|
Request for CEO endorsement/Approval Project Type: Medium-sized Project the GEF Trust Fund |
Submission Date: 29 November 2007
Re-submission Date: 21 December 2007
|
Expected Calendar | |
|
Milestones |
Dates |
|
Work Program (for FSP) |
NA |
|
GEF Agency Approval |
Feb 2007 |
|
Implementation Start |
April 2007 |
|
Mid-term Review (if planned) |
Sept 09 |
|
Implementation Completion |
Feb 2011 |
part i: project Information
GEFSEC Project ID:
gef agency Project ID: PIMS No. 3799
Country(ies): Global
Project Title: Good Practices and Portfolio Learning in GEF Transboundary Freshwater and Marine Legal and Institutional Frameworks
GEF Agency(ies): UNDP, ,
Other Executing partner(s): University of British Columbia (UBC)
GEF Focal Area(s):
GEF-4 Strategic program(S): Cross-Cutting SO1 & SO2; Strategic Programs 1. Restoring and sustaining coastal and marine fish stocks and associated biological diversity; 2. Reducing nutrient over-enrichment and oxygen depletion; and 3. Balancing overuse and conflicting uses of water resources in transboundary surface and groundwater basins.
Name of parent program/umbrella project:
A. Project framework
|
Project Objective: To strengthen international cooperation and development of regional IW governance frameworks | ||||||||
Project Components |
Indicate whether Investment, TA, or STA** |
Expected Outcomes – See Annex A for details |
Expected Outputs – See Annex A for details |
GEF Financing* |
Co-financing* |
Total ($) | ||
($) |
% |
($) |
% | |||||
|
1. Identification and Understanding of Good Practices and Fostering a South-South Dialogue. |
STA and TA |
Performance measures for good governance, and S-S info. exchange |
Analysis, report and review of good Practices, and establishment of S-S Peer Exchange group |
$210,000 |
43% |
$280,800 |
57% |
$490,800 |
|
2. Development and Validation of Experiential Learning Tools, Field Testing, and Training Local Experts in Tool Delivery |
STA and TA |
Increased availability for information dissemination and understanding in transboundary water management |
Experiential tools for capacity development and training in transboundary water management |
$327,000 |
46% |
$377,000 |
54% |
$704,000 |
|
3. Validation and Promotion of Tools, and Enhancing Collaboration and South-South Learning |
TA |
Sustained local capacity for replication and implementation of good governance model development |
Cadre of local experts to conduct on-going capacity development; 60 GEF practitioners with experience in tool use |
$256,000 |
41% |
$375,000 |
59% |
$631,000 |
|
4. Monitoring and Evaluation |
TA |
Efficient monitoring, evaluation and a replicable proj. model |
Audit, reports |
$66,000 |
87% |
$10,000 |
13% |
$76,000 |
|
5. Project management |
91,000 |
37% |
165,000 |
63% |
$256,000 | |||
|
Total Project Costs |
950,000 |
1,207,800 |
2,157,800 | |||||
B. Financing Plan Summary For The Project ($)
|
Project Preparation* |
Project** |
Agency Fee |
Total at CEO Endorsement |
For the record: Total at PIF | |
| GEF |
49,686 |
950,000 |
99,969 |
1,099,655 |
|
| Co-financing |
59,700 |
1,207,800 |
1,267,500 |
||
|
Total |
109,386 |
2,157,800 |
99,969 |
2,367,155 |
* Provide the status of implementation and use of fund for the project preparation grant in Annex D.
* * Please see Annex E for detailed Atlas Budget and Budget Notes.
C. Sources of confirmed Co-financing, including co-financing for project preparation for both the PDFs and PPG.
(expand the table line items as necessary)
|
Name of co-financier (source) |
Classification |
Type |
Amount ($) |
%* |
|
Institute for Asian Research UBC |
Academic |
In-kind |
195,000 |
16.15% |
|
CRELA, La Rochelle Univ. |
Academic |
Cash/in-kind |
14,000/ 84,800 |
8.18% |
|
El Colegio de Mexico |
Academic |
In-kind |
75,000 |
6.21% |
|
Oregon State University |
Academic |
In-kind |
50,000 |
4.14% |
|
Center for Water Law and Policy, Texas Tech University |
Academic |
In-kind |
40,000 |
3.31% |
|
Bates College |
Academic |
In-kind |
30,000 |
2.48% |
|
IAR, Andrew Thompson, UBC |
Academic |
In-kind |
30,000 |
2.48% |
|
M Power, Chaing Mai University |
Academic |
In-kind |
30,000 |
2.48% |
|
Peace and Conflict Inst., Uppsala University |
Academic |
In-kind |
30,000 |
2.48% |
|
Mussa Mohammed Abenso, U of Dundee |
Academic |
In-kind |
15,000 |
1.24% |
|
Law School, University of Washington, |
Academic |
In-kind |
10,000 |
0.83% |
|
Institute of Resources, Environment and Sustainability, UBC |
Academic |
In-kind |
10,000 |
0.83% |
|
Compass Resource Management |
Private Sector |
In-kind |
60,000 |
4.97% |
|
EcoPlan International |
Private Sector |
In-kind |
30,000 |
2.48% |
|
Resources Administration. and Development. Intl. |
Private Sector |
In-kind |
30,000 |
