the need for large alterations in project implementation and budgeting in June 2005 suggests
that roles and responsibilities, or expectations, were not clearly understood or appreciated by
all parties at the onset.
IRD did not conduct the field surveys for recharge as initially planned.
ETH did not conduct the training or was involved in the development of the
hydrogeological/mathematical model as initially planned.
IAEA did not complete the common database as initially planned, though it did
conduct isotope studies (however this was done in parallel of the IAS project and
independently of any OSS coordination).81
The extension of the project affected the continued participation of several technical partners.
UNESCO provided scientific and technical support, such as developing and initiating
the project, providing TOR's for the consultant developing the Common Public
Awareness Programme and the Policy Formulation in 2006, amongst other things.
However its formal involvement appears to have stopped at the end of 2006.
FAO was active in assisting the development of the Consultation Mechanism until the
end of 2006 when its formal involvement stopped.82
79 See LogFrame Annex 25 of Project Document GEF (2003b). Ibid.
80 OSS (2005d). New Orientation. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, June, 2005
81 Aggarwal, P. (2008) Programme manager, Water Resources, Division of Isotope Hyrology Section, IAEA.
Personal communication Email correspondence, 18 November, 2008, Dodo, A. K. (2008) Regional Coordinator,
IAS Project, OSS. Personal communication 10-12 November, 2008
82 Burchi (2008), Personal communication email, December 6, 2008.
Page 35 of 114

Preparation and readiness: Moderately Satisfactory
4.7
G.
Country ownership
The importance and relevance of the project to national development and environmental goals
is evident from the continued ministerial level support which the project enjoys (See Annex
D), and expressed throughout the interview process.
The countries have expressed their continued interest in supporting the IAS project.
Niger is interested to continue the project and has made available some financial
support from the Ministry for increased data and information monitoring. They have
installed some 19 data loggers in the field are ready to have local staff in the districts
take charge of them.83 It is unlikely, however, that extensive fieldwork or new pilot
areas will be developed without additional support.
Niger spearheaded the development of the draft Protocol in 2008 independent of any
assistance from FAO,84 and the countries approved of the draft in June 2008.
Officials in Mali have committed financial resources for the continuation of the
project, to the extent that it is willing to organise and host the ministers meeting to
advance a consultative mechanism for the IAS.85
Mali provided budget alterations for the eastern regions to support data gathering for
the IAS, and in 2008 created the CDMT (Cadre de Dépense à Moins Termes) with the
World Bank for investment in water related projects.86
Replication of the process in the region. Mali is looking to replicate the process used
to develop cooperation under the IAS program to other aquifers it shares such as in the
region of Le Fosse de Naras, which are shared aquifers with Mauritania; and the Plan
de Gondo aquifers, which are shared with Burkina Faso.87
At a national level, academics in Mali are developing university courses in
groundwater modelling to build future capacity and capability, and looking to use the
tools for national issues.88
Mali has presented the project at a national water conference where there is increasing
interest in pursuing groundwater issues.89
83 Issaka, I. (2008) General Secretary, Ministère de l'Hydrologique, Niger. Personal communication 14
November
84 Kiari, K. N. (2008) Director de la Législation, Ministère de l'Hydraulique, Niamey, Niger. Personal
communication 17 Novmber, 2008
85 Keïta, M. (2008) Senior Technical Council to the Minister, Ministère des Mines, de l'Energie et de l'Eau.
Personal communication 21 November, 2008
86 Traoré, K. (2008) Project Director, Rual Water, Ministère des Mines, de l'Energie et de l'Eau; Directrice
Nationale de l'Hydraulique, Mali. Personal communication 22 November, 2008
87 Ibid.Personal communication
88 Traore, A. Z. (2008) Director of UFAE, Professor at Ecole National des Ingénieurs, Mali. Personal
communication 21 November, 2008
89 Maïga, S. (2008) National Focal Point Ministère des Mines, de l'Energie et de l'Eau; Directrice Nationale de
l'Hydraulique. Personal communication 20-22 November, 2008
Page 36 of 114

Nigeria has indicated its enthusiasm for the project, but has also suggested that budget
limitations will likely affect its ability to engage as much as it would like to. A
national project for the hydrological mapping of Nigeria will hopefully allow for more
data to be forthcoming from that country.90
Country Ownership: Satisfactory
4.8
H.
Stakeholder participation / Public awareness
Stakeholder engagement. The Project Document adequately identified the variety of
stakeholders that could be both positively or negatively affected by this project. The project
identified senior water resource and environmental officers as the principle stakeholders, but
also identified local communities and the direct water and land users and beneficiaries, and
the sub-regional and bi-lateral bodies.
The project even identified the risk to local stakeholders, communities and NGO's not being
properly involved and placed this as a medium risk which could be mitigated by information
dissemination and redesign of institutional arrangements (Table 4 Risks and mitigation
measures in GEF Project Document (GEF (2203b)).
The project was extremely successful in engaging the national ministries of Mali, Niger and
Nigeria in undertaking project activities in relation to project outputs. This was particularly
true after June 2005 when the "New Orientation" focussed on supporting country involvement
in data collection and report development, including:
Conducting national level steering and scientific committees meetings.
Research for the TDA, policy instruments, and legal mechanism.
Collection of bore-hole and water point data and information. Over 17200 water points
were collected.
The development of TDA from national perspectives, as well as from a regional
perspective (OSS, 2007a).
Development of Policy Elements for Transboundary Risk Reduction of the IAS (OSS,
2008g).
Development of a draft protocol for a consultation and management mechanism for the
IAS. (Annex 4 of OSS, 2008i).
Participatory Management of Risks document (OSS, 2008e).
Inter-governmental communications tools document (OSS, 2008d).
90 Chabo, J. (2008) Director of Nigeria Hydrological Service Agency, Ministry of Agriculture and Water.
Personal communication 18 November, 2008
Page 37 of 114

Collaboration with partners and institutions. The project did engage and collaborate with
regional and sub-regional bodies such as ABN, ECOWAS and AGRHYMET, and they were
invited to participate in Steering Committee Meetings.
Project documents such as correspondence and list of participants in meetings indicated that
OSS made reasonable attempts to include partners such as IAEA, UNESCO, FAO, as well as
regional bodies such as NBA, AGRHYMET participated in meetings.
It should be noted that in interviews with NBA personnel they expressed the opinion that
more effort could have been made on the part of OSS to keep them informed of activities in
between Steering Committee meetings. 91
It should further be noted that it appears the cooperation between the various international
partners was strained at times. OSS personnel noted that IAEA did not choose to correspond
directly with OSS, but rather preferred to deal directly with National ministries, who then
informed OSS of activities or meetings. Correspondence between the evaluator and IAEA
confirmed that IAEA "did not participate closely in this project although they had a parallel
project on isotope applications".92 Moreover, the common database was anticipated to be
developed by AGRHYMET-IAEA, but was finally, after several requests (See Section 2.2.2)
was developed by OSS. This insinuates a less than satisfactory relationship and
communication.
UNESCO was instrumental in assisting this project to come a reality and launching the
project (See Section 2.2.2). As scientific and technical advisors, UNESCO participated in the
first two Steering Committee meetings (Paris, 2004 and Abuja, 2006); however their
participation appears to have waned after 2006. This is unfortunate as the major scientific
developments and training regarding the common database and hydrogeological model were
created in 2007 and 2008.
NGOs and Local Communities. The project did not engage NGOs or local community
stakeholders, other than their identification in the Participatory Management of
Transboundary Risks document.
Public awareness activities.
Development of a website on http://iullemeden.iwlearn.org
Presentations at 4th World Water Forum in Mexico
Presentations in national water conference in Mali, Bamako, 2007.
Development of a policy to create a strategy for building public awareness (Participatory
Management of Risks document (OSS, 2008e)
Stakeholder participation: Moderately Satisfactory
91 Enoumba, H. C. (2008) Chef Division Etude de Planification, Autorité du Bassin du Niger. Personal
communication 14 November, 2008.
92 Aggarwal, P. (2008) Programme manager, Water Resources, Division of Isotope Hyrology Section, IAEA.
Personal communication Email correspondence, 18 November and 10 December, 2008
Page 38 of 114

4.9
I.
Financial Planning and Reporting
Major findings of Financial audit by KPMG Tunisie, March 31, 200893
The project received in total $US 958,000 (equivalent to 687,000 when exchanged at
different points throughout the project)
$US 80,000 was reserved for UNESCO, with the remaining $US 878,000 for project
activities under OSS.
By March 31, 2008, $US 710,000 (equivalent to 537,000) had been accounted for
leaving 53,000 remaining.
FAO contributed $30,000
Canadian Cooperation through CIDA/ACDI contributed 165,000 for funding personnel
and staff for the extension period of the project.
GTZ contributed some 12,000 for digitized mapping.
It was decided at the 3rd Steering Committee Meeting in May 2008, to use the remaining
53,000, with an additional $100,000 from UNEP, to conduct training courses for software
use; and the Regional Workshop to develop a Consultative Mechanism in June, 2008.94
Assessment of project expenses based on final reporting (Annex F)
The spreadsheet in Annex F is the Final Project Financial Reporting, and was provided by
Sandeep Bhambra in an email relayed on January 14, 2009. Variation between the actual
expenditure and the proposed expenditure is based on the revised project budget supplied by
Rafik Ziadi, Chief Financial Administrator for OSS, on December 4th, 2008 in a separate
email.
There was a large cost savings between the proposed international consultants
($52,480) and the actual international consultants ($16,971). This was due to using
international consultants from the region (Niger, Mali and Nigeria) to conduct work
such as the assessment of the Participatory Management document.
Sub-contracts were estimated to be $37,213 and actual expenditure was $35,243.
The revised training component was allocated of $335,895. The actual expenditure
was $399,399. There was more capacity building needed than was initially provided
for. Several multiple week seminars were conducted for the database and modelling
training.
About $10,000 more was spent on computer hardware and software than was
anticipated.
93 Presented at 3rd Steering Committee Meeting, Bamako, 9-10 May, 2008 (OSS (2008c). Mission Report:
Regional Steering and Scientific Committee Meetings, Bamako, 4-12, May, 2008. Sahara and Sahel Observatory,
Tunis, 14 May, 2008.
94 See page 17 Ibid.
Page 39 of 114

A large amount of $55,000 was estimated for communication and promotion of
materials, this was distributed throughout the activities and components as opposed to
having a line item for it.
The UNEP and UNESCO had a subcontract for $80,000.
$30,000 was budgeted for the terminal evaluation, and $30,676 was spent.
There appears to have been problems associated with exchange rates and the value of
the Euro versus the US Dollar during the course of the project which led to some
losses in spending power and accounting difficulties.95
Influence of financial reporting on project management
The large alteration in project implementation and budgeting following the `New
Orientation',96 in June 2005, as well as the mobilisation of activities and meetings in 2008,
suggest that financial reporting had a positive influence on project management.
Due diligence in financial reporting
Interviews with Ms. Simen, Management and Financial Coordinator, Mr Ben Saoud, Internal
Auditor for the project, and Rafik Ziadi, OSS Accountant, revealed no obvious problems with
internal financial controls once the project was entirely administered from the OSS offices in
Tunis in 2005.97 The basic financial management controls and due diligence in reporting
internal to OSS were confirmed during an interview with Ms Mariem Ennaifer, a senior
auditor with KPMG Tunisie.98
Sources of co- financing and leveraged financing
The main sources of co-financing anticipated for the project were:99
Entity
US$
Cost to the GEF Trust Fund
958,000
Co-funding
In-cash:
FAO
300,000
IAEA
350,000
Sub-total
650,000
In-kind:
IGRAC
30,000
IRD-HSM
20,000
UNESCO/IHP
60,000
UNESCO/ISARM
20,000
Sub-total
130,000
Total Cost
1,738,000
95 Ben Saoud, M. N. (2008) Internal Auditor, OSS. Personal communication 10-11November, 2008
96 OSS (2005d). New Orientation. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, June, 2005
97 Ben Saoud, M. N. (2008) Internal Auditor, OSS. Personal communication 10-11November, 2008, Silmen, Z.
B. (2008) Management and Financial Coordinator/ Administrator, OSS. Personal communication 10-11
November, 2008, Ziadi, R. (2008) Accountant, OSS. Personal communication November 12; December 5, 2008
98 Ennaifer, M. (2008) Senior Auditor, KPMG Tunisie. Personal communication 11 November, 2008
99 GEF (2003b). Project Document: Managing Hydrogeological Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer System. GEF, 12
December, 2003
Page 40 of 114

Final accounting for co-financing is given in Table 3.
Additional co-financing came in the form of: 100
1. A grant from the Canadian Cooperation fund of CIDA. The fund was not specific to the
GEF project, but rather to support OSS in general. The final amount was confirmed to be
104,466 ($140,905).
2. GTZ contributed 19,782 ($26,682).
3. ESA contributed 35,000 ($47,208).
4. In kind contributions from the governments of Mali, Niger and Nigeria, estimated at
US$169,500. (this is derived from discussions with OSS and National Focal Points, and is
based on in kind contributions of personnel and equipment etc.)
100 Figures adjusted based on email of January 14, 2009 from Rafik Ziadi
Page 41 of 114

Table 3 Co-financing Report Supplied by OSS (Cumulative to June 2008)
Co
IA own
Multi-lateral
Bi-laterals
Central
Local
Private Sector
NGOs
Other Sources*
Total
Total
financing
Financing
Agencies (Non-
Government
Government
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
Financing
(Type/
(mill US$)
GEF)
Donors (mill
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
Disbursement
US$)
(mill US$)
Source)
(mill US$)
Proposed
Actual
Proposed
Actual
Propos
Actual
Propos
Actual
Propos
Actual
Propos
Actual
Propos
Actual
Propos
Actual
Propos
Actual
Propos
Actual
ed
ed
ed
ed
ed
ed
ed
ed
Grant
958.000
958.000
650.000
Credits
Loans
Equity
In-kind
130.000
Non-grant
Instruments
Other
1.738.000
Types
TOTAL
958.000
780.000
1.738.000
Please describe "Non-grant Instruments" (such as guarantees, contingent grants, etc):
Please explain "Other Types of Co-financing":
The Government in-kind contributions are US$ 169.500
Please explain "Other Sources of Co-financing":
ACDI (Canada) : $140,905
GTZ :serveur cartographique (cf CTN°61/Abdous B11/3/2&B11/7/3/2005) $26,000
ESA (5 000 par pays (3)+20 000 pour AGRHYMET) $ 47,208
Page 42 of 114

Verification of co-financing
Indeed, verification was challenging as the funds were not channelled through either the
implementing or executing agencies. Verification of the co-financing was conducted by
interviews and assessing the actions undertaken by the various organizations and governments
involved in carrying out the project. No receipts or financial verification of co-financing was
seen.
1. FAO
The FAO undertook the project "Establishment of a mechanism for tri-partite consultation in
the management of the Iullemeden Aquifer System" for developing a mechanism for
permanent tri-partite consultation for coordinated and sustainable management of the aquifer.
FAO representatives and consultants both hosted and attended meetings, as well as provided
oversight and research through the development of briefing documents.
2. IAEA
The International Atomic Energy Agency was to initiate RAF/8/038 "Development of Water
Resources in the Iullemeden Aquifer System", which provided for establishment of a common
Iullemeden database, and (b) pilot studies using isotope technology in selected border and
other sections. The base was to be developed in conjunction with AGHRYMET, though was
not forthcoming (See Section 2.2). Interviews confirmed that isotope surveys were conducted
and reports sent to the relevant ministries, which forwarded the information to OSS.
3. IGRAC
International Groundwater Resource Assessment Centre collaborated with building
information of the Iullemeden Aquifer System into its Meta Information Module (MIM)
which is the reference corps for the Global Groundwater Information System (GGIS). This
was done in collaboration with ISARM and is mentioned in their 2007 newsletter.101 This was
for global dissemination of project data and to develop data standards for inter-compatibility
with other aquifer systems.
The OSS activity report for 2004-2005102 participation of the IGRAC at the inception meeting
in Paris 21-22 February, 2004. However, there is little to no mention of their further
involvement in project documentation. Also, a search of the MIM system
(http://www.igrac.nl/publications/124#) revealed that while the Iullemeden project is
mentioned and can be found under Niger, Mali and Nigeria, there is no additional information
associated with it in the MIM system. Where as a search under South African Development
Community project brought up 17 organisations, 13 experts, and 12 documents.
There is a Global Overview Map, however regardless of the browsing program and operating
system used, it could not be opened to check its contents.
4. IRD
Institut de Recherche pour le Dévelopment was to conduct base-line field surveys to study
recharge in identified areas (GEF Project Document, 2003). The field surveys were not
carried out, though some analysis of existing data was done.103
101 IGRAC (2007). Newsletter #3. retrieved November 28, 2008 from www.igrac.nl/publications/231
102 OSS (2006a). Activity Report (Rapport d'Activites) 2004-2005. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, January, 2006
103 Dodo, A. K. (2008) Regional Coordinator, IAS Project, OSS. Personal communication 10-12 November,
2008
Page 43 of 114

5. IHP-UNESCO
The International Hydrological Programme of UNESCO provided scientific supervision for
the project. UNESCO representatives attended workshops and meetings related to scientific
and legal issues, including the 1st and 2nd Steering Committee Meetings.
6. ISRAM
The International Shared Aquifer Resource Management programme, UNESCO, also was to
collaborate in the dissemination of data for Iullemeden on a global level, including translation
of project-produced documents, from/to other ISARM projects with project information
reported, recognized and followed up under global and regional strategies, meetings initiatives
under the ISARM programme (GEF Project Document, 2003). A search of their website
(www.isram.net) revealed presentations and papers delivered by Bo Applegren (UNESCO-
FAO consultant). However, the reference database is related to the ICRAC and their MIM,
and has no information regarding the Iullemeden Aquifer System. There is a Global
Overview Map, however regardless of the browsing program and operating system used, it
could not be opened to check its contents.
7. National Governments
The national governments of Mali, Niger and Nigeria appeared to have contributed
significantly to the success of the project in terms of time, space and activities. A significant
portion of the water point data which made up the Common Database was obtained through
collection and collation of data by ministry staff in the various countries. This made up the
bulk of the information for the system.
In terms of time spent on project related activities over the last 2-3 years, estimates range
from 3-5 days/month of time for 2-3 people from each country. Also, it should be noted that
personal expenses in terms of communication costs were also significant. Most
communication was conducted using cell phones, and National Focal Points, as well as other
ministry staff would spend up to CFA 15-20,000/ month (30-40$US/month) on project related
communication calls. This seems a reasonable estimate based on personal experience using
cell phones in the region.
In developing and overall rating, a balance was struck between fulfilling reporting
requirements and an assessment of how the project followed its projected financial trajectory.
It should be noted that significant alterations were made to the budget and programs in 2005,
and it is based on this new orientation that money administered by OSS has been assessed;
while co-financing was assessed from the initial Project Document approved by GEF in 2003.
Financial Planning and Reporting: Satisfactory
Page 44 of 114

4.10
J.
Implementation approach:
Project Implementation Mechanisms
The wealth of reporting (See Table 2) and confirmation during interviews indicate that the
project implementation mechanisms, in terms of Steering Committee, National Committees,
and regional and national Scientific Committees were well established and served to inform
the project. Committee reports outline the discussions held and the decisions made and
carried forward during the life of the project.
Adaptability
The project managers, both in OSS and UNEP, displayed a good degree of flexibility and
adaptability in the face of changes and alterations. This was evident both from the creation of
the `new orientation'104 in 2005 with significant alterations in program activities and
corresponding budget allocation, including training and placing greater emphasis on country
participation; and the project extension of 18 months allowing the activities to come to
fruition.
The 2nd Steering Committee meeting, February 2006, approved of alterations and made
further recommendations as to how to meet the project goals. Policy level management
appeared to be adaptive and creative.
The day-to-day management in the countries also appears to have been able to adapt to
changing circumstances related to project partners and project activities. This is particularly
true in the case of data collection and collation which became increasingly the responsibility
of the national ministries.
A review of Section 2.2 assists the assigning of an overall rating.
Implementation Approach: Highly Satisfactory
104 OSS (2005d). New Orientation. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, June, 2005
Page 45 of 114

4.11
K.
UNEP Supervision and Backstopping
The supervision and support by UNEP staff appears to have been effective and well received
by the executing agency, OSS, as well as by the regional stakeholders.105 OSS staff attended
meetings in Nairobi with the Fund Manager to assist in financial accounting and planning.
The UNEP showed adaptability, flexibility and understanding with respect to alterations of
project timelines, objectives and budget allocations. The project underwent a realignment
process in 2005 resulting in slightly different operations than were initially conceived and
approved of. This required appropriate budgetary alterations and an initial project extension
to September 2007, which was then further extended to June 2008.106
The only evident administrative issue adversely affecting the project was the initial placement
of the Project Coordinator in Niamey, Niger, while the executing agency, OSS, was in Tunis,
Tunisia. This was decided at the 1st Steering Committee Meeting in February, 2004.
The rational for having the Project Coordinator in Niamey was originally sound. It is in the
project region, there is access to regional institutions such as ABN AGRHYMET, and the Dr.
Dodo, being a national of Niger and having worked there, needed no integration into working
conditions.
The lack of a core project team and administrative support from OSS offices, however, seems
to have had a negative impact on the project. Once the Project Coordinator moved to the OSS
offices in Tunis in 2005, and the new project orientation developed, the project proceeded as
generally planned.107
The only issue of administration that was brought up by the stakeholders was the fact that
language was a barrier on occasions. Most of the project management and stakeholders were
Francophone and thus the original documents and most meetings were held in French.
However, it appears that every attempt was made to translate documents quickly and to help
facilitate communication at meetings, either with simultaneous translation at larger meetings,
or with participants and staff assisting at smaller meetings.108
UNEP Supervision and Backstopping: Satisfactory
105 As per interviews all National Focal Points and senior Ministry staff.
106 Ben Saoud, M. N. (2008) Internal Auditor, OSS. Personal communication 10-11November, 2008, Dodo, A.
K. (2005). Message regarding: Aquifer Recharge Study. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, 21, October, 2005
107 OSS (2005d). New Orientation. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, June, 2005
108 As per interviews.
Page 46 of 114

4.12
Conclusions and rating
Table 4 : OVERALL RATINGS TABLE
Evaluator'
Criterion
Evaluator's Summary Comments
s Rating
A.
Attainment
of
project
Overall the project attained most of
objectives and results (overall
the
objectives
in
a
fiscally
rating)
responsible manner
S
Sub criteria (below)
A. 1. Effectiveness
Effective in establishing the majority
of objectives and outputs.
S
A. 2. Relevance
Very relevant to GEF priorities,
particularly SP-3 and SP-2
HS
A. 3. Efficiency
The project delays and alterations in
partnerships may have affected the
MS
efficiency of obtaining objectives
B.
Sustainability
of
Project
The overall sustainability of the
outcomes
project objectives appears good,
though
additional
funding
and
ML
(overall rating)
facilitation will be needed to ensure
Sub criteria (below)
continuity in the short term.
B. 1. Financial
The countries have indicated their
interest to continue to develop the
project,
and
in
some
cases
ML
committed some resources to it.
B. 2. Socio Political
There are no apparent socio-political
risks to hinder the project outcomes
L
B. 3. Institutional framework A functioning temporary structure is
and governance
in place, however, an institutional
mechanism will be needed to sustain
ML
project objectives
B. 4. Environmental
The major environmental risks were
identified and are being addressed
ML
by the project itself.
C. Achievement of outputs and
The intended outputs were generally
activities
well achieved
S
D. Catalytic Role
The project has a catalytic role both
regionally and nationally.
S
E. Monitoring and Evaluation
The overall M&E was well done.
S
(overall rating)
Page 47 of 114

Evaluator'
Criterion
Evaluator's Summary Comments
s Rating
Sub criteria (below)
E. 1. M&E Design
The design and funding for the
M&E was consistent with GEF
S
criteria
E. 2. M&E Plan Implementation The reporting allowed for adaptive
(use for adaptive management)
management of the project
S
E. 3. Budgeting and Funding for There was sufficient money for
M&E activities
M&E activities.
HS
F. Preparation and readiness
The
alterations
in
project
partnerships, activities, and budget
lines in 2005 suggests that the
MS
project could have had better upfront
design
G.
Country
ownership
/
The countries have indicated and
drivenness
demonstrated
a
willingness
to
S
continue the implementation
H. Stakeholders involvement
The project focuses on ministry
level staff and was successful in
their engagement. No local or NGO
MS
was
involved,
though
it
was
anticipated to do so at the onset.
I. Financial planning
The project remained within the
budget,
though
there
were
differences between planned and
S
actual budgets.
J. Implementation approach
The project management, OSS and
UNEP, were very adaptive at
HS
dealing with new situations.
K.
UNEP
Supervision
and The support given to the project
backstopping
from
the
UNEP
was
clearly
S
adequate.
Page 48 of 114

5.
Lessons learned
1. Project Team Design
Context: The Project Coordinator was initially in a different country than the rest of the
executing agency team. This did not allow for sufficient connection and communication
between the project team which was essential. Once he was moved to OSS offices and
able to work in close coordination with other technical specialists and administrative staff
the project activities advanced well.
Prescriptive Action: Ensure a sufficiently robust and functioning project team, which has
a highly developed line of communication, particularly if members are not in the same
institution. For instance instigate regular conference calls, as opposed to an as needed
basis.
Other contexts: All projects.
2. Use of Scientific Work to Drive Political Framework
Context: The project focussed on developing a solid technical understanding of the
aquifers through the development of a common database and numerical model. This then
drove the institutional, political and social agendas. It was instrumental in developing
awareness and support at the political level. So while it did not achieve all its objectives in
legal and social realms, it provided a very solid foundation to do so in the future.
Prescriptive action: Emphasise a solid and easily communicated understanding of the
technical aspects of the resources in question to facilitate legal or policy development.
Other contexts: All projects where political and social awareness needs to be built.
3. Emphasize a functional legal mechanisms
Context: One of the objectives of the project was to develop a formal legal mechanism for
consultation which was agreed and signed by the countries. This proved to be beyond the
ability of the project, though great advancement was made in that direction. Nevertheless,
a functional mechanism exists and is being used while talks may continue regarding a
formal mechanism.
Prescriptive action: Emphasise the development of functional mechanisms which should
be established, such as MOUs between institutions or agencies. These can evolve and later
formalised into agreements at the State level.
Other contexts: Any project where legal development is concerned.
Page 49 of 114

6.
Recommendations
As the project has been terminated these recommendations are regarding future work in the
short and medium terms.
1. Develop the legal and institutional mechanisms (arrangements) necessary to continue to
develop cooperative management of the water resources in the basin.
Issue: The legal and institutional mechanism for consultation has not been reached. A
draft protocol for consultation and the sustainable management of the IAS has been
developed, however, issues remain regarding some substantive elements as well as
determining a regional institution in which to house the agreement.
Recommendation: Place emphasis on maintaining the political momentum which has
developed during this project. Keep the agreement focussed on the three countries
currently engaged, Mali, Niger and Nigeria, at least for the time being. This activity could
be a smaller stand alone project, or part of a larger regional initiative. However, the
important point is not to let it be driven, or slowed, by another process.
The first step will be to agree upon a suitable regional institution. It is suggested to use a
structured approach to determining the most viable mechanism
(http://www.structureddecisionmaking.org). Clear criteria should be determined for the
selection and agreed upon by all stakeholders, such as
Appropriate mandate, experience and influence
Capacity and capability
Ability to raise funds and sustain a secretariat and activities.
Financial accountability
Transparency
Alternatives such as ABN or ECOWAS, or develop a new institution should be evaluated
systematically as pre the evaluation criteria, this assists transparency in decision making.
This activity should be facilitated by an independent non-regional entity or by one of the
organizations which has already proven themselves in the project, such as UNEP or FAO.
2. Continue to refine the database and model
Issue: The model and database currently do not provide sufficient rigour to be used with
confidence as a policy development tool. This was made clear in both interviews and
documentation. It is however a powerful communication tool and can be refined to
provide greater confidence for policy development.
Recommendation: Place emphasis over the next 3-4 years on supporting the national
ministries to conduct appropriate fieldwork to refine the database. Studies should also
address and clarify interaction between surface water (such as the Niger River) and
groundwater.
UNEP, UNDP or UNESCO should consider actively helping the ministries to find
specific funding for field activities. The risk is that the database and model remain an
Page 50 of 114

excellent first cut, but are not sufficiently refined to help drive political action on
addressing transboundary risks.
3. Maintain inertia and develop an SAP for the basin
Issue: The project did not develop a Strategic Action Plan to help leverage funding and
investment to address the identified risks.
Recommendation: Mobilize funding to develop an SAP for the basin to allow for financial
backing for policy recommendations to be implemented. The appropriate agency would be
a GEF related institution.
4. At the appropriate time expand the project to include other Algeria and Benin.
Issue: Algeria and Benin are part of the Iullemeden basin, though not on the same scale as
Mali, Niger and Nigeria. Algeria has been participating as an observer to some of the
Steering Committee meetings.
Recommendation: When there is sufficient momentum from the three primary countries,
Mali, Niger and Nigeria, formally invite the participation on Algeria and Benin. To invite
them to participate too early might stall or delay the advancement of the three initial
countries.
Page 51 of 114