2.48% |
|
Holguin, Neira & Pombo, Attorneys |
Private Sector |
In-kind |
25,000 |
2.07% |
|
Pierce Atwood, LLP, Attorneys |
Private Sector |
In-kind |
25,000 |
2.07% |
|
Tim Hannan, Consultant |
Private Sector |
In-kind |
10,000 |
0.83% |
|
John Metzger, Consultant |
Private Sector |
In-kind |
10,000 |
0.83% |
|
Jerry Speir, Attorney |
Private Sector |
In-kind |
10,000 |
0.83% |
|
Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide |
NGO |
In-kind |
34,000 |
2.82% |
|
Network for Environmental and Sustainable Development in Central Africa |
NGO |
In-kind |
30,000 |
2.48% |
|
Aquatic Resources Conservation Group |
NGO |
Cash/in-kind |
7,000/23,000 |
2.48% |
|
Canadian Water Research Society |
NGO |
Cash |
25,000 |
2.07% |
|
Asian American Partnership |
NGO |
In-kind |
15,000 |
1.24% |
|
Institute of Governance and Sustainable Development |
NGO |
In-kind |
10,000 |
0.83% |
|
Environmental Law Institute |
NGO |
In-kind |
100,000 |
8.28% |
|
Richard Paisley and Glen Hearns |
Academic |
Cash-equivalent |
35,000* |
2.90% |
|
FAO / WRPM (Nile Basin Organization) |
International Organizations |
In-Kind (Travel) |
15,000** |
1.24% |
|
Private Sector Support |
Private Sector |
Cash |
10,000*** |
0.83% |
| CIDA |
Nat’l Govt |
Cash |
90,000**** |
7.45% |
|
Sub-Total Co-financing Confirmed |
1,092,800 |
90% | ||
|
Sub-Total Co-financing Unconfirmed |
115,000 |
10% | ||
|
Total Co-financing |
1,207,800 |
100% | ||
*Project proponents together have over 400,000 air line points (equivalent to at least $35,000 international travel) and have committed these to the project.
** Project proponents are scheduled to be in the Nile Basin in December 2007 at the invitation of FAO to conduct a follow up workshop regarding international waters, good governance and experiential learning which among other things will pay their international travel costs to the region and allow them to do additional work on this initiative while they are there. Project proponents have also just recently been retained by the Nile Basin Organization to spearhead an initiative to negotiate a basin wide comprehensive data and information sharing and exchange agreement for the Nile Basin which among other things will fund international air travel to the region on 5 or more occasions in 2008 alone.
*** This line item refers to not yet fully confirmed funds by private sector donors who have previously supported this initiative including by helping to finance the inaugural meeting of this initiative in Vancouver in July 2006 and who have continued to express strong interest in continuing to be involved. These entities include Powerex, BC Hydro, Lawson Lundell Barristers & Solicitors, Columbia Power Corporation and the Columbia Basin Trust.
**** This line item represents a not yet fully confirmed contribution from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) to this initiative through the Conferences and Events Secretariat Fund which supports participation by eligible delegates at conferences that address topics of particular interest to CIDA. CIDA’s current program priorities include “governance and environmental sustainability, with gender equality as a cross-cutting theme and seeking to influence sustainable development in developing countries and/or countries in transition” all of which resonate with the objectives of this project. Travel for conferences covered by the Fund may be held in Canada or abroad and the Fund will support up to 33% of total conference costs, to a maximum of $250,000, towards the participation of eligible delegates. Both CIDA and DFAIT (Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada) have also already lent their support to this initiative including by attending and helping to fund the inaugural meeting in Vancouver in July 2006.
D. GEF Resources Requested by Focal Area(s), Agency(ies) or Country(ies)
|
GEF Agency |
Focal Area |
Country Name/ Global |
(in $) | |||
|
Project Preparation |
Project |
Agency Fee |
Total | |||
| UNDP |
IW |
Global |
49,686 |
950,000 |
99,969 |
1,099,655 |
|
Total GEF Resources |
49,686 |
950,000 |
99,969 |
1,099,655 | ||
E. Project management Budget/cost
Component |
Estimated staff weeks |
GEF($) |
Other sources ($) |
Project total ($) |
Personnel* |
25.0 |
$30,000 |
$0 |
$30,000 |
Local consultants* |
22.7 |
$20,000 |
$5,000 |
$25,000 |
International consultants* |
8.3 |
0 |
25,000 |
$25,000 |
Contractual Services |
14.0 |
$35,000 |
$0 |
$35,000 |
Office facilities, equipment, vehicles and communications |
$0.00 |
$125,000 |
$125,000 | |
| Travel |
$6,000 |
$10,000 |
$16,000 | |
| Miscellaneous |
||||
| Total |
$91,000 |
$165,000 |
$256,000 |
* Please see Annex C for detailed information regarding the consultants.