7.
Annex A List of Interviewees
Person
Position
Contact
Day
Tunisia (November 9-12)
Tél : (216) 71206633
Dr. Abdel Kader Dodo
Regional Coordinator
Cel : 216-20 63 12 94
10-
Sahara and Sahel Observatory OSS
abdelkader.dodo@oss.org.tn
12
Scientific Advisor, Water Program,
Tel: (216) 71 206 6633
10-
Dr. Ahmed Mamou
Sahara and Sahel Observatory OSS
ahmed.mamou@oss.org.tn
12
Dr. Mohamedou Ould
Database and modelling Hydrologist,
GIS specialist, Sahara and Sahel
Tel: (216) 71 206 6633
10-
Baba Sy
Observatory OSS
Em: lamine.babasy@oss.org.tn
12
tel: 216-71-19-43-44EM:
Mariem Ennaifer
Senior Auditor, KPMG Tunisie
12
mennaifer@kpmg.com.tn
Mohamed Néjib Ben
Internal Auditor, Sahara and Sahel
Tel: (216) 71 206 6633
11
Saoud,
Observatory
Administrative Coordinator
Tel: (216) 71 206 6633
11
Niger (November 13-17)
Mr Sanoussi Rabé
National Focal Point
Tel: (227) 20 72 38 89
13-
Hydrologist, Ministère de
Em: rsanoussi2001@yahoo.fr
14
l'Hydrologique.
Secretary General of Water
Cel: (227) 96 15 79 10
Mr. Issoufuo Issaka
Resources, Ministère de
14
issakissouf@yahoo.fr
l'Hydrologique
Notional Coord Committee
Tel: (227) 20 72 38 89
Dr. Abdou Guero
Director of Water Resources,
Cel: (227) 96 99 46 10
13
Ministère de l'Hydrologique
Em: abdou.guero@gmail.com
Hydrologist, Centre Régional
Tel : (277) 20 733116
Dr. Pibgnina Bbazie
AGRHYMET
14
Em: P.Bazie@agrhymet.ne
GIS Technician, Centre Régional
Tel: (277) 20 733116
Alio Agolimo
14
AGRHYMET
Em: A.Agolimo@agrhymet.ne
Dr. Henri Claude
Chef Division Etude de Planification,
Tel. 227--96 57 90 32
14
Enoumba
Autorité du Bassin du Niger
Em: hcenoumba@abn.ne
Expert en ressources en Eau, Autorité
227--20 31 52 39
Didier Zinsou
14
du Bassin du Niger
Em: dzinsou@abn.ne
Hydraulicien, Autorité du Bassin du
Pascal Kabore
Kapayroes@abn.ne
14
Niger
Ingénieur Hydraulicien y
Abdoulaye Doumbia
Modélisation , Autorité du Bassin du
227--20 31 52 39
14
Niger/
Environmental Advisor for Niger
Pierrick Fraval
Em: p.fraval@abn.na
14
Basin Authority
Consultant spécialiste des ressources
Tel. (227) 877523
Atahirou Karbo
en eau/National water resources
14
Em: atahiroukarbo@yahoo.fr
consultant -Niger
+227-20723889
Kaïgama Kiari Noudjia
Direction de la Législation, Ministère
Cel : +227-96595571
17
de l'Hydraulique, Niamey, Niger
Em: jurisconsultekiari@yahoo.fr
National Scientific Committee
Tel: (227) 96 96 77 52
Mr. Garba Radji
Dept. Of Water Resources, Ministère
14
garbaradji@yahoo.fr
de l'Hydrologique, Niger
Page 52 of 114

Nigeria (November 17-19)
National Focal Point
Tel: (+234)-80-60019525
Hydrological Services Agency,
Mr. John Chabo
Fax (tel): (+234) 9 234 3714
18
Ministry of Agriculture and Water
Em: johnchabo@yahoo.com
Resources
Hydrologist
Cel: 08059692328
Hydrological Services Agency,
Patrick Oburo
poburo@yahoo.com
18
Ministry of Agriculture and Water
Resources
Hydrological Services Agency,
Tel: +234 09 2342520
Sunday Hussani
Ministry of Agriculture and Water
18
hussainisunday@yahoo.co.uk
Resources
Hydrological Services Agency,
cel: 08037022484
Chris Maduabuchi
Ministry of Agriculture and Water
18
maduchristo@yahoo.com
Resources
Database and modelling
Hydrogeologist
Babarinde Mukaile
Hydrological Services Agency,
babarinadesm@yahoo.com
19
Ministry of Agriculture and Water
Resources
Mali (November 20-22)
National Focal Point
Séïdou Maïga
Ministère des Mines, de l'Energie et
Cel: (+223) 672 68 79
20-
de l'Eau; Directrice Nationale de
sdmaiga@yahoo.fr
21
l'Hydraulique
Amadou Zanga Traore
Scientific Committee
Cel: (+233) 20 22 75 65
Director of UFAE, Professor at Ecole
21
Amadou.z.traore@ufae.org
National des Ingénieurs, Mali
Scientific Committee
Cel: (+233) 678 29 26
Karaba Traoré
Hydraulic engineer, Ministère des
karabatratore@hotmail.com
21
Mines, de l'Energie et de l'Eau;
Directrice Nationale de l'Hydraulique
Database and modelling
Tel: (+233) 7616 2546
Damassa Bouare
Administrateur base SIGMA
bouaredamassa@yahoo.fr
21
Centre de Documentation et
d'informatique de la DNH
National Steering Committee
Cel: (+233) 672 28 48
Housseini Amadou
Président Partenariat National de
housseiniamaiga@yahoo.fr
21
Maïga
l'Eau du Mali,
pnemail@afribonemali.net
National Focal Point for ABN
National Steering Committee
Senior Technical Council to the
Tel: (+233) 22 78 51
Mohammed Keïta
Minister, Ministère des Mines, de
21
modoukeital@yahoo.fr
l'Energie et de l'Eau; Directrice
Nationale de l'Hydraulique
International
Bo Appelgren
UNESCO/IHP -ISARM Programme
+Tel(39) 0761 797112
8
Em: appelgrenbo@gmail.com
Stefano Burchi
Senior Legal Officer
Tel : 0039 06 57053959
5
Development Law Service
Em : stefano.burchi@fao.org
FAO
Page 53 of 114

8.
Annex B: References, Documents Reviewed and Personal
Communications.
Personal Communication
Aggarwal, P. (2008) Programme manager, Water Resources, Division of Isotope Hyrology
Section, IAEA. Personal communication Email correspondence, 18 November and 10
December, 2008.
Ben Saoud, M. N. (2008) Internal Auditor, OSS. Personal communication 10-11November,
2008
Bouare, D. (2008) Database and modelling Expert for IAS Administrateur base SIGMA
Centre de Documentation et d'informatique de la DNH, Mali. Personal communication 21
November, 2008
Burchi, S. (2008) Senior Legal Officer, Development Law Service, FAO. Personal
communication 5 November, 2008
Chabo, J. (2008) Director of Nigeria Hydrological Service Agency, Ministry of Agriculture
and Water. Personal communication 18 November, 2008
DGEF (2009) Comments on Draft Report of TE submitted December 2008. UNEP Task
Manager comments as received by email on January 14, 2009.
Dodo, A. K. (2005). Message regarding: Aquifer Recharge Study. Sahara and Sahel
Observatory, 21, October, 2005. Viewed in OSS offices.
Dodo, A. K. (2008) Regional Coordinator, IAS Project, OSS. Personal communication 10-12
November, 2008
Ennaifer, M. (2008) Senior Auditor, KPMG Tunisie. Personal communication 11 November,
2008
Enoumba, H. C. (2008) Chef Division Etude de Planification, Autorité du Bassin du Niger.
Personal communication 14 November, 2008
Guero, A. (2008) Directeur de Ressources en Eau, Ministere de l'Hydrologique, Niger.
Personal communication 13 November, 2008
Issaka, I. (2008) General Secretary, Ministère de l'Hydrologique, Niger. Personal
communication 14 November
Keïta, M. (2008) Senior Technical Council to the Minister, Ministère des Mines, de l'Energie
et de l'Eau. Personal communication 21 November, 2008
Kiari, K. N. (2008) Director de la Législation, Ministère de l'Hydraulique, Niamey, Niger.
Personal communication 17 Novmber, 2008
Maïga, S. (2008) National Focal Point Ministère des Mines, de l'Energie et de l'Eau;
Directrice Nationale de l'Hydraulique. Personal communication 20-22 November, 2008
Mukaile, B. (2008) GIS and Modelling Expert for IAS, Hydrological Services Agency,
Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources, Nigeria. Personal communication 19
November, 2008
Nakamura, T. (2008) UNEP/GEF International Waters SPO. Personal communication 27
November, 2008
Page 54 of 114

Ould Baba Sy, M. (2008) Hydrogeologist and modeller, IAS Project, OSS. Personal
communication 10-12 November
Rabé, S. (2008) National Focal Point, Divison Chief for Pollution and Water Quality,
Ministère de l'Hydrologique, Niger. Personal communication 13 November, 2008
Silmen, Z. B. (2008) Management and Financial Coordinator/ Administrator, OSS. Personal
communication 10-11 November, 2008
Traore, A. Z. (2008) Director of UFAE, Professor at Ecole National des Ingénieurs, Mali.
Personal communication 21 November, 2008
Traoré, K. (2008) Project Director, Rual Water, Ministère des Mines, de l'Energie et de l'Eau;
Directrice Nationale de l'Hydraulique, Mali. Personal communication 22 November, 2008.
Ziadi, R. (2008) Accountant, OSS. Personal communication November 12; December 5, 2008
Project Documentation and Reports
ABN (2007). Elaboration du Modele de Gestion du Bassin du Niger. Autorite du Bassin du
Niger, Niamey, September 2007
ABN (2008). La Charte de l'Eau du Bassin du Niger. Niamey, 30 April, 2008
ETH (2004). Letter from ETH regarding funding for modelling and capacity development.
Eidgenössiche Technische Hochschule Zürich, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich,
Zurich, 1 January, 2004
FAO (2005). Preliminary Proposals for a Consultative Mechanism for the IAS,
TCP/RAF/3001. By Marcella Nanni, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization,
Rome, August, 2005
FAO (2006). Discussion Document: Mise en place d'un mécanisme tripartite de concertation
pour la gestion du Système aquifère d'Iullemeden (SAI) (A Tripartite Consultation
Mechanism for Management of the IAS), TCP/RAF/3001, Rome, 19-20 October, 2006. United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, September, 2006
GEF (2003a). Project Brief: Managing Hydrological Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer System,
March 2003. retrieved 10 November, 2008 from http://www.gefweb.org/Documents/Medium-
Sized_Project_Proposals/MSP_Proposals/Regional_-_Iullemeden_Aquifer_System.pdf
GEF (2003b). Project Document: Managing Hydrogeological Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer
System. GEF, 12 December, 2003
IGRAC (2007). Newsletter #3. retrieved November 28, 2008 from
www.igrac.nl/publications/231
Mali MME (2007). Letter to FAO requesting support for continued assistance to develop a
consultative mechanism. Le Ministre des Mines de l'Energie et de l'Eau du Mali, 28 March,
2007
Nigerian MWR (2007). Letter to FAO requesting assistance for a Consultative Mechanism
for IAS. Federal Ministry of Water Resources, Nigeria, 9 March, 2007
Okuofu, C. A. (2006). National Expert Report: Analysis of Transboundary Risks and Impacts
in the IAS, delivered at National TDA Workshop, Abuja, 18-20th December, 2006. Ahmadu
Bello University, Zaria, December 2006
Page 55 of 114

OSS (2005a). Letter to AGRHYMET requesting information for a common database. Sahara
and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 25 July, 2005
OSS (2005b). Mission Report: Tirpartite Consultation Mechanism, Niamey,11-15 February,
2005. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Niamey, (no submission date)
OSS (2005c). Mission Report: Tripartite Consultation Mechanism, Abuja, Nigeria, 22-24
March, 2005. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, (No Date Submitted)
OSS (2005d). Mission Report: Tripartite Consultation Mechanism, Mali, 14-17 February,
2005. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, (no submission date)
OSS (2005e). New Orientation. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, June, 2005
OSS (2005f). Progress Report of Iullemeden Aquifer System. Observatory for the Sahara and
Sahal, Tunis, April 15, 2005
OSS (2005g). Regional Workshop Report: Development of Tripartite Consultation
Mechanism for the IAS, Niamey, 29 June-1 July. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Niamey,
(Date submitted?)
OSS (2006a). 2nd Letter to AGRHYMET requesting information for a common database.
Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 8 November, 2006
OSS (2006b). Activity Report (Rapport d'Activites) 2004-2005. Sahara and Sahel Observatory,
January, 2006
OSS (2006c). Annual Project Performance Results Template 2006. GEF,
OSS (2006d). National Workshop Report: TDA and Consultation Mechanism on the
GEF/UNEP 'Managing Transboundary Hydrological Risks in the IAS, Abuja 6-8 February,
2006. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, February, 2006
OSS (2006e). National Workshop Report: Development of TDA and Consultation Mechanism,
Niamey, 14-15 February, 2006. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 15 February, 2008
OSS (2006f). National Workshop: Increased Development of a TDA and Consultative
Mechanism, Abuja, 18-20 December, 2006. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 29
December, 2006
OSS (2006g). PIR (1 July, 2005-30 june, 2006). Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, June,
2006
OSS (2006h). Regional Workshop: Training for Capacity Building for Mathematical
Modelling of IAS, Tunis, 29 November-8 December, 2006. Sahara and Sahel Observatory,
Tunis, 11 December, 2006
OSS (2006i). Regional Workshop: Training for Capacity Building for Mathematical
Modelling, Tunis, 18-29 April, 2006. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 29 April, 2006
OSS (2006j). Steering Committee Report: Meeting of the Steering Committee of the
GEF/UNEP Assisted Project `Managing Hydrological Risks in the Iullemeden Aquifer
System' of Mali, Niger and Nigeria; Abuja, 25-26 February, 2006. Abuja, February, 2006
OSS (2007a). Analyse Diagnostique Transfronalière du Sistème Aquifère d'Iullemeden.
l'Observatoire du Sahara et du Sahal, Tunis, March, 2007
OSS (2007b). A Common Database of the Iullemeden Aquifer System (Bases de Données
Commun du Sistème Aquifère de l'Iullumeden). Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis,
December, 2007
Page 56 of 114

OSS (2007c). Hydrogeological Model of the Iullemeden Aquifer System. Sahara and Sahel
Observatory, Tunis, December, 2007
OSS (2007d). PIR (1 July, 2006-30 June, 2007). Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, June,
2007
OSS (2007e). Progress Report: 1 January - 30 June, 2007. June, 2007
OSS (2007f). Progress Report: 1 July - 31 December, 2007.
OSS (2007g). Monitoring tranboundary aquifers: Guidlines. Observatoir du Sahara et du
Sahel, December, 2007.
OSS (2008a). Integrated Management of the Water Resources of the Iullemeden Aquifer
Systems, the Taoudeni and River Niger: Identification Document of the Project. Sahara and
Sahel Observatory, Tunis, April, 2008
OSS (2008b). Mission Report: Final Project Meetings with UNEP, and initial discussions for
Phase II, Nairobi, 18-25 May, 2008. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 24 May, 2008
OSS (2008c). Mission Report: Regional Steering and Scientific Committee Meetings,
Bamako, 4-12, May, 2008. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 14 May, 2008
OSS (2008d). Outils de Communication entre les Pays du Système Aquifère d'Iullemeden SAI
(Communication Tools between Countries of Iullemeden Aquifer System). Sahara and Sahel
Observatory, Tunis, April, 2008
OSS (2008e). Participatory Management of Transboundary Risks. Managing Hydrological
Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer System, Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, April, 2008
OSS (2008f). PIR (1 July, 2007-30 june, 2008). Sahara and Sahel Observatoy, Tunis, June,
2008
OSS (2008g). Policy elements for transboundary risks reduction of the Iullemeden Aquifer
System (IAS). Managing Hydrological Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer System, Sahara and
Sahel Observatory, March, 2008
OSS (2008h). Progress Report: 1 January-30 June, 2008. June, 2008
OSS (2008i). Regional Workshop Report - Atelier régional sur le Mécanisme de concertation
du Système Aquifère d'Iullemeden (SAI), (Workshop on a Regional Consultation Mechanisim
for IAS), Tunis, 23-26 June, 2008. Sahara and Sahel Obervatory, 26 June, 2008
OSS (2008j). Regional Workshop Report: la gestion participative des risques transfrontaliers
du SAI (Participative management of transboundary risks in IAS), Tunis, 28-29 March, 2008.
Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 2 March, 2008
OSS (2008k). Regional Workshop Report: Policy Elements for the Reduction of
Tranboundary Risks in the IAS, Tunis, 24-28 March, 2008. Sahara and Sahel Observatory,
Tunis, 2 March, 2008
OSS (2008l). Regional Workshop Report: Validation of the TDA for IAS, Niamey, Niger, 6-7
February, 2008. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 13 February, 2008
OSS (2008m). Regional Workshop: Monitoring Transboundary Aquifers of the IAS, Niamey,
8-9 February, 2008. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 13 February, 2008
OSS (2008n). Regional Workshop: Training of Trainers for Database, GIS and Model, Tunis
18-27 June, 2008. Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 12 July, 2008
Page 57 of 114

OSS (2008o). Scientific Report: Management of the Hydrological Risks of the IAS. Sahara
and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, March, 2008
OSS (2008p). Terminal Report of the Managing Hydrogeological Risks in the Iullemeden
Aquifer System (IAS). Sahara and Sahel Observatory, June 2008
OSS (2008q). Terminal Report: Managing Hydrological Risks in the IAS. Sahara and Sahel
Observatory, Tunis, 2008
OSS (2008r). Workshop Report: Communication Tools between Countries, 12-14 March.
Sahara and Sahel Observatory, Tunis, 2 March, 2008
UNESCO (2006). Scientific Supervision, Diagnostic Supervision Report. UNESCO,
February, 2006
UNESCO (2008). DRAFT: Appraisal of GEF-IW MSP Managing Hydrogeological Risk in
the Iullemeden Aduifer System (IAS). UNESCO, October, 2008
Page 58 of 114

9.
Annex C : Interview Questionnaire
Terminal Evaluation of the UNEP GEF project
"Managing Hydrogeological Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer System"
Questionnaire 1
A Effectiveness, Relevance, Efficiency
Has the project been effective in developing technical capacity and cooperation within the basin
for joint management of risks?
If nothing more is done, will the project achieve positive long term impacts for the region (5-10
years)?
Where the project's outcomes consistent with GEF priorities?
Was the project cost effective?
Was the project implementation delayed , and did that have an effect on cost effectiveness?
Did the project build on earlier initiatives, make use of scientific information and data?
B Sustainability
What is the likelihood that financial and economic resources will be available once GEF
Assistance stops
To what extent will the outcomes of the project be dependent upon continued financial support?
Are there any social or political risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project
outcomes?
Page 59 of 114

What is the risk that the level of stakeholder ownership will be insufficient to allow the
project outcomes to be sustained?
Do the various key stakeholders see that it is in their interest that the project benefits
continue to flow?
Is there sufficient public / stakeholder awareness in support of the long-term objectives of
the project?
To what extent is the sustenance of the outcomes of the project dependent on issues
relating to institutional frameworks and governance?
What is the likelihood that institutional and technical achievements, legal frameworks,
policies and governance structures and processes will allow for, the project
outcomes/benefits to be sustained?
Are the required systems for accountability and transparency and the required technical
expertise in place to continue.
Are there any environmental risks that can undermine the future flow of project
environmental benefits?
Are there any activities in the project area that will pose a threat to the sustainability of
the project outcomes?
C.
Achievement of outputs and activities:
Where all expected outputs of the project delivered as programmed?
Where all expected outputs of the project delivered useful and on time?
Page 60 of 114

D.
Catalytic Role
What examples are there of other areas, in Africa or elsewhere, that are building on the lessons
and experiences of this project?
Are there examples of the lessons and experiences learned in this project being advanced and
expanded on by other funding sources?
E.
Assessment of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems
What was the effectiveness of monitoring and evaluation tools?
Where risks adequately addressed
M&E design - was it well designed
Implementation
Budgeting and funding? Adequate and timely?
F.
Preparation and Readiness
Were the project's objectives and components clear, practicable and feasible within its
timeframe?
Were the capacities of executing institution and counterparts properly considered when
the project was designed?
Page 61 of 114

Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated in the project design?
Were the partnership arrangements properly identified and the roles and responsibilities
negotiated prior to project implementation?
Were counterpart resources (funding, staff, and facilities), enabling legislation, and
adequate project management arrangements in place?
G.
Country ownership
Was the project effective in catalyzing action taken by the authorities in the countries
that received assistance from the project?
What actions ?
What is the level of country commitment to facilitating financial and in-kind
contributions to the project?
H.
Stakeholder participation / public awareness:
Where the mechanisms put in place by the project for identification and engagement of
stakeholders in each participating country successful?
Strengths and weaknesses
Were collaboration/interactions between the various project partners and institutions
during the course of implementation of the project effective?
Were public awareness activities undertaken during the course of implementation of the
project effective?
I.
Financial Planning
Page 62 of 114

Assess the strength and utility of financial controls, including reporting, and planning to
allow the project management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and
allow for a proper and timely flow of funds for the payment of satisfactory project
deliverables
Actual project costs compared to budget
Present major findings from financial audit
Sources of cofinancing - verification
Appropriate standards of diligence.
Final and actual costs -
J. Implementation approach:
analysis of the project's management framework, adaptation to changing conditions
(adaptive management), partnerships in implementation arrangements, changes in project
design, and overall project management. The evaluation will
Have project documentation been followed, committees etc...
Including: effectiveness and efficiency and adaptability of project management day to
day as well.
K.
UNEP Supervision and Backstopping
Assess the effectiveness of supervision and administrative and financial support provided
by UNEP/DGEF.
Identify administrative, operational and/or technical problems and constraints that
influenced the effective implementation of the project.
Page 63 of 114

10.
Annex D : Examples of Letters of Support
Page 64 of 114

Page 65 of 114

Page 66 of 114

Page 67 of 114

11.
Annex E: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
Table 2: A summary of expected outputs and their delivery (GEF Project Document
GEF, 2003b)
Component
Expected outputs
Expected timing of
Expected timing of
draft submission to
finalisation and publication
UNEP
1: Identification of transboundary risk
1.1
Minutes of the inter-ministerial
-
Two weeks later than the
committee meetings, and country input
meetings
1.1
Approved TDA
July 2004 (before
October 2004
the final workshop)
1.1
Report of the final TDA workshop
-
September 2004
1.2
Computer models with operational
May 2006
August 2006
guidelines
1.2
Reports of training on the models
May 2006
August 2006
1.3
Report of the field surveys and
January 2005
April 2005
institutional set-ups and training
1.4 (a)
Data table contained in the database and
January 2005
April 2005
reports of training
1.4 (b)
Reports of the isotope studies
May 2006
August 2006
1.4 (b)
Reports of the pilot area studies
May 2006
August 2006
Component 2:
2.1
Reports of the Policy development
-
Two weeks after the meetings
committees
2.1
IAH policy and strategy
June 2005 (before
September 2005
the final meting)
2.2
Policy options assessment report
December 2004
February 2005
2.2
Reports of the review committee
-
Two weeks after the meetings
2.2
Adopted legal agreement
March 2006 (before
June 2006
the final inter-
governmental
meeting)
2.2
Report of the final inter-governmental
-
May 2006
meeting
2.3
Proposal for IAH monitoring system
December 2005
February 2006
Page 68 of 114

2.3
Report of the pilot monitoring activities
December 2005
February 2006
Component 3:
3.1a
Reports of stakeholder consultation
-
Two weeks after the meetings
meetings
3.1a
Awareness raising materials
January 2005
February 2004
3.1b
Stakeholder assessment report
February 2006
April 2006
3.2
Report of training session on inter-
September 2005
November 2005
governmental communication tools
Component 4:
4.1
Report of mid-term review
December 2004
February 2005
4.1
Report of the terminal evaluation
August 2006
September 2006
4.2a
Report of ISARM reference information
July 2006
September 2006
4.2b
Report of the strengthening of aquifer
July 2006
September 2006
knowledge community
4.3
Report of data provision to global
April 2006
May 2006
database
Component 5:
5.1
PSC meeting reports
-
Two weeks after the meetings
5.2
Scientific Coordinating Committee
-
Two weeks after the meetings
meeting reports
Page 69 of 114

12.
Annex F: Log Frame Matrix showing indicators.
A
109
NNEX 25: LOGFRAME MATRIX
(GEF, 2003b)
Development/
Key indicators of impact
Baseline (at the onset of
Final Target (Year 3)
Means of verification/Data
Risks and assumptions
Immediate
(objectives) and successful
the project and
and other targets during collection Strategy
Objectives
completion (outputs, end of
projections without
the implementation
year of completion)
GEF)
Overall Objective
Process Indicators (PIs)110
PIs
PIs
PIs
Establish capacity
1. Completion of a country
1. In-country assessment, 1. Yr. 2: A TDA prepared 1. A draft TDA reviewed by
under a sustainable
endorsed Transboundary
but no analysis of
and adopted by
UNESCO and UNEP, and a
- Participating Governments may
cooperative
Diagnostic Analysis,
transboundary risks and
participating
published TDA (OSS);
change their priorities, and/or may find
framework for joint
identifying transboundary
issues;
Governments;
2. Verified by reports of the
other more attractive water sources to
management of risk
concerns, risk and
2. None.
2. Yr. 1: Steering
Steering Committee meetings meet their water demand.
and uncertainty, to
uncertainty;
3. In-country monitoring
Committee established
(OSS);
jointly identify,
2. Formulation of a Steering
mechanism existing, but
and functional.
3. Verified by reports of the
reduce and mitigate
Committee, by governments not on an IAS scale;
3. Yr. 3: An IAS-wide
Steering Committee meetings
transboundary risk
and supporting
4. In-country water
monitoring mechanism in (OSS);
from changing land
organisations;
administration, but not on place with databases and
4. Verified by reports by
- Participating Governments may find
and water use and
3. Establishment of a joint
an IAS scale;
models; personnel
Steering Committee Meeting the negotiation of policy setting and
from climate change
basin-wide risk
5. In the West Africa
trained.
reports;
legislation too lengthy.
in the shared
identification and
IWRN Action Plan
4. Yr. 1: a Tripartite
5. Verified in reports by FAO
Iullemeden Aquifer
groundwater monitoring
encourages, but none.
policy development
to the Steering Committee
System.
mechanism;
committee established;
(FAO and OSS).
Immediate
4. Establishment of a tripartite
5. Yr. 2: An
Objective 1
policy development
intergovernmental review
- Participating Governments may
109 This annex of revised logframe matrix has been prepared based on the recommendations of the GEF Council for setting measurable and outcome-oriented indicators. The
Annex is, however, subject to further discussion and agreement by the Steering Committee at its first meeting.
110 The indicators for the overall objective of the project are classified into: Process Indicators (PIs), Stress Reduction Indicators (SRIs) and Environmental Status Indicators
(ESIs), as defined in A. Duda: Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators for GEF International Waters Projects.
111 Water index, comprising of a set of weighted parameters, will be designed as part of the monitoring mechanism and will be agreed at an early stage of the project.
Page 70 of 114

Establish joint
committee;
mechanism developed
consider the risks and issues too large
mechanisms and
5. Establishment of an inter-
and in place.
to consider investments.
capacity to identify
governmental mechanism to
risk and
develop a joint legal and
uncertainty issues
institutional IAS cooperative
SRIs
in the IAS related
framework;
1a. Yr. 2:Three Inter-
to land use change
6. Establishment of a result
SRIs
aquifer areas identified;
in recharge areas
dissemination mechanism
1b. Yr.2: At least five
and humid zones;
through ISARM and
1. None identified and
transboundary risks
climate change with
IGRAC.
agreed;
identified based on
SRIs:
reduced net
2. ETH model existing,
scientific analysis;
precipitation; and
Stress Reduction Indicators
but none trained;
2. Yr. 3: Three trained
1a. Verified in the Steering
inappropriate
(SRIs)
3. National land use
(one from each of the
Committee meeting reports
development,
policies existing.
participating countries);
(OSS);
extraction and
1. Number of transboundary
4. None existing.
3. Yr. 3: Proof of change
1b. Verified in TDA (OSS);
surface based water
hydrogeological risks
5. No extensive
in land use policies in
2. Verified in ETH report to
pollution and
identified through risk
programme existing; and
three countries;
the Steering Committee
salinisation.
identification database and
6. No programme for the
4. Yr. 3: a regional
(ETH, IRD, OSS);
Immediate
TDA;
IAS.
climate change adaptation 3. Verified in the
Objective 2:
2. Number of hydrogeological
policy on IAS;
government documents or
Establish
models developed and
5. Yr. 3: Public aware
legal notice issued by the
mechanisms to
personnel trained;
programme fully
governments (three
formulate policies
3. Proof of land use policies
implemented;
governments);
for management of
modified and implemented
6. Yr. 3: At least two
4. Verified in reports of the
identified risk and
for the recharge areas and
intergovernmental
Steering Committee reports;
uncertainty issues
humid zones;
communication tools in
5. Verified in the report of
4. Number of climate change
place;
the Steering Committee
Immediate
adaptation policies adopted
7. Yr. 3: a replication
meeting in terms of the
Objective 3:
and implemented;
strategy in place.
number of stakeholders
5. Public awareness
involved in the public
Establish a legal
programme implemented;
awareness programme;
and institutional
6. Inter-governmental
6. Verified in the reports of
IAS cooperative
communication programme
the Steering Committee
framework
implemented; and
meetings;
7. Replication plan prepared
7. Verified through a
and implemented through
Steering Committee meeting
Global GW database.
report.
Page 71 of 114