** Please see Annex C for detailed information and justification for these line items.
f. Consultants working for technical assistance components:
Component |
Estimated person weeks |
GEF($) |
Other sources ($) |
Project total ($) |
Personnel |
10.0 |
$12,000 |
0 |
$12,000 |
Local consultants* |
369.1 |
$246,000 |
$160,000 |
$406,000 |
International consultants* |
177.3 |
$130,000 |
$401,800 |
$531,800 |
Total |
556.4 |
$388,000 |
$561,800 |
$949,800 |
* Rate for local consultants varies ($1000/wk for GEF payment and higher for in-kind contributions- average is $1100/wk)
G. describe the budgeted m&e plan:
Monitoring and Evaluation Work Plan and Corresponding Budget
|
Type of M&E activity |
Responsible Parties |
Budget US$ |
Time frame |
|
Excluding project team Staff time | |||
|
Inception Workshop |
Project Team, UNDP-GEF, Steering Committee |
$26,000 |
Within first two months of project start up |
|
Inception Report |
Project Management Team |
None |
Immediately following GEF IW Conference |
|
Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Progress and Performance (measured on an annual basis) |
Oversight by GEF/UNDP Technical Advisor and Project Coordinator Measurements Steering Committee |
To be determined as part of the Annual Work Plan's preparation. |
Annually prior to APR and to the definition of annual work plans |
|
Quarterly Operational Reports (QOR) |
Project Team |
None |
Quarterly |
|
APR/PIR and IW Results Template |
Project Team and UNDP-GEF |
None |
Annually |
|
Steering Committee Meetings |
Project Team |
None |
Following Project IW; subsequently at least annually |
|
Advisory Panel Meetings, or review |
Project Coordinator and Advisory Panel members |
None |
Periodically TBD at inception meeting |
|
Periodic status reports |
Project team |
None |
To be determined by Project team and UNDP HQ |
|
Technical reports |
Project team, Hired consultants as needed |
None |
To be determined by Project Team and UNDP-HQ |
|
External Evaluation (including possible mid-term reviews) |
Project team, SC, AP, UNDP-GEF , External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) |
$31,000 |
At the end of project implementation |
|
Final Project Report |
Project team |
None – subsumed under project management |
At least one month before the end of the project |
|
Dissemination of M&E outcomes at workshops, forums (i.e. IWC4, WWF5 prep coms, etc.) |
project team and GETF |
Part of project dissemination |
Year three and beyond |
| Audit |
UNDP, Project team |
$9,000 |
Annually |
|
TOTAL indicative COST (Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses) |
$66,000 |
||
part ii: project justification
SUMMARY
The objective of this project is to strengthen international cooperation and enhance the development of regional international waters (IW) governance frameworks with a view towards increasing the social, economic and environmental benefits of GEF International Waters projects globally.
The three components of this project and what they will do are:
Component # 1: (less than 1/4 of co-finance resources and 1/4 of GEF resources) synthesizes key lessons learned and experiences regarding the governance of international waters in various targeted areas. Component # 1 is based in part on previous work done by IW LEARN together with additional syntheses of the collective experience of selected IW practitioners including the project proponents. These analyses and critiques of what worked/did not work in previous GEF funded experiences provide the basic information bank from which the future work of this project springs. Responding directly to the demand of IW practitioners through preliminary surveys and anecdotal evidence these syntheses of lessons learned and experiences will likely include but will not necessarily be limited to such areas of interest as:
- Data and information sharing and exchange
- Dispute resolution
- Benefit sharing
- Finance
- Negotiation skills
Component # 2: (3/8 co-finance resources and 3/8 of GEF resources) results in the production of a major problem solving leading edge experiential learning “tool kit” that will be available for use during the project and after the project ends. Component # 2 is at the heart of the project. Component # 2 is where the lessons learned and experiences with IW governance to date are transformed into innovative experiential learning tools to help ensure that these lessons learned and experiences are assimilated and acted upon. To cite one example various specialized tools, including custom designed case studies and custom designed negotiation simulation exercises, will be developed to solve the recurring dilemma of how best to negotiate and successfully implement sustainable data and information sharing and exchange agreements between nations sharing freshwater, groundwater and / or marine international waters. Surveys and anecdotal evidence confirm that this dilemma continues to be a major issue everywhere from the Nile River Basin to the Guarani Aquifer to the South China Seas and that lack of knowledge and understanding in this area is a major impediment to portfolio learning and the implementation of best practices.
The experiential learning tools developed for various target areas as part of this component will likely include but will not necessarily be limited to:
- custom designed case studies
- custom designed negotiation simulation exercises
- interactive learning modules directed towards the acquisition of enhanced negotiation, facilitation and mediations skills
- an interactive CD-ROM “text book” (based in part on a series of interactive CD-ROMs already developed for other aspects of IWRM by project proponents and partners)
Component # 3: (3/8 of co-finance resources and 3/8 of GEF resources) focuses on ensuring the sustainability of the tool kit through use and adaptation. Component # 3 is particularly crucial to the testing, verification and adaptation of the outputs of the project and the verification of the project as a whole. The tool kit developed as part of this project will be continuously adapted and refined throughout the life of the project and then made available and heavily promoted after project termination to IW:LEARN and other information exchange mechanisms.
This project is the first ever initiative to seriously: 1. bring together IW practitioners from all three IW realms (marine, surface and groundwater) from all over the world; 2. assist them to work together to identify lessons learned and experiences: 3. work with them to design and implement an experiential learning tool kit, and 4. ensure sustainability of the tool kit through use and adaptation.