Environmental Status Indicators
ESIs
ESIs
ESIs
(ESIs)
1. Area of salinisation within
1.. xxxx ha in 2003 and
1. Yr. 3: Xxxx ha; and
1. Monitoring and field
the IAS
xxx ha in 2006 without
Yr.7: xxx ha;
survey results to be
2. A index111 indicating
GEF;
2. Yr. 3: xxxxx; Yr. 7:
employed for the indicator.
groundwater recharge and
2. xxxx in 2003 and xxxx
xxxx
Initial baseline is set with
quality around selected
in 2006;
3. Yr. 3: xxx extraction
preliminary data available,
recharge areas and humid
3. Extraction xxxxx and
and yyyy quality in
and will be modified after
zones; and
quality yyyyy in location
zzzz1; and xxxx
initial collection of data;
3. Sustainable water extraction
zzzzz in 2003; and
extraction and yyyy
2. Data to be obtained
and quality objectives in
extraction xxxxx and
quality in zzzz2.
through the field survey and
selected areas.
quality yyyyy in location
monitoring established in
zzzzz2 in 2003.
Components 1 and 2;
3. The objectives will be set
in Component 2, and to be
monitored in monitoring
mechanism.
Component 1:
1. Establishment of an inter-
1. None existing;
1. Yr.1: three inter-
1. Verified in each country's
- Delays may be caused for
Identification of
ministerial TDA committee in
ministerial TDA
report to the Steering
organisation of inter-ministerial
Transboundary
each country, which prepared
committees established
Committee on the list of
committees;
Risk
country information and input;
and operational
members and the meeting
2. Yr. 2: One TDA
minutes (solicited by OSS)
2. Agreed TDA among the
2. None existing.
approved among the
countries at the political level;
Governments
2. Report of the TDA
3. Yr.2: At least five sites workshop where TDA is to
3. Number of surveyed and
3. IRD-HSM supported
surveyed and monitoring
be adopted (solicited by OSS - TDA development and agreement
agreed transboundary
efforts in baseline field
mechanism established
and submitted to SC)
process may take longer period than is
environmental issues related to
survey
4. Yr. 3: Three models
3. Report from IRD-HSM to
scheduled.
recharge areas and humid zones;
fully operation for risk
the Steering Committee on
and
identification by three
the site surveys and
4. ETH modelling work
trained experts
monitoring mechanisms
4. Number of fully operational
ongoing.
5. Yr. 3: One digital
(OSS)
models in support of risk
database established
4. Report from the ETH to
identification.
5. IAEA data available.
6. Yr. 3: At least three
the Steering Committee on
sites surveyed and
the modelling and training
5. Establishment of a digital
6. Preliminary identified
studied, and monitoring
records (OSS)
database for risk identification
issues at pilot sites
mechanism established.
5.&6: Report from the IAEA
to the Steering Committee to
Page 72 of 114

6. Number of Hydrogeological
be solicited by OSS
issues identified and studied
Component 2:
1. IAS Policy development
1. None;
1. Yr. 1: IAS policy
1. Verified in a report from
- The negotiation of agreed policy and
Policy and
committee established;
committee established;
OSS to the Steering
legal instrument may take long term.
Institutional
2. Yr. 1: Three national
Committee on the
Mechanism for
2. National-level policy
2. National water
committees established
establishment;
Reducing
committees established;
administrations;
3. Yr. 3: IAS policy and
2. Verified in a report from
Transboundary
strategy agreed through
each Government to the
Risk (Management
3. Adopted IAS policy and
3. None;
inter-governmental
Steering Committee on
- Governments may put priority to
Framework)
strategy
mechanism
establishment of national
4. None.
4. Yr. 3: legal agreement
committee;
other international water issues, such
4. An IAS tripartite agreement
concluded and singed;
3. Verified as the adopted
as policy development for the Niger
concluded.
Yr. 5: legal agreement
policy document, submitted
River basin.
5. None
ratified by all three
to the Steering Committee
5. Pilot area monitoring system to
countries
4. Verified by signatures for
show changes in baseline
5. Yr. 3: pilot area
the agreement to be
monitoring system in
submitted to the Steering
place
Committee (OSS)
5. Verified in OSS report to
the Steering Committee
(OSS)
Component 3:
1. Number of stakeholders
1. None
1. Yr. 3: 50% of the
1. Verified through sampled - Poor establishment of
Awareness,
approached through the
identified major
interviews conducted and
communication strategy would lead to
Participation and
awareness raising programme
stakeholders approached; reported upon at the Steering failure in involving stakeholders.
Communication
2. Yr. 3: 30 stakeholder
Committee meeting by OSS
2. Number of stakeholders
2. Main governmental
groups involved in the
2. Verified in the reports of
actually involved in land and
stakeholder involved.
land and water
the participatory water and
water management
management;
land management
3. None.
3. Yr. 3: At least twenty
programme, submitted to the
3. Number of land and water
managers trained.
Steering Committee by OSS;
managers trained through inter-
3. Verified in the report of
governmental communication
the Inter-governmental
tools
communication programme
to the Steering Committee by
OSS; also verified in the
records of inter-
governmental
communications
Component 4:
1. Project M&E plan established; 1. None.
1. Yr. 1: Project M&E
1. Verified in the report of
- Risks may include unclear definition
Page 73 of 114

Project Monitoring
plan agreed by SC.
the first meeting of the
of environmental status indicators.
and Evaluation, and 2. Project Review;
2. None.
2. Yr. 1.5 and Yr. 3:
steering committee;
Data Management
project review.
2. Verified in the mid-term
3. Amount of technical and
3. ISARM assistance in
3. Yr. 2: ISARM
and terminal project review
reference information from
project formulation.
reference information
reports, to be issued by
ISARM;
provided (to be specified) UNEP/OSS;
- The IGRAC may not be properly
4. Some basic data
4. Yr. 3: The project
3. Verified UNESCO's
established in time for the project
4. Amount of data provided to the available, but not
results to be provided to
report to the second meeting
activities.
global groundwater database
provided to global data
the global database (to be of the steering committee;
centre.
specific)
4. Verified in the data table
on the IAS to be obtained
from the global database by
UNESCO/OSS.
Component 5:
1. Project Steering Committee
1. None.
1. Yr. 1: SC established
1. Verified by the reports of
- With so many collaborating
Project
established;
and having the first
the Steering Committee;
organisations, project implementation
Coordination and
meeting in conjunction
1. Verified in OSS's reports
mechanism becomes too complicated.
Management
2. Project management office
2. OSS has basic
with the project launching to the steering committee;
established in OSS;
capacity.
seminar;
and
2. Yr. 1. Project
3. Verified by the attendance
3. UNESCO Scientific Advisor
3. UNESCO has provided Management Unit
and records of missions by
recruited and operational.
input to the project
operation in OSS and
the Scientific Advisor.
formulation.
network with
collaborating
organisations established;
3. Yr. 1: UNESCO
scientific advisor in place,
and TOR clearly defined.
Page 74 of 114

13.
Annex G: Final Budget Figures in $US
This section contains tables taken from several emails with Rafik Ziada (OSS Chief
Accountant) December 4 and 25, 2008 and January 12, 2009; and an email of the final budget
sent from Sandeep Bhrambra (UNEP Fund Manager), Jan 14, 2009.
Page 75 of 114

FINAL REPORTING SPREAD SHEET sent from Fund Manager Sandeep Bhrambra, Jan 14, 2009
Page 76 of 114

Page 77 of 114

Page 78 of 114

14.
Annex H: Qualifications of Evaluator
Glen Hearns, M.Sc. Ph.D (cand)
Consultant, Compass Resource Management Ltd.
2nd Floor - 1260 Hamilton St.
Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6B 2S8
Tel: (604) 641-2879
Fax: (604) 641-2878
email: ghearns@compassrm.com
Overview of Skills
Strategic and decision analyst with ten years of experience specializing in multi-
stakeholder resource management decisions and integrated assessment.
Policy, legal, and institutional analyst.
Facilitator, focusing on resolution of conflicts and negotiation, with over ten years
experience at various governance levels with communities, local governments, First
Nations, international level, and with diverse stakeholder groups.
Local economic development and participatory planning specialist
PhD thesis: governance models for shared resource.
Extensive knowledge in the water resources, genetic resources, fisheries and
environmental management.
Honed communications and research skills, including, writing, presentations, and
designing workshops and forums.

Computer knowledge in database management and analytic tools.
Education
Doctor of Philosophy in Resource Management candidate (2003-present), University of
British Columbia
Masters of Science in Environmental and Natural Resource Policy (1990-1992),
International Institute for Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering, Delft, The
Netherlands.
Bachelor of Applied Science in Geophysics (1983-1988), University of Waterloo, Ontario.
Languages
English, French, Spanish, Portuguese (working knowledge)
Page 79 of 114

Summary of Professional Experience
Associate, Compass Resource Management Ltd., 2007-present
Associate, EcoPlan International Decision, 2004-2007
Water Specialist and Project Coordination, Médecins Sans Frontières 2001-2003
Policy Analyst and dispute resolution, Apodaca Associates, 1999-2000
Research Fellow, Faculty of Law, UBC, 1993-1995
Hydro-geologist, Piteau Associates, 1990
Selected Recent Consulting Assignments
Aquifer Management Water Use Planning, (2008- on going)
Client and Partner Organization: City of Merritt and Ministry of Environment
Lead consultant: Responsible for developing a multi-objective water use plan for aquifer use
in the arid region of British Columbia. This three year initiative involves many different
stakeholders and user groups and is only the second such planning initiative in BC.
Collaborative Stewardship Fish and Wildlife, (2008)
Client and Partner Organization: Ktunaxa First Nation Land Resource Agency
Lead consultant: Responsible for developing a program to promote collaborative
stewardship of fish and wildlife between the Ktunaxa and the Province of BC, and the
Government of Canada. Literature, interviews and facilitated workshops and meetings were
undertaken in conducting the project.
Aquifer Management Torreon, Mexico, (2008)
Client and Partner Organization: UN Habitat and SEDASOL
Lead consultant: Responsible for developing and delivering a stakeholder process for
highlighting action areas in the management of a near surface aquifer accessed by the
municipalities of Torreon, Gomez Palacio, Laredo, and Matamoros, with a combined
population of 1million people.
British Columbia Alberta Transboundary Waters (2007-present)
Client and Partner Organization: BC Ministry of Environment
Consultant: Assisting the facilitation of a dialogue group at the provincial level with respect
to managing transboundary waters between British Columbia and Alberta. All aspects of
transboundary surface and ground-waters are being evaluated and discussed with respect to
cooperation in management of water quality, quantity, and ecological integrity. Key elements
involve research and analysis of technical problems and their administrative solutions.
Page 80 of 114

Structured Decisions for Rural Care in BC - (2007-present)
Client and Partner Organization: Northern Health
Associate Consultant: Constructed a decision tool for Northern Health to determine care
level and strategic options for maternity care in northern BC. The work involved interviews
with different stakeholders including, care-givers, local community members, First Nations,
Northern Health administration. The objective of the decision tool was to assist management
in making complex decisions regarding the level of health care that can be provided in rural
British Columbia.
Water Service Strategies for Medium sized Cities Egypt - (2007)
Client and Partner Organization: UN Development Programme
Lead consultant: Primary consultant assisting local Egyptian teams to analyse and determine
strategies for water services and local economic development in medium sized cities in Egypt.
As water is a key element to development success in Egypt, the project involved training local
teams in the field to conduct a participatory process for determining strategies for water
provision in relations to local economic development. Over four years, the project is to
develop development programs for 40 medium sized cities.
Nile Basin Information Exchange Agreement Regional - (2007)
Client and Partner Organization: World Bank
Project Consultant: Responsible for resource analysis component in developing a `road
map' for initiating an information exchange agreement among the ten riparian countries of the
Nile Basin. Work involved policy analysis as well technical hydrological data to develop a
needs assessment and protocol for information exchange. The project in landmark, in that it is
the first time in over 15 years of effort that the countries have agreed to move forward on a
legal agreement.
Central Asian Water and Energy Commission Regional - (2007)
Client and Partner Organization: World Bank
Project Consultant: Responsible for reviewing regional water and energy conditions and
developing a strategy for conflict avoidance through institutional arrangements, namely the
establishment of a Central Asian Water and Energy Commission.
Strategic Planning for Resource and Economic Development Veracruz, Mexico
(2006-2007)
Client and Partner Organization: UN Habitat / Estado de Veracruz
Lead consultant, designer and facilitator for participative processes for municipal strategies
for planning in Xalapa, Pozo Rico, Veracruz, Cordoba-Orizaba, and Coatzacualcos in
Veracruz State, Mexico. Key responsibilities were designing hig- level stakeholder
engagement processes incorporating decision analysis techniques for prioritisation of actions
with respect to water supply and sanitation, municipal waste, and demand-management
energy issues.
Page 81 of 114

Nile Basin Negotiation and Decision-Making Burundi (2006)
Client and Partner Organization: UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.
Consultant in designing and delivering training workshops for forty negotiators and diplomats
in the Nile Basin regarding decision-making for cooperative use of water resources. Key
elements of the project were developing simulation tools to `replicate' primary interests of
basin states and conduct exercises to employ structured decision making techniques and
analytical tools.
City Strategic Economic Development Planning (Strategy Planning and Local Economic and
Resource Development,). 2004 to 2008
Lead Consultant: Developed and implemented public participation strategies and training for
developing programs stimulating local socio-economic development. Programs involved strategic
planning, participatory approaches, decision-making and action prioritization, institutional and
governance analysis. Programs were primarily focused on poverty alleviation actions
incorporating environmental, social and economic determinants. Strategic policies included water
resource, waste policies, energy assessment, green space conservation, municipal services,
economic incentive creation, public-private partnerships, developing economic enabling
environments, governance and institutional reform, amongst others. Municipalities included:
Matamoros, Mexcio - UN-HABITAT Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean
(Brazil) and SEDSOL.
San Jose, Costa Rica Municipality of San Jose and UN-HABITAT Regional Office for
Latin America and the Caribbean (Brazil)
Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, Municipality of Dar Es Salaam and Sustainable Cities Initiative,
Industry Canada
Valparaiso and Vina del Mar. Chile - SERCOTEC and Sustainable Cities Initiative, Industry
Canada
Iloilo, Philippines, - . Municipality of Iloilo and the Canadian Urban Institute
Multi-City Strategic Planning Conference for LED (LED, Strategy Planning, Decision Making)
Quito, Ecuador 2005
Client and Partner Organization: UN-HABITAT, GTZ
Lead Consultant: Working with UN-HABITAT to deliver a three-day training event to on
strategic planning for LED, including decision analysis and stakeholder engagement. Over 30
municipal officials from 7 different countries participated in the event in conjunction with a larger
regional conference on LED and Latin America.
Socio-economic and Environmental Impact for Information Systems (Facilitation, Impact
Assessment, and Project Planning)
Honduras 2004
Client and Partner Organization: Radarsat International, McDonald Detweiler, CIDA.
Project Consultant: Working with local partners, conducted a socio-economic and environmental
impact assessment of a proposed integrated information system as part of a World Bank project to
Page 82 of 114

facilitate access to land information and tools to assist planning.
Publications
Hearns, G (2007) Mahakali Treaty: Looking through a new lens at water resource
development, in F. Rotberg and A. Swain (eds) Natural Resources Security in South Asia:
Nepal's Water, Institute for Security and Development Policy, University of Uppsala, Sweden
(October, 2007)
Paisley R, and G Hearns (2006) Lessons Learned and Best Practices from Recent Experiences
with the Governance of International Drainage Basins, Texas Tech Law Journal, (in press)
Hearns, G (2003) `Monsters of the Forest: Fighting Ebola in the Congo', Médecins Sans
Frontières Dispatches, Spring.
Hearns, G. (1999) `Genetic Resources: Law and Morality' in Proceedings of SOS
AMAZONAS Symposium, FUNDES; Tomas Cipriano de Mosquera, Bogota November 16-
20, 1999.
Hearns, G. (2000) 'Intangible Fences: Intellectual Property Rights over Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture', in C. Schofield et al. (ed) Permeable Borders and Boundaries in a
Globalising World: New Opportunities or Old Problems? International Environmental Law
and Policy Series, Graham & Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff.
Hearns, G. (1998) `Collective Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment:
Experiences from the Baltic and Mediterranean Seas' in Maritime Co-operation in the Asia
Pacific, AUS-CSCAP.
Hearns, G. (1997) `Transboundary Protected Area Coordination: Experiences in Central
America and Opportunities in the South China Sea.' in G. Blake et al. (ed.) International
Boundaries & Environmental Security: Frameworks for Regional Co-operation, International
Environmental Law and Policy Series, Graham & Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff.
Hearns, G. and Stormont, W. (1996). Managing Potential Conflicts in the South China Sea,
Marine Policy, Vol. 20. No. 2. pp. 177-181.
Hearns, G. and Tyedmers, P. (1995). Poseidon's Trident: Biological Diversity Preservation,
Resource Conservation and Conflict Avoidance in the South Chins Sea, in G. Blake et al.
(ed.) The Peaceful Management of Transboundary Resources, International Environmental
Law and Policy Series, Graham & Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff.
Amezaga, J. and Hearns, G.(1991). Chemical Time Bombs in the Mediterranean. Mondial
Alternative, Periodic Publications Series. Amsterdam. Autumn 1991.
Page 83 of 114