In direct response to the demands of various IW practitioners the outputs / deliverables of this project are:
- A sophisticated and adaptable experiential learning “tool kit” likely including but not necessarily limited to: 1. various syntheses of lessons learned and experiences in various target areas related to the good governance of international waters; 2. custom designed case studies; 3. custom designed negotiation simulation exercises; 4. interactive learning modules directed towards the acquisition of enhanced negotiation, facilitation and mediations skills by IW practitioners; and 5. an interactive CD-ROM “text book”;
- A suite of legal and institutional performance measure indicators for measuring good governance in international waters;
- Improved knowledge and understanding by various IW practitioners throughout the IW world of various legal and institutional performance measure indicators for measuring good governance in international waters;
- A significant number of workshops held for various IW professionals throughout the IW world a significant proportion of who will be women;
- A cadre of knowledgeable and trained IW professionals throughout the IW world who will work continuously to improve, modify and adapt the tool kit to help ensure sustainability;
- A cadre of knowledgeable and trained IW professionals throughout the IW world who are ready, willing and able to train others in the implementation of the tool kit to help ensure sustainability;
- Various platforms including web sites produced by the project that will facilitate the dissemination of project results to help ensure sustainability;
- Measurably enhanced media awareness and appreciation of strategies and techniques for the good governance of international waters.
The project will also contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation in relation to IWRM and reform in the water sector.
A thorough review, including both product and process evaluation indicators, will indicate the success of the project.
A. describe the project rationale and the expected measurable global environmental benefits:
1. The Goal of this project is to strengthen and promote international and multi-country cooperation, and enhance regime development of regional governance frameworks in order to increase the economic and environmental benefits of GEF International Waters (IW) projects. Through adaptive management decision-making methodologies and collaboration with local experts and practitioners, the project develops, promotes and delivers innovative and targeted experiential learning tools for transboundary water governance, with a unique focus on replicable tools, good practices and lessons learned in the delivery of “on-the-ground” reforms in the governance of transboundary fresh (surface and ground) and marine waters. A central pillar of the project is the development and delivery of management tools by local experts to enhance livelihoods and ensure continous replication.
The project has three principal components: (1) To identify and analyze legal and institutional beneficial practices in advancing effective governance of transboundary water resources, creating South-South peer learning groups for collaboration; (2) To develop and validate new experiential learning tools and teaching/implementation guides, preparing local experts to apply water governance tools; and (3) most importantly, to deliver and consistently refine those tools through "hands-on" programs involving at least 60 GEF IW practitioners, at least 20% of whom will be women, and thus to create a cadre of local experts in each GEF region to sustain on-going refinement and delivery of tools beyond the term of this project.
2. Nearly half of the world’s population will soon live within one of the planet’s 261 international river basins and will be dependent upon their surface and groundwater resources. Increasing migration to the world’s coastal areas continues to place growing demands on adjacent marine ecosystems which are crucial to livelihoods, health and food security of coastal states. This project is based on the proposition that good governance of international waters is crucial to meeting the challenges of prosperity building, public health and environmental sustainability set by the Millenium Development Goals. Moreover, there is a pressing need for more effective and adaptive legal and institutional frameworks to address the complexities associated with managing international waters and, in particular, to resolve challenges relating to priority transboundary issues such as land and marine based pollution, competing and conflicting uses of water resources, sustaining fisheries, mitigating invasive species and developing adaptive decision-making structures to meet the challenges associated with global climate variability and change. Regrettably there continues to be a dearth of knowledge regarding the quality and efficacy of transboundary legal and institutional arrangements in GEF IW projects. No large scale review has been conducted regarding their effectivness in meeting management goals. Moreover, there are differing levels of institutional and legal arrangments in various projects: some projects have agreements and protocols, while others lack formal agreements between the states. After 15 years of funding, it is an opportune time to review and assess the functionality of formal and informal legal and institutional arrangements within, and beyond, the GEF IW portfolio. This review and assessment transcends ecosystem classification to cover both marine and freshwater systems while addressing widespread historical failures to integrate surface and groundwater management and also to integrate governance of freshwater and coastal/marine water resource systems. Programs like GEF’s IW:LEARN have assisted greatly in promoting peer learning among GEF projects. However, key gaps persist, especially in the areas of reporting, collecting and adapting beneficial practices, and in strengthening local delivery of targeted experiential learning. Among other things, there is a lack of knowledge gained from the application of gender mainstreaming in the management of water. Gender mainstreaming is defined by the UNDP as "the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in any area and at all levels" as the principal means to achieve these objectives. UNDP endorses this approach, and includes the advancement of women as a core thematic area within its Sustainable Human Development (SHD) framework.
3. GEF is the world's largest financier of multi-national fresh and marine water related transboundary cooperative arrangements, having invested almost a billion dollars in international waters since 1991. After supporting 115 international water projects, this is a critical time to collect and profit from past experiences, to analyze, evaluate facilitating modalities and best practices, and to recycle the benefits of this experience through iterative yet novel experiential learning techniques. The project will take advantage of the momentum created during GEF 2 and 3 for policy, legal, and institutional reforms through the dissemination of lessons learned and best practices emphasizing the use of South-South dialogues to both create and apply targeted learning tools. While respecting the differences in various ecosystems, this project is innovative in that it disregards traditional views of focusing on specific ecosystem management, such as marine or river waters, to distill and disseminate the key elements of effective governance of any transboundary waters. The results of this project will be reflected in strengthened policy and institutional reforms across the GEF portfolio, and in individual and programmatic lending operations supported by the GEF, World Bank Group, FAO and other implementing agencies. African operations in the GEF portfolio (and those of other funders) will be a priority due to that continent’s vulnerability in terms of climate variability, as well as the significance of harnessing the benefits of shared water resources to achieve Millennium Development Goals and ongoing and future need for environmentally sustainable governance tools in building prosperity in that region.
4. This project’s efforts will directly address gaps identified above by assessing the GEF IW portfolio, identifying successful and replicable regional governance approaches (legal, policy, institutional) that are being effectively piloted, and by developing and demonstrating iterative locally adaptable experiential learning tools for greater success in transboundary waters governance. These tools then can be used by GEF for enhancing current projects and new GEF project proposals. Moreover, by emphasizing close collaboration with local experts and practitioners in the development and the delivery of the learning tools, local capacity will be developed and endure well beyond the project itself. In addition to strengthening the capacity of local partner institutions achieved by this project, through fostering a network of local experts capable of delivering learning tools, a culture of good governance will be cultivated even as individual IW practitioners change. This project cuts across all bio-physical IW systems in focusing on institutional and legal mechanisms necessary for good governance and wise decision-making in all transboundary water management arenas. The project will research and develop performance measurement criteria for institutional development and appropriate decision-making methods, including incorporation of stakeholder values and public consultation processes. Methods such as structured decision making and trade-off analysis are powerful tools in combination with an understanding of the principles of international law and adaptive management. These methods are particularly useful when confronted with a variety of differing values and opinions as occurs in integrated water resources management, particularly at the transboundary level. Essential to the sustainable management of these complex socio-ecological systems is the ability to make effective and efficient decisions that capture the multifaceted stakeholder interests associated with them. This project will establish decision support mechanisms and, through the creation of a network of local trainers, will ensure that there is replicability at local and regional and national levels.
5. The initial application for this project (a PDF A Grant for $50,000 USD) was approved in June, 2006. This funded a workshop of international experts in Vancouver in July, 2006. The participants, representative of all GEF regions, outlined the substantive contributions which this project could make to strengthen multi-state waters governance. Subsequent to the meeting, a comprehensive survey was conducted among attendees and current GEF IW portfolio managers soliciting their input on priority areas for enhancing governance. The findings of the workshop and responses from the survey converged on the need for better understanding and institutional capacity in trans-boundary waters governance in the following priority areas: basic and advanced legal principles of shared waters; institutional aspects of managing shared waters; methods of increasing the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement; and sustainable management decision-making practices. The project has encompassed those needs as expressed by experts in the field. A list of attendees, summary of the proceedings and of the results of the survey accompany this proposal in the PDF A Report.
A.2. OBJECTIVES, OUTCOMES, OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES:
The overall project goal is to foster good governance and effective decision making in international waters management through identification, collection, adaptation and replication of beneficial practices that focus on effective and functional legal and institutional frameworks for cooperation.
Objectives
The objective of this project is to strengthen and promote international and multi-country cooperation, and enhance regime development of regional waterbody governance frameworks in order to increase the economic and environmental benefits of GEF International Waters (IW) projects globally.
The project is comprised of three interdependent components.
Component 1
Component 1 has the following goals:
i) Increasing understanding and knowledge of key elements of legal and institutional frameworks for good governance and decision-making.
This will be achieved through the identification, analysis and codification of successful approaches of international waters (IW) within and beyond the GEF portfolio, and the determination of performance measures. The output of this will be a report on the identification of performance measures for good governance of international waters. Activities will include desk analysis, interviews, extensive interaction with field practitioners and field visits to selected areas for detailed analysis. This component will investigate up to 25 waterbodies including travel to a lesser number of locations to allow for more in-depth analysis. These could include: Rivers -- the Nile, the Danube, the Rhine, the Dnieper, the Okavango, the Kagera, the Senegal, the Bermejo, the Mekong, the Syr Darya, the Amu Darya, and the Columbia; Lakes -- Lake Victoria, Lake Tanganyika and the ICJ exeriences with the Great Lakes; Groundwater -- the NW Sahara and the Guarani Aquifers; Marine systems – the Benguela Current, the Guinea Current, the Red Sea, The Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, the South China Sea Large Marine Ecosystem, the Mediterranean GPA Protocol, the Pacific SIDS fisheries, and the Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape Initiative. Close ties will be developed with the UNDP/GEF-MSP Transboundary Waters Management Experience in Europe, Caucasus and Central Asian program, as well as with the proposed regional MSP testing adaptive learning mechanisms to improve regional water systems governance in Africa in order to complement that work and to share both project implementation experiences as well as substantive findings. Part of the activites will also involve and assessment of “on the ground” needs and experiences for capacity building, including those already generated by IW:LEARN and PDF A Workshop and Survey results. The results of the research will be circulated to the Advisory Panel as well as the South-South Peer Review Group (see below).
ii) Promoting facilitated exchanges of experience and increased partnership implementation.