15.
Annex I : Terms of Reference for Evaluation
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Terminal Evaluation of the UNEP GEF project
"Managing Hydrogeological Risk in the Iullemeden Aquifer System"
1. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The Iullemeden sedimentary groundwater basin is located in Mali, Niger and Nigeria with
minor, non-connected sections in Algeria and Benin. The aquifer basin covers an area of 525
000 km2 with 31 000 km2 in Mali, 434 000 km2 in Niger and 60 000 km2 in Nigeria. The
basin population of approximately 15 million, with 65 per cent in Niger, 34 per cent in
Nigeria and 2 per cent in Mali, is projected to grow to 28 million in 2025. The aquifer system
receives substantial modern recharge along its basement fringes in the river valleys with
runoff from the bordering highlands in Mali, Niger and Nigeria. The upper Iullemeden aquifer
is largely unconfined and recharged locally from rainwater infiltration in permeable sections
and concentrated to depressions and humid zones with seasonal or permanent standing water.
Over the last 50 years, the land use in the recharge areas has changed and affected the
recharge to the upper aquifer. With agriculture expanding into marginal low-rainfall areas and
resulting land use change in recharge areas and humid zones the environmental threats and
transboundary risks in Iullemeden Aquifer System (IAS) are growing. The adverse impacts
are expected be amplified further from climate change with reduced precipitation and
increasing evaporation losses and impacts from declining water levels on the vegetation cover
in the humid zones. In addition, the risks for degradation in water quality, with transboundary
implications, from salinization, water pollution and inter-aquifer leakage and contaminant
transport need to be identified and managed. Management of transboundary issues are
subjected to and need to be handled with due recognition of the actual conditions of high
scientific, policy and political uncertainty. The principal environmental threats that are
common to and will have to be shared between the countries in the IAS, are direct and indirect
adverse impacts on the aquifer resources from land use change in recharge areas and humid
zones and climatic change with reduced precipitation and increased evaporation. These
emerging threats are expected to become aggravated with increased abstractions and
environmental degradation of the aquifer resources and result in growing international
pressures and water conflict.
Project objectives
Within the goal of sustainable environmental protection and sub-regional and national
development, the general objective of the project was to establish capacity under a sustainable
cooperative framework for joint management of risk and uncertainty, to jointly identify,
reduce and mitigate transboundary risk from changing land and water use and from climate
change in the shared Iullemeden Aquifer System.
The immediate objectives of the project were to:
Page 84 of 114

(4) establish joint mechanisms and capacity to identify risk and uncertainty issues in the IAS
related to:
- land use change in recharge areas and humid zones,
- climate change with reduced net precipitation, and
- inappropriate development, extraction and surface based water pollution and salinization.
(5) establish mechanisms to formulate policies for management of identified risk and
uncertainty issues, and
(6) establish a legal and institutional IAS cooperative framework.
Expected Project Outcomes
f. Joint mechanisms for identification of transboundary risk issues in the IAS,
g. Joint mechanisms for policy formulation and implementation to address
transboundary risk issues in the IAS,
h. A joint development and conservation strategy for the IAS,
i. A joint tripartite legal and institutional cooperative framework for the IAS.
j. Joint programmes for awareness, participation and inter-government
communication
Executing Arrangements
UNEP acted as the implementing agency for this project. The executing agency was the
Observatoire du Sahara et du Sahel (OSS). The project is managed by a Project Steering
Committee (PSC) with participation from the three participating countries, UNEP as the GEF-
IA and the Donors and Cooperating Agencies, representatives of WAWS/ECOWAS as
Regional Coordinating Agency for the project and UNESCO/ISARM as principal scientific
coordinator and the contact point on Transboundary Aquifer System Management. The
existing bi-lateral commissions, (NNJC) and (PCCMN), when called by two members,
participated as observers on specific bi-lateral issues in the PSC. For the purpose of inter-
project coordination and information sharing, representatives of parallel GEF projects,
including the NBA (Niger Basin) and the NNOCC projects, were invited to participate in the
PSC meetings and OSS will participated in Steering Committee Meetings. The project was to
widen the contacts within and along the margins of the IAS in the sub-region and cooperate
with the LADA project and the PDF B on the Fouta Djallon Regional Integrated Development
Program. The project was referred under the CDD/STRAP for West Africa coordinated by
ECOWAS and CILSS and liaised under the CILSS thematic area of shared water resources.
National Project Committees (NPCs), in Mali, Niger and Nigeria, chaired by the national
focal points, normally the national Directors or deputy Director of Hydrology. The NPCs
members comprise technical specialist and representatives of the participating national line
ministries/sectors, including Water Resources, Environment and Natural Resources and
Agriculture and Land Management and Conservation, and national universities and
specialised institutes. Multi-stakeholders committees were established and were represented in
the NPCs. The three NPCs assigned inter-sectoral representatives to work in a TDA-
preparation Team responsible for the joint TDA document. The project considered and drew
from the national action programmes including the national CDD programmes in Mali, Niger
and Nigeria.
Page 85 of 114

Project Activities
Component 1: Identification of Transboundary Risk.
1. Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
2. Modelling Capacity Building
3. Field Studies of Aquifer Recharge
4. (a) Establishment of a Common Risk Identification Database; and (b) Targeted Pilot Area
Surveys.
Component 2: Policy and Institutional Mechanisms for Reducing Transboundary Risk
(Management Framework).
1. Establishment of Mechanisms for Formulation of Risk Reduction Policies and a Joint
Development and Conservation Strategy for the IAS:
2. Development of a Joint Legal and Institutional IAS Cooperative Framework: Mechanisms
for Transboundary Aquifer Monitoring
Component 3. Awareness, Participation, Communication.
1. Common Public Awareness Program
2. Inter-government Communication Tools
Component 4: Project Monitoring and Evaluation, and Dissemination of Data
1. Project Monitoring and Evaluation
2. 2a. Dissemination of ISARM Reference Information:
2b Strengthening aquifer knowledge community
3. 3a.Inclusion of Project Data in the Global Groundwater Database:
3b Introduction of Data standards and Inter-compatibility
Component 5: Project Coordination and Management.
1. Support to the Project Steering Committee
2. Project Management
3. Scientific Supervision, Support and Coordination
Details on activities are in Annex 6.
Budget
The total budget was US$ 1,738,200 with US$ 958,000 funded by the GEF Trust Fund and
co-funding of US$ 780,000.
2.
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE EVALUATION
Page 86 of 114

2.1
Objective and Scope of the Evaluation
The objective of this terminal evaluation is to determine the extent to which the project
objectives were achieved and assess if the project has led to any other positive or negative
consequences. If possible the extent and magnitude of any project impacts to date will be
documented and the likelihood of future impacts will be determined. The evaluation will also
assess project performance and the implementation of planned project activities and outputs
against actual results. The evaluation will focus on the following main questions:
a.
Did the project establish cooperation among the participating countries in
addressing the issues related to the shared aquifer system?
b.
Did the project promote scientific approaches as a basis for building
cooperation among the countries, including enhanced data information
management, analysis of transboundary issues, developing monitoring
mechanisms, use of models, etc.?
c.
Did the project increase the capacity of the participating countries in
addressing the identified transboundary issues related to the shared aquifer
system?
d.
Did the project establish a legal and institutional cooperation framework which
can be firmly sustained by the participating countries?
2.2
Methods
This terminal evaluation will be conducted as an in-depth evaluation using a participatory
approach. The UNEP/DGEF Task Manager, key representatives of the executing agencies and
other relevant staff will be kept informed and consulted throughout the evaluation. The
consultant will liaise with the UNEP/EOU and the UNEP/DGEF Task Manager on any
logistic and/or methodological issues to properly conduct the review in as independent a way
as possible, given the circumstances and resources offered. The draft report will be delivered
to UNEP EOU and then circulated to UNEP/DGEF Task Manager and key representatives of
the executing agencies. Any comments or responses to the draft report will be sent to UNEP
EOU for collation and the consultant will be advised of any necessary or suggested revisions.
The findings of the evaluation will be based on the following:
6. A desk review of project documents including, but not limited to:
(a) The project documents, outputs, monitoring reports (such as progress and
financial reports to UNEP and GEF annual Project Implementation Review
reports) and relevant correspondence.
(b) Notes from the Steering Group meetings.
(c) Other project-related material produced by the project staff or partners.
(d) Relevant material published on the project web site.
7. Interviews with project management and technical support including the staff from the
OSS, UNESCO, FAO. IAEA and other project partners;
Page 87 of 114

8. Interviews and Telephone interviews with intended users for the project outputs and
other stakeholders involved with this project. The Consultant shall determine whether
to seek additional information and opinions from representatives of donor agencies and
other organisations. As appropriate, these interviews will be combined with an email
questionnaire.
9. Interviews with the UNEP/DGEF project task manager and Fund Management Officer,
and other relevant staff in UNEP dealing with International Waters-related activities as
necessary. The Consultant shall also gain broader perspectives from discussions with
relevant GEF Secretariat staff.
10. Field visit to Mali, Niger and Nigeria.
Key Evaluation principles.
In attempting to evaluate any outcomes and impacts that the project may have achieved,
evaluators should remember that the project's performance should be assessed by considering
the difference between the answers to two simple questions "what happened?" and "what
would have happened anyway?". These questions imply that there should be consideration
of the baseline conditions and trends in relation to the intended project outcomes and impacts.
In addition, it implies that there should be plausible evidence to attribute such outcomes and
impacts to the actions of the project.
Sometimes, adequate information on baseline conditions and trends is lacking. In such cases,
this should be clearly highlighted by the evaluator, along with any simplifying assumptions
that were taken to enable the evaluator to make informed judgements about project
performance.
2.3
Project Evaluation Parameters
The success of project implementation will be rated on a scale from `highly unsatisfactory' to
`highly satisfactory'. In particular the evaluation shall assess and rate the project with respect
to the eleven categories defined below:112
A.
Attainment of objectives and planned results:
The evaluation should assess the extent to which the project's major relevant
objectives were effectively and efficiently achieved or are expected to be achieved and
their relevance.
Effectiveness: Evaluate how, and to what extent, the stated project
objectives have been met, taking into account the "achievement
indicators". The analysis of outcomes achieved should include, inter alia,
an assessment of the extent to which the project has directly or indirectly
112 However, the views and comments expressed by the evaluator need not be restricted to these items.
Page 88 of 114

assisted policy- and decision-makers to apply information supplied by this
project. In particular:
Evaluate the immediate impact of the project on capacity and
cooperation for joint management of risk and uncertainty in the
shared Iullemeden Aquifer System.
As far as possible, also assess the potential longer-term impacts
considering that the evaluation is taking place upon completion of
the project and that longer-term impact is expected to be seen in a
few years time.
Relevance: In retrospect, were the project's outcomes consistent with the
focal areas/operational program strategies and the wider portfolio of the
GEF?
Efficiency: Was the project cost effective? Was the project the least cost
option? Was the project implementation delayed and if it was, then did that
affect cost-effectiveness? Assess the contribution of cash and in-kind co-
financing to project implementation and to what extent the project
leveraged additional resources. Did the project build on earlier initiatives,
did it make effective use of available scientific and / or technical
information. Wherever possible, the evaluator should also compare the
cost-time vs. outcomes relationship of the project with that of other similar
projects.
B. Sustainability:
Sustainability is understood as the probability of continued long-term project-
derived outcomes and impacts after the GEF project funding ends. The
evaluation will identify and assess the key conditions or factors that are likely
to contribute or undermine the persistence of benefits after the project ends.
Some of these factors might be outcomes of the project, e.g. stronger
institutional capacities or better informed decision-making. Other factors will
include contextual circumstances or developments that are not outcomes of the
project but that are relevant to the sustainability of outcomes. The evaluation
should ascertain to what extent follow-up work has been initiated and how
project outcomes will be sustained and enhanced over time. In particular, the
evaluation should determine to what extent the project succeeded in
establishing a sustainable joint tripartite legal and institutional cooperative
framework for the IAS.
Five aspects of sustainability should be addressed: financial, socio-political,
institutional frameworks and governance, environmental (if applicable). The
following questions provide guidance on the assessment of these aspects:
Financial resources. Are there any financial risks that may jeopardize
sustenance of project outcomes? What is the likelihood that financial
and economic resources will not be available once the GEF assistance
ends (resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public and
private sectors, income generating activities, and trends that may
indicate that it is likely that in future there will be adequate financial
Page 89 of 114