This will be achieved through the establishment of a South-South Peer Review Group (S-S PRG) and learning networks, and will incorporate local objectives for capacity building. The S-S PRG will be inititated at the onset of the project and will continue for the duration of the project. This will involve regional meetings as well as global meetings, taking advantage of IW confreneces and workshops.
Component 2
Component 2 has the following goals:
i) The primary goal of component 2 is accelerating capacity building for good governance of IW through the creation and promotion of novel experiential learning tools specificially targeted for GEF IW practitioners, designed in collaboration with local experts and practitioners.
The outcome of this component will be an enhanced ability to promote good governance in IW. The output will be a series of novel experiential learning tools for good governance focusing on understanding and promoting effective legal and institutional framworks and decision-making. The experiential learning tools will include case studies, negotiations, role play simulation exercises, and interactive tools. Tools will be developed in collaboration with South-South PRG and regional groups and local experts. The tools will include electronic CDs and web-based platforms. Possible software will be “tool-books,” “illumina” and “visio-basic” for example. The tools will be developed for capacity building of professional practitioners, but will also be available as teaching tools in universities for graduate courses. El Colegio de Mexico will be a partner institution in this and other academic partners may include Chulalongkorn University, the University of Bogota and the University of Addis Ababa.
ii) The other major output from this component will be the creation of a cadre of local experts trained in tool delivery to ensure replication and on-going development of the tools.
A trainers guide and course programs of 1, 2 and 5 days will be developed including electronic presentation packages. The guide will be tested and enhanced during the creation of a cadre of local experts who will be responsible for the majority of the training under component 3. Two Experiential learning capacity development courses will be conducted for training local experts in tool delivery through appropriate institutions, such as UNESCO-IHE, IAR, and el Colegio de Mexico. Training Guides will be available in English, French, Spanish and Portuguese as appropriate. Informaiton and promotion of the tools will be done at regional workshops and international conferences.
Component 3
Component 3 has the following goals:
i) The primary goal of this component is building local capacity of GEF and other IW practitioners in good governance through targeted experiential training and adaptive learning; and ensure local capacity to replicate experiential learning programs that foster a culture of good governance in IW.
The outcome will be enhanced capacity of GEF practitioners in good governance and effective decision-making, including experienced local experts to replicate learning programs. Activites will center on conducting regional targeted programs where local experts are delivering to regional practitioners. This activity will take place over at least three regional capacity building sessions and will be given to a minimum of 60 GEF practitioners in IW, 20% of who will be women. Advantage will be taken of all regional and international meetings to deliver the materials, but a minimum of 3 programs of 5 days will be conducted. The outcome will be enhanced collaboration between GEF practitioners, increased effectiveness in decision-making, including engagement and participation of civil society and other interest groups. A survey determining understanding and knowledge of IW practices will also be conducted to monitor the success of the workshops.
ii) A secondary goal of the component will be the promotion and awareness of the tools.
This will be achieved through partner organizations and the continuation of the South-South PRG, academic papers, conferences, media, web-based platforms such as IW:LEARN, CAP at UNESCO-IHE. Development and continued maintenance of UBC IAR web site will assure ease of accessibility to tools, Teaching Guide and project gathered/developed materials.
This project fosters dialogue between GEF project practitioners and builds on South-South learning experiences. This will be sustained in part by the South-South Peer Review Group initiated in the first component and established in a manner that will facilitate on-going exchange of ideas and solutions after the project concludes. While the project expert team and staff have excellent credentials and many years of experience worldwide, the contributions of the project’s partners in the field will be equally essential to accomplishing this work.
The project is evaluated through a program consistent with UNDP and GEF monitoring and evaluation guidelines including a suite of evaluation indicators to help judge the eventual success of the project.
B. Describe the consistency of the project with national priorities/plans:
Participants in IW:LEARN regional workshops in all GEF regions consistently affirm the benefits and need for further sharing of knowledge and practical experience on legal and institutional aspects of good governance. In a PDF A experts workshop, held in July 2006 in Vancouver with representatives from countries in all major GEF regions (Asia Pacific, Latin America, Africa, Eastern and Central Europe and the Caucasus), recommendations were made that capacity building in several key areas of international water governance were needed by IW practitioners in the field. Subsequent to the workshop a survey was sent out to GEF project managers soliciting their input for capacity building needs in their various projects. The findings of the workshop and the responses from the survey converged on the need for better understanding and institutional capacity in trans-boundary waters governance in the following priority areas: basic and advanced legal principles of shared waters; institutional aspects of managing shared waters; methods of increasing the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement; and sustainable management decision-making practices. The project design ensures that the project is demand-side driven. The tools created and delivered and capacities built will contribute to a wide range of national and regional priorities or plans by facilitating the effective development and adoption of regional legal and institutional frameworks – ex. by incorporating regional GEF frameworks into national frameworks.