Socio-political: Are there any social or political risks that may
jeopardize sustenance of project outcomes? What is the risk that the
level of stakeholder ownership will be insufficient to allow the project
outcomes to be sustained? Do the various key stakeholders see that it is
in their interest that the project benefits continue to flow? Is there
sufficient public / stakeholder awareness in support of the long-term
objectives of the project?
Institutional framework and governance. To what extent is the
sustenance of the outcomes of the project dependent on issues relating
to institutional frameworks and governance? What is the likelihood that
institutional and technical achievements, legal frameworks, policies and
governance structures and processes will allow for, the project
outcomes/benefits to be sustained? While responding to these questions
consider if the required systems for accountability and transparency and
the required technical expertise are in place.
Environmental. Are there any environmental risks that can undermine
the future flow of project environmental benefits? The TE should assess
whether certain activities in the project area will pose a threat to the
sustainability of the project outcomes.
C. Achievement of outputs and activities:
Delivered outputs: Assessment of the project's success in producing each of
the programmed outputs, both in quantity and quality as well as usefulness and
timeliness.
D. Catalytic Role
Replication and catalysis. What examples are there of replication and catalytic
outcomes? Replication approach, in the context of GEF projects, is defined as
lessons and experiences coming out of the project that are replicated or scaled
up in the design and implementation of other projects. Replication can have
two aspects, replication proper (lessons and experiences are replicated in
different geographic area) or scaling up (lessons and experiences are replicated
within the same geographic area but funded by other sources). Specifically:
If no effects are identified, the evaluation will describe the catalytic or
replication actions that the project carried out.
E. Assessment of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems.
The evaluation shall include an assessment of the quality, application and
effectiveness of project monitoring and evaluation plans and tools, including
an assessment of risk management based on the assumptions and risks
identified in the project document. The Terminal Evaluation will assess
whether the project met the minimum requirements for `project design of
M&E' and `the application of the Project M&E plan' (see minimum
requirements 1&2 in Annex 4). GEF projects must budget adequately for
execution of the M&E plan, and provide adequate resources during
implementation of the M&E plan. Project managers are also expected to use
the information generated by the M&E system during project implementation
to adapt and improve the project.
Page 90 of 114

M&E design. Projects should have sound M&E plans to monitor
results and track progress towards achieving project objectives. An
M&E plan should include a baseline (including data, methodology,
etc.), SMART indicators (see Annex 4) and data analysis systems, and
evaluation studies at specific times to assess results. The time frame for
various M&E activities and standards for outputs should have been
specified.
M&E plan implementation. A Terminal Evaluation should verify that:
an M&E system was in place and facilitated timely tracking of results
and progress towards projects objectives throughout the project
implementation period (perhaps through use of a log frame or similar);
annual project reports and Progress Implementation Review (PIR)
reports were complete, accurate and with well justified ratings; that the
information provided by the M&E system was used during the project
to improve project performance and to adapt to changing needs; and
that projects had an M&E system in place with proper training for
parties responsible for M&E activities.
Budgeting and Funding for M&E activities. The terminal evaluation
should determine whether support for M&E was budgeted adequately
and was funded in a timely fashion during implementation.
F. Preparation and Readiness
Were the project's objectives and components clear, practicable and feasible
within its timeframe? Were the capacities of executing institution and
counterparts properly considered when the project was designed?
Were
lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated in the project
design? Were the partnership arrangements properly identified and the roles
and responsibilities negotiated prior to project implementation? Were
counterpart resources (funding, staff, and facilities), enabling legislation, and
adequate project management arrangements in place?
G. Country ownership
This is the relevance of the project to national development and environmental
agendas, recipient country commitment, and regional and international
agreements. The evaluation will:
Assess the level of country ownership. Specifically, the evaluator
should assess whether the project was effective in catalyzing action
taken by the authorities in the countries that received assistance from
the project.
Assess the level of country commitment to facilitating financial and in-
kind contributions to the project.
H. Stakeholder participation / public awareness:
This consists of three related and often overlapping processes: information
dissemination, consultation, and "stakeholder" participation. Stakeholders are
the individuals, groups, institutions, or other bodies that have an interest or
stake in the outcome of the GEF- financed project. The term also applies to
Page 91 of 114

those potentially adversely affected by a project. The evaluation will
specifically:
Assess the mechanisms put in place by the project for identification and
engagement of stakeholders in each participating country and establish,
in consultation with the stakeholders, whether this mechanism was
successful, and identify its strengths and weaknesses.
Assess the degree and effectiveness of collaboration/interactions
between the various project partners and institutions during the course
of implementation of the project.
Assess the degree and effectiveness of any various public awareness
activities that were undertaken during the course of implementation of
the project.
I. Financial Planning
Evaluation of financial planning requires assessment of the quality and
effectiveness of financial planning and control of financial resources
throughout the project's lifetime. Evaluation includes actual project costs by
activities compared to budget (variances), financial management (including
disbursement issues), and co- financing. The evaluation should:
Assess the strength and utility of financial controls, including reporting,
and planning to allow the project management to make informed
decisions regarding the budget and allow for a proper and timely flow
of funds for the payment of satisfactory project deliverables.
Present the major findings from the financial audit if one has been
conducted.
Identify and verify the sources of co- financing as well as leveraged and
associated financing (in co-operation with the IA and EA).
Assess whether the project has applied appropriate standards of due
diligence in the management of funds and financial audits.
The evaluation should also include a breakdown of final actual costs
and co-financing for the project prepared in consultation with the
relevant UNON/DGEF Fund Management Officer of the project (table
attached in Annex 1 Co-financing and leveraged resources).
J. Implementation approach:
This includes an analysis of the project's management framework, adaptation
to changing conditions (adaptive management), partnerships in implementation
arrangements, changes in project design, and overall project management. The
evaluation will:
Ascertain to what extent the project implementation mechanisms
outlined in the project document have been closely followed. In
particular, assess the role of the various committees established and
whether the project document was clear and realistic to enable effective
and efficient implementation, whether the project was executed
according to the plan and how well the management was able to adapt
to changes during the life of the project to enable the implementation of
the project.
Page 92 of 114

Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency and adaptability of project
management and the supervision of project activities / project execution
arrangements at all levels (1) policy decisions: Steering Group; (2) day
to day project management in each of the countries.
K. UNEP Supervision and Backstopping
Assess the effectiveness of supervision and administrative and financial
support provided by UNEP/DGEF.
Identify administrative, operational and/or technical problems and
constraints that influenced the effective implementation of the project.
The ratings will be presented in the form of a table. Each of the eleven categories should be
rated separately with brief justifications based on the findings of the main analysis. An
overall rating for the project should also be given. The following rating system is to be
applied:
HS
= Highly Satisfactory
S
= Satisfactory
MS
= Moderately Satisfactory
MU
= Moderately Unsatisfactory
U
= Unsatisfactory
HU
= Highly Unsatisfactory
2.4
Evaluation report format and review procedures
The report should be brief, to the point and easy to understand. It must explain; the purpose of
the evaluation, exactly what was evaluated and the methods used. The report must highlight
any methodological limitations, identify key concerns and present evidence-based findings,
consequent conclusions, recommendations and lessons. The report should be presented in a
way that makes the information accessible and comprehensible and include an executive
summary that encapsulates the essence of the information contained in the report to facilitate
dissemination and distillation of lessons.
The evaluation will rate the overall implementation success of the project and provide
individual ratings of the eleven implementation aspects as described in Section 1 of this TOR.
The ratings will be presented in the format of a table with brief justifications based on the
findings of the main analysis.
Evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations should be presented in a complete and
balanced manner. Any dissident views in response to evaluation findings will be appended in
an annex. The evaluation report shall be written in English, be of no more than 50 pages
(excluding annexes), use numbered paragraphs and include:
i)
An executive summary (no more than 3 pages) providing a brief overview of
the main conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation;
Page 93 of 114

ii)
Introduction and background giving a brief overview of the evaluated
project, for example, the objective and status of activities; The GEF
Monitoring and Evaluation Policy, 2006, requires that a TE report will provide
summary information on when the evaluation took place; places visited; who
was involved; the key questions; and, the methodology.
iii)
Scope, objective and methods presenting the evaluation's purpose, the
evaluation criteria used and questions to be addressed;
iv)
Project Performance and Impact providing factual evidence relevant to the
questions asked by the evaluator and interpretations of such evidence. This is
the main substantive section of the report. The evaluator should provide a
commentary and analysis on all eleven evaluation aspects (A - K above).
v)
Conclusions and rating of project implementation success giving the
evaluator's concluding assessments and ratings of the project against given
evaluation criteria and standards of performance. The conclusions should
provide answers to questions about whether the project is considered good or
bad, and whether the results are considered positive or negative. The ratings
should be provided with a brief narrative comment in a table (see Annex 1);
vi)
Lessons (to be) learned presenting general conclusions from the standpoint of
the design and implementation of the project, based on good practices and
successes or problems and mistakes. Lessons should have the potential for
wider application and use. All lessons should `stand alone' and should:
Briefly describe the context from which they are derived
State or imply some prescriptive action;
Specify the contexts in which they may be applied (if possible, who
when and where)
vii)
Recommendations suggesting actionable proposals for improvement of the
current project. In general, Terminal Evaluations are likely to have very few
(perhaps two or three) actionable recommendations.
Prior to each recommendation, the issue(s) or problem(s) to be addressed by
the recommendation should be clearly stated.
A high quality recommendation is an actionable proposal that is:
1. Feasible to implement within the timeframe and resources available
2. Commensurate with the available capacities of project team and
partners
3. Specific in terms of who would do what and when
4. Contains results-based language (i.e. a measurable performance
target)
5. Includes a trade-off analysis, when its implementation may require
utilizing significant resources that would otherwise be used for other
project purposes.
viii)
Annexes may include additional material deemed relevant by the evaluator but
must include:
1. The Evaluation Terms of Reference,
2. A list of interviewees, and evaluation timeline
3. A list of documents reviewed / consulted
Page 94 of 114

4. Summary co-finance information and a statement of project
expenditure by activity
5. The expertise of the evaluation team. (brief CV).
TE reports will also include any response / comments from the project
management team and/or the country focal point regarding the evaluation
findings or conclusions as an annex to the report, however, such will be
appended to the report by UNEP EOU.
Examples of UNEP GEF Terminal Evaluation Reports are available at www.unep.org/eou
Review of the Draft Evaluation Report
Draft reports submitted to UNEP EOU are shared with the corresponding Programme or
Project Officer and his or her supervisor for initial review and consultation. The DGEF staff
and senior Executing Agency staff are allowed to comment on the draft evaluation report.
They may provide feedback on any errors of fact and may highlight the significance of such
errors in any conclusions.
The consultation also seeks feedback on the proposed
recommendations and the preparation of a draft management response to them. UNEP EOU
collates all review comments and provides them to the evaluator(s) for their consideration in
preparing the final version of the report.
2.5
Submission of Final Terminal Evaluation Reports.
The final report shall be submitted in electronic form in MS Word format and should be sent
to:
Segbedzi Norgbey, Chief,
UNEP Evaluation and Oversight Unit
P.O. Box 30552-00100
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel.: (254-20) 7624181
Fax: (254-20) 7623158
Email: segbedzi.norgbey@unep.org
UNEP EOU will then provide copies to:
Maryam Niamir-Fuller
Director
UNEP/Division of GEF Coordination
P.O. Box 30552-00100
Nairobi, Kenya
Page 95 of 114

Tel: + 254-20-7624686
Fax: + 254-20-623158/4042
Email: maryam.niamir-fuller@unep.org
Takehiro Nakamura
UNEP/GEF International Waters SPO
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Division of GEF Coordination (DGEF)
PO Box 30552-00100
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: 254 20 7625077
Fax: 254 20 7624041/2
Email: takehiro.nakamura@unep.org
The final evaluation report will be published on the Evaluation and Oversight Unit's web-site
www.unep.org/eou and may be printed in hard copy. Subsequently, the report will be sent to
the GEF Office of Evaluation for their review, appraisal and inclusion on the GEF website.
2.6
Resources and schedule of the evaluation
This final evaluation will be undertaken by an international evaluator contracted by the
Evaluation and Oversight Unit, UNEP. The contract for the evaluator will begin on 18
September 2008 and end on 12 December 2008 (5 weeks spread over 12 weeks (12 days of
travel, to Bamako, Abuja and Niamey 17 days desk study and report writing). The evaluator
will submit a draft report on 31 October 2008 to UNEP/EOU, the UNEP/DGEF Task
Manager, and key representatives of the executing agencies. Any comments or responses to
the draft report will be sent to UNEP / EOU for collation and the consultant will be advised of
any necessary revisions. Comments to the final draft report will be sent to the consultant by
28 November 2008 after which, the consultant will submit the final report no later than 12
December 2008.
The evaluator will after an initial telephone briefing with EOU and UNEP/GEF conduct initial
desk review work and later travel to meet with representatives of the project executing
agencies and the intended users of project's outputs.
In accordance with UNEP/GEF policy, all GEF projects are evaluated by independent
evaluators contracted as consultants by the EOU. The evaluator should have the following
qualifications:
The evaluator should not have been associated with the design and implementation of the
project in a paid capacity. The evaluator will work under the overall supervision of the Chief,
Page 96 of 114

Evaluation and Oversight Unit, UNEP. The consultant should have the following minimum
qualifications: (i) experience in groundwater-related issues; (ii) experience with management
and implementation of projects and in particular with policy-related assessments that generate
knowledge and information; (iii) experience with project evaluation. Knowledge of UNEP
programmes and GEF activities is desirable. Field experience in the arid and semi-arid areas
an advantage. Fluency in oral and written English and French is a must. .
2.7 Schedule Of Payment
Lump-Sum Option
The evaluator will receive an initial payment of 30% of the total amount due upon signature
of the contract. A further 30% will be paid upon submission of the draft report. A final
payment of 40% will be made upon satisfactory completion of work. The fee is payable under
the individual Special Service Agreement (SSA) of the evaluator and is inclusive of all
expenses such as travel, accommodation and incidental expenses.
In case, the evaluator cannot provide the products in accordance with the TORs, the
timeframe agreed, or his products are substandard, the payment to the evaluator could be
withheld, until such a time the products are modified to meet UNEP's standard. In case the
evaluator fails to submit a satisfactory final product to UNEP, the product prepared by the
evaluator may not constitute the evaluation report.
20th August 2008
Page 97 of 114

15.1
Annex 1. OVERALL RATINGS TABLE
Evaluator'
Criterion
Evaluator's Summary Comments
s Rating
A.
Attainment
of
project
objectives and results (overall
rating)
Sub criteria (below)
A. 1. Effectiveness
A. 2. Relevance
A. 3. Efficiency
B.
Sustainability
of
Project
outcomes
(overall rating)
Sub criteria (below)
B. 1. Financial
B. 2. Socio Political
B. 3. Institutional framework
and governance
B. 4. Environmental
C. Achievement of outputs and
activities
D. Monitoring and Evaluation
(overall rating)
Sub criteria (below)
D. 1. M&E Design
D.
2.
M&E
Plan
Implementation
(use
for
adaptive management)
D. 3. Budgeting and Funding
for M&E activities
E. Catalytic Role
F. Preparation and readiness
G.
Country
ownership
/
drivenness
H. Stakeholders involvement
I. Financial planning
Page 98 of 114

Evaluator'
Criterion
Evaluator's Summary Comments
s Rating
J. Implementation approach
K.
UNEP
Supervision
and
backstopping
RATING OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS
Highly Satisfactory (HS): The project had no shortcomings in the achievement of its
objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Satisfactory (S): The project had minor shortcomings in the achievement of its
objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Moderately Satisfactory (MS): The project had moderate shortcomings in the
achievement of its objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): The project had significant shortcomings in the
achievement of its objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Unsatisfactory (U) The project had major shortcomings in the achievement of its
objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): The project had severe shortcomings in the achievement
of its objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Please note: Relevance and effectiveness will be considered as critical criteria. The overall
rating of the project for achievement of objectives and results may not be higher than the
lowest rating on either of these two criteria. Thus, to have an overall satisfactory rating for
outcomes a project must have at least satisfactory ratings on both relevance and effectiveness.
RATINGS ON SUSTAINABILITY
A. Sustainability will be understood as the probability of continued long-term outcomes and
impacts after the GEF project funding ends. The Terminal evaluation will identify and
assess the key conditions or factors that are likely to contribute or undermine the
persistence of benefits after the project ends. Some of these factors might be outcomes of
the project, i.e. stronger institutional capacities, legal frameworks, socio-economic
incentives /or public awareness. Other factors will include contextual circumstances or
developments that are not outcomes of the project but that are relevant to the sustainability
of outcomes..
Rating system for sustainability sub-criteria
On each of the dimensions of sustainability of the project outcomes will be rated as follows.
Likely (L): There are no risks affecting this dimension of sustainability.
Page 99 of 114

Moderately Likely (ML). There are moderate risks that affect this dimension of
sustainability.
Moderately Unlikely (MU): There are significant risks that affect this dimension of
sustainability
Unlikely (U): There are severe risks that affect this dimension of sustainability.
According to the GEF Office of Evaluation, all the risk dimensions of sustainability are
deemed critical. Therefore, overall rating for sustainability will not be higher than the rating
of the dimension with lowest ratings. For example, if a project has an Unlikely rating in any
of the dimensions then its overall rating cannot be higher than Unlikely, regardless of whether
higher ratings in other dimensions of sustainability produce a higher average.
RATINGS OF PROJECT M&E
Monitoring is a continuing function that uses systematic collection of data on specified
indicators to provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing project with
indications of the extent of progress and achievement of objectives and progress in the use of
allocated funds. Evaluation is the systematic and objective assessment of an on-going or
completed project, its design, implementation and results. Project evaluation may involve the
definition of appropriate standards, the examination of performance against those standards,
and an assessment of actual and expected results.
The Project monitoring and evaluation system will be rated on `M&E Design', `M&E Plan
Implementation' and `Budgeting and Funding for M&E activities' as follows:
Highly Satisfactory (HS): There were no shortcomings in the project M&E system.
Satisfactory(S): There were minor shortcomings in the project M&E system.
Moderately Satisfactory (MS): There were moderate shortcomings in the project M&E
system.
Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): There were significant shortcomings in the project
M&E system.
Unsatisfactory (U): There were major shortcomings in the project M&E system.
Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): The Project had no M&E system.
"M&E plan implementation" will be considered a critical parameter for the overall
assessment of the M&E system. The overall rating for the M&E systems will not be higher
than the rating on "M&E plan implementation."
All other ratings will be on the GEF six point scale.
GEF Performance Description
Alternative description on
the same scale
HS
= Highly Satisfactory
Excellent
S
= Satisfactory
Well above average
Page 100 of 114

MS
= Moderately Satisfactory
Average
MU
= Moderately Unsatisfactory
Below Average
U
= Unsatisfactory
Poor
HU
= Highly Unsatisfactory
Very poor (Appalling)
Page 101 of 114

15.2
Annex 2. Co-financing and Leveraged Resources
Co-financing (basic data to be supplied to the consultant for verification)
IA
own
Government
Other*
Total
Total
Financing
Disbursement
Co
financing
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(Type/Source)
Plann
Actual
Planned
Actual
Planne
Actual
Plann
Actual
Planned
Actual
ed
d
ed

Grants

Loans/Concessio
nal (compared to
market rate)

Credits

Equity
investments

In-kind support

Other (*)
-
-
-
-
-
Totals
Page 102 of 114

* Other is referred to contributions mobilized for the project from other multilateral agencies, bilateral development cooperation
agencies, NGOs, the private sector and beneficiaries.
Leveraged Resources
Leveraged resources are additional resources--beyond those committed to the project itself at the time of approval--that are mobilized
later as a direct result of the project. Leveraged resources can be financial or in-kind and they may be from other donors, NGO's,
foundations, governments, communities or the private sector. Please briefly describe the resources the project has leveraged since
inception and indicate how these resources are contributing to the project's ultimate objective.
Table showing final actual project expenditure by activity to be supplied by the UNEP Fund management Officer. (insert here)
Page 103 of 114

15.3
Annex 3
Review of the Draft Report
Draft reports submitted to UNEP EOU are shared with the corresponding Programme or
Project Officer and his or her supervisor for initial review and consultation. The DGEF staff
and senior Executing Agency staff provide comments on the draft evaluation report. They
may provide feedback on any errors of fact and may highlight the significance of such errors
in any conclusions.
The consultation also seeks agreement on the findings and
recommendations. UNEP EOU collates the review comments and provides them to the
evaluators for their consideration in preparing the final version of the report. General
comments on the draft report with respect to compliance with these TOR are shared with the
reviewer.
Quality Assessment of the Evaluation Report
All UNEP GEF Mid Term Reports are subject to quality assessments by UNEP EOU. These
apply GEF Office of Evaluation quality assessment and are used as a tool for providing
structured feedback to the evaluator.
The quality of the draft evaluation report is assessed and rated against the following criteria:
GEF Report Quality Criteria
UNEP
EOU
Rating
Assessment
A. Did the report present an assessment of relevant outcomes and
achievement of project objectives in the context of the focal area
program indicators if applicable?
B. Was the report consistent and the evidence complete and convincing
and were the ratings substantiated when used?
C. Did the report present a sound assessment of sustainability of
outcomes?
D. Were the lessons and recommendations supported by the evidence
presented?
E. Did the report include the actual project costs (total and per activity)
and actual co-financing used?
F. Did the report include an assessment of the quality of the project
M&E system and its use for project management?
UNEP EOU additional Report Quality Criteria
UNEP
EOU
Rating
Assessment
G. Quality of the lessons: Were lessons readily applicable in other
contexts? Did they suggest prescriptive action?
H. Quality of the recommendations: Did recommendations specify the
actions necessary to correct existing conditions or improve operations
(`who?' `what?' `where?' `when?)'. Can they be implemented? Did the
recommendations specify a goal and an associated performance
indicator?
I. Was the report well written?
(clear English language and grammar)
Page 104 of 114

J. Did the report structure follow EOU guidelines, were all requested
Annexes included?
K. Were all evaluation aspects specified in the TORs adequately
addressed?
L. Was the report delivered in a timely manner
GEF Quality of the MTE report = 0.3*(A + B) +
0.1*(C+D+E+F)
EOU assessment of
MTE report = 0.3*(G + H) +
0.1*(I+J+K+L)
Combined quality Rating = (2* `GEF EO' rating + EOU
rating)/3
The Totals are rounded and converted to the scale of HS to HU
Rating system for quality of terminal evaluation reports
A number rating 1-6 is used for each criterion: Highly Satisfactory = 6, Satisfactory = 5,
Moderately Satisfactory = 4, Moderately Unsatisfactory = 3, Unsatisfactory = 2, Highly
Unsatisfactory = 1, and unable to assess = 0.
Page 105 of 114

15.4
Annex 4 GEF Minimum requirements for M&E
15.5
Minimum Requirement 1: Project Design of M&E113
All projects must include a concrete and fully budgeted monitoring and evaluation plan by the
time of Work Program entry (full-sized projects) or CEO approval (medium-sized projects).
This plan must contain at a minimum:
SMART (see below) indicators for project implementation, or, if no indicators are
identified, an alternative plan for monitoring that will deliver reliable and valid
information to management
SMART indicators for results (outcomes and, if applicable, impacts), and, where
appropriate, corporate-level indicators
A project baseline, with:
a description of the problem to address
indicator data
or, if major baseline indicators are not identified, an alternative plan for addressing this
within one year of implementation
An M&E Plan with identification of reviews and evaluations which will be undertaken,
such as mid-term reviews or evaluations of activities
An organizational setup and budgets for monitoring and evaluation.
113 http://gefweb.org/MonitoringandEvaluation/MEPoliciesProcedures/MEPTools/meptstandards.html
Page 106 of 114

15.6
Minimum Requirement 2: Application of Project M&E
Project monitoring and supervision will include implementation of the M&E plan,
comprising:
Use of SMART indicators for implementation (or provision of a reasonable explanation if
not used)
Use of SMART indicators for results (or provision of a reasonable explanation if not used)
Fully established baseline for the project and data compiled to review progress
Evaluations are undertaken as planned
Operational organizational setup for M&E and budgets spent as planned.
SMART INDICATORS GEF projects and programs should monitor using relevant
performance indicators. The monitoring system should be "SMART":
1. Specific: The system captures the essence of the desired result by clearly and directly
relating to achieving an objective, and only that objective.
2. Measurable: The monitoring system and its indicators are unambiguously specified
so that all parties agree on what the system covers and there are practical ways to
measure the indicators and results.
3. Achievable and Attributable: The system identifies what changes are anticipated as
a result of the intervention and whether the result(s) are realistic. Attribution requires
that changes in the targeted developmental issue can be linked to the intervention.
4. Relevant and Realistic: The system establishes levels of performance that are likely
to be achieved in a practical manner, and that reflect the expectations of stakeholders.
5. Time-bound, Timely, Trackable, and Targeted: The system allows progress to be
tracked in a cost-effective manner at desired frequency for a set period, with clear
identification of the particular stakeholder group to be impacted by the project or
program.
Page 107 of 114

15.7
Annex 5: List of intended additional recipients for the Terminal Evaluation (to
be completed by the IA Task Manager)
Name
Affiliation
Email
Aaron Zazuetta
GEF Evaluation Office
azazueta@thegef.org
Government Officials
GEF Focal Point(s)
Executing Agency
Implementing Agency
Carmen Tavera
UNEP
DGEF
Portfolio
Manager
Page 108 of 114

15.8
Annex 6
Project Activities anticipated at the time of the project inception
Component 1: Identification of Transboundary Risk. The Component, at a total cost of
US$ 555 000 (GEF: US$ 185 000, Co-financing/associated projects: US$ 370 000), carried
out in project months 2 to 36 and included (5) activities. Government in-kind contributions
was US$ 75 000.
5. Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis: at a total cost of US$ 90 000, (GEF: US$90 000),
planned for project months 5 to 11,
6. Modelling Capacity Building: at a total cost of US$ 30 000, (GEF: US$ 30 000,), planned
for project months 2 to 36,
7. Field Studies of Aquifer Recharge: at a total cost of US$ 85 000, (GEF: US$ 65 000, Co-
financing: US$ 20 000), planned for project months 2 to 20,
8. (a) Establishment of a Common Risk Identification Database; and (b) Targeted Pilot Area
Surveys: at a total cost of US$ 350 000 (Co-financing/associated project: US$ 350 000),
planned for project months 3 to 21 and project months 7-36 respectively.
Component 2: Policy and Institutional Mechanisms for Reducing Transboundary Risk
(Management Framework). The Component, at a total cost of US$ 450 000 (GEF: US$ 150
000, Co-financing/associated project: US$ 300 000),planned for project months 10 to 27 and
included (3) activities. Government in-kind contributions are US$ 42 000.
3. Establishment of Mechanisms for Formulation of Risk Reduction Policies and a Joint
Development and Conservation Strategy for the IAS: The Component, at a total cost of US$
125 000 (GEF: US$ 125 000), planned for project months 18 to 26,
4. Development of a Joint Legal and Institutional IAS Cooperative Framework: The
Component, at a total cost of US$ 300 000 (Co-financing/associated project: US$ 300 000),
planned for project months 10 to 27,
5. Mechanisms for Transboundary Aquifer Monitoring The Component, at a total cost of
US$ 25 000 (GEF: US$ 25 000), planned for project months 18 to 30
Component 3. Awareness, Participation, Communication. The Component, at a total cost
of US$ 133 000 (GEF: US$ 133 000), planned for project months 16 to 34 and included (2)
activities. Government in-kind contributions was US$ 18 000.
3. Common Public Awareness Program: at a total cost of US$ 78 000, (GEF: US$ 78 000),
planned for project months 16 to 34, together with 1b Introduction of Experience/References
from other GEF projects: at a total cost of US$5 000 (Co-financing US$5 000), will be carried
out starting in project month 18,
4. Inter-government Communication Tools: at a total cost of US$ 50 000, (GEF: US$ 50
000), planned for project months 22 to 28.
Component 4: Project Monitoring and Evaluation, and Dissemination of Data: The
Component, at a total cost of US$ 95 000 (GEF: US$ 30 000, Co-financing: US$ 65 000),
Page 109 of 114

carried out over the full project duration, project months 1 to 36, and included (3) activities.
Government in-kind contributions was US$ 16 500.
4. Project Monitoring and Evaluation: at a total cost of US$ 30 000, (GEF: US$ 30 000),
carried out over the full duration of the project,
5. 2a. Dissemination of ISARM Reference Information: at a total cost of US$ 20 000, (Co-
financing: US$ 20 000), carried out throughout the project with dissemination of project
experience and data in project months 34 to 36, and 2b Strengthening aquifer knowledge
community, at a total cost of US$ 10 000 (GEF: US$ 10 000),
6. 3a.Inclusion of Project Data in the Global Groundwater Database: at a total cost of US$
30 000, (Co-financing: US$ 30 000), planned for project months 26 to 32, and 3b Introduction
of Data standards and Inter-compatibility: at a total cost of US$ 5 000 (GEF: US$ 5 000)
Component 5: Project Coordination and Management. The Component, at a total cost of
US$ 445 000 (GEF: US$ 445 000), carried out over the project duration, project months 1 to
36, and included (3) activities. Government in-kind contributions are US$ 18 000.
4. Support to the Project Steering Committee: at a total cost of US$ 111 000,
5. Project Management (Annex 13): at a total cost of US$ 254 000,
6. Scientific Supervision, Support and Coordination (Annex 13): in project months 1 to 36,
total cost US$ 80 000.
Page 110 of 114

Document Outline

þÿ
þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
  - þÿ
  - þÿ
- þÿ
þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
þÿ
- þÿ
  - þÿ
  - þÿ
  - þÿ
- þÿ
  - þÿ
  - þÿ
  - þÿ
  - þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
  - þÿ
  - þÿ
  - þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
þÿ
þÿ
þÿ
þÿ
þÿ
þÿ
þÿ
þÿ
þÿ
þÿ
þÿ
- þÿ
  - þÿ
  - þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