C. Describe the consistency of the project with gef strategies and strategic programs:
The project is crosscutting and involves multiple GEF Strategic Programs: 1. Restoring and sustaining coastal and marine fish stocks and associated biological diversity; 2. Reducing nutrient over-enrichment and oxygen depletion; and 3. Balancing overuse and conflicting uses of water resources in transboundary surface and groundwater basins. This project correlates with the portfolio learning mandate of each program. Its emphasis on targeted experiential learning for capacity building and South to South experience sharing among existing and a limited number of new IW projects will foster multi-country collaboration on priority transboundary concerns. It will facilitate enhancement of portfolio successes through development, use and accelerated replication of good practices. As mentioned in the Draft Strategic Programs for GEF-4 (April 26, 2007): “ An increased emphasis on targeted experience sharing and learning among the new and existing GEF IW projects in the portfolio is planned to improve capacity of projects to achieve objectives and to identify and replicate good practices before project completion. South-to-South experience sharing among IW projects contributes to quality enhancement for the GEF IW portfolio, development of knowledge management tools to capture good practices, and accelerated replication of good practices. With the help of its IW:LEARN program, its web-based resource center (www.iwlearn.net), and the GEF International Waters Task Force, this portfolio learning is an important feature of GEF programming and will be enhanced with a focus on many Africa IW operations now underway.” This project will help satisfy this GEF effort.
D. Outline the Coordination with other related initiatives:
The over 140 GEF-recipient governments working to strengthen joint management of over 50 shared water-bodies are the primary stakeholders relevant to the project objectives, as well as civil society organizations in these countries plus existing and/or nascent IW intergovernmental bodies interested in establishing and/or strengthening IW legal and institutional frameworks.
Stakeholders with particular interest and/or aptitude in strengthening international waters governance include: The GEF and all of its various implementing agencies (UNDP, UNEP, World Bank, FAO, UNIDO, AfDB, ADB, IADB, EBRD, IFAD); multi- and bilateral donors such as the EU, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), DFID, Swedish SIDA, US-AID and others; the UN-ECE; and a number of generous private sector supporters of the project. Various research institutions throughout the world specializing in international water and energy law and policy and who have expressed particular interest in this initiative also include Texas Tech University; University de la Rochelle; Oregon State University; University of Washington; Bates College; University of Dundee; Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok; the United Nations University for Peace; the University of the Pacific, Sacramento, California; the Water Initiatives Project at the Munk Center, University of Toronto, Toronto; the University of Upsala (Sweden); and the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. Many of these institutions have pledged co-finance support to this project. See Table I.C. for the list of co-finance supporters.
Among the numerous NGOs and philanthropic foundations who have also expressed particular interest in this initiative are the Environmental Law Instutue, WWF USA and IGSD, all in Washington, DC; ELAW, Eugene, Oregon; Canadian Water Research Society, Vancouver, Canada; the Aquatic Resources Conservation Group, Seattle, Wasington; the Colombia Society of Environmental Law; and the Asian Environment Centre. For further details, please see co-finance table herein. In August 2006, participants in the July ‘06 Vancouver workshop and all current GEF project managers were surveyed to determine if there was a convergence of opinions regarding the major pressure points for capacity development in international waters governance. The attendees represented all GEF regions and have significant professional experience in environmentally sustainable governance in developing countries.
The GEFSEC has been integrally involved with the genesis of this project from the beginning through a number of face to face meetings, telephone conversations and email correspondence. Also involved since the inception of the project have been the lead counsel for the World Bank on water issues and the lead counsel for the World Bank on sustainability issues. Their involvement has also been through both face to face meetings and telephone and e mail correspondence. In addition, one of this projects main propoenents has also worked, or is currently working, with counsel for the World Bank on international water and energy issues in the Mekong, the Nile Basin and Central Asia.
Other international agencies associated with the international waters area who have been involved in the gestation of this project include UNESCO, FAO, and the World Bank Institute. Attached is a letter of support from UNESCO. The individual most closely associated with the project from an FAO perspective continues to be the Director, Legal Development Division in Rome. One of this projecgts main proponents has worked with FAO on international water governance issues including in Cairo, Bujumbura, Rome and Nairobi.
The project has also already forged preliminary links with the World Bank Institute, UNDP and IW:LEARN. Indeed IW:LEARN has also been integrally involved in the development and formulation of this project.
In addition to the above, a large number of individuals and institutions from government, the NGO community, academia and the private sector with background and experience in the governance of international waters, including a significant number from developing countries, have been associated with the project from the beginning.
E. Describe the incremental reasoning of the project:
The following is based on the Operational Guidelines for Incremental Cost Analysis – Information Requirements at GEF Project Cycle Stages
The five step incremental analysis for this project at CEO endorsement stage is as follows:
Step # 1 – Analysis of “Business as Usual Scenario”
“Business as Usual” would mean that “lesson learned” and “best practices” regarding good governance of international waters in the GEF portfolio would continue to not be identified and shared on a regular and effective basis. With “business as usual” there will be little, if any, cross pollinization between international marine, international groundwater and international freshwater “lesson learned” and very little in the way of assimilation of knowledge through the development and implementation of advanced experiential learning techniques. With “business as usual” there will also most likely continue to be needless duplication of effort and missed opportunities for cooperation and collaboration within and between GEF initiatives.
Step # 2 – Analysis of Global Environmental Benefits and Strategic Fit
The Global Environmental Benefits (GEB) associated with this project center on the unique opportunity to identify and share lessons learned and best practices as they relate to good governance of international waters. The project is truly global in scope and involves NGO and other partners from throughout all the regions of the world where GEF is currently active. Regrettably without GEF support those who fail to learn from history will be indeed doomed to repeat it. To use but one example from the international freshwater area just think how much time, money and effort could have been saved in negotiating the recent Nile Basin Agreement if there had been a better awareness and appreciation of the lesson learned and best practices from other GEF supported initiatives?
Among the indicators that will be used to track progress in the realm of GEB will be number of dispute resolution strategies successfully integrated into international waters agreements and the number of data and information sharing and exchange agreements successfully implemented within and between countries sharing international waters. The project will specifically come to grips with those GEF strategic objectives that are focused on balancing overuse and conflicting uses of water resources in transboundary surface and groundwater basins.
Step # 3 – Incremental Cost Reasoning and GEF role
The expected global benefits in the context of the focal area under which the proposal has been submitted for GEF funding include making significant and unique contributions to balancing overuse and conflicting uses of water resources in transboundary surface and groundwater basins, restoring and sustaining coastal and marine fish stocks and associated biological diversity, and reducing nutrient over-enrichment and oxygen depletion. Thus, a whole range of GEF IW programs, reflecting freshwater, marine and coastal water bodies, will benefit from the project.
The project’s contribution to expected global environmental benefits (GEB) is reflected by the following impact indicators and targets in the project results framework:
Project Objective: To foster good governance and effective decision-making in international waters management through adaptation and replication of beneficial practices that focus on effective and functional legal and institutional frameworks for cooperation.
Sample Indicators:
· specific performance indicia for IW good governance developed;
· demand driven targeted syntheses of lessons learned and experiences produced;
· targeted experiential learning case studies produced;
· targeted negotiation simulation exercises produced;
· CD-ROM "textbooks" produced;
· training meetings held with local experts and GEF IW practitioners, of which 20 % will be women;
· local experts trained in tool delivery for replication purposes;
· south to south peer to peer implementation teams established.
Step # 4 – Determination of Result based Framework
In satisfaction of this step please see the attached detailed logical framework matrix (Annex A) including relevant indicators, risks and assumptions.
Step # 5 – Role of Co-finance
Please see attached co-finance matrix for identification of sources, amounts and types of co-finance as well as GEF and co-finance by outcome.
Each co-finance partner is committed to helping to pay for a portion of the cost of the GEB emanating from this project.
F. Indicate risks, including climate change risks, that might prevent the project objective(s) from being achieved and outline risk management measures:
Note the following table is composed of numerous detailed risks outlined in the LogFrame (Annex A).
|
Risks |
Assumptions |
Mitigation Measures |
|
- Relevant information may not be obtainable in a timely fashion; - Governance arrangements may not be studied in adequate depth. |
- There are common elements of ‘good governance’ in marine and freshwater systems - That current local areas of conflict and concomitant security risks will not limit information gathering. |
- Develop a larger data base of international water situations than are necessary so that there are 15% redundancy and can be used as fall back if problems arise with any of the initial selected areas. |
|
- May not have access to specific local areas, or relevant information |
- Access will be possible |
- Begin very early developing a relationship with the necessary personnel to ensure access to information, use fall-back study areas if necessary. |
|
- May not find appropriate Local Experts for South-South Peer Review Group; May be a challenge to find 20% women local experts. - Meetings may not be held/ poorly attended. |
- Local professionals have time to attend peer group and meetings. - ICT capacity of all members |
- Engage early to develop appropriate links with potential S-S peer group members, include redundancy in search - Emphasise identifying women for the S-S peer group. |
|
- Time and resource limitations hamper 100% accomplishment of tool development. |
- Tools developed with sufficient input from South-South PRG and with time for Advisory panel to assess/approve. |
- At onset of project continue to look for additional resources to ensure tool development is executed to the maximum extent. - Develop protocol for input from S-S PRG and Advisory Panel |
|
- May not be able to test out the T/I Guide at appropriate institutions in Vancouver. |
- UBC and/or SFU will be able to conduct training of trainers. |
- Identify allernative institutions such as el Colegio de Mexico and IHE UNESCO-IHE may not be able to accommodate course. |
|
- UNESCO-IHE may not be able to accommodate international water course capacity building. |
- Course will be incorporated into existing curriculum. |
- Engage early to develop and alter curriculum at IHE. Identify alternative institutions such as El Colegio de Mexico. |
|
- May not find sufficient appropriate local experts to train for experiential tool delivery. |
- Will find sufficient appropriate local experts. |
- Engage early in identification of local experts. Some may come from the S-S PRG, and local institutions. |
|
- 60 practitioners many not be available for full experiential training. |
- Training locations found, and practitioners are available. |
- Organise workshops in conjunction with larger meetings; develop training workshops for smaller numbers (5-7 people) and conduct more of these per region if 20 people cannot attend. |
|
- The Understanding and Knowledge Survey may not be properly responded to by recipients; and S-S PRG members do not stay in touch |
- Target audience will be enthusiastic as will be the S-S PRG |
- Effort will be made to develop an easily answered survey, the survey will be conducted both immediately before the training as part of the application to attend training. |
|
- Partner organizations decline to cooperate and incorporate tools. -Training in ICT capacity may be required for web based platforms. |
- Partner organisations will cooperate. - Practitioners are familiar with web-based tools. |
- Chose parnter organisations carefully and develop MOUs for engagement. - Show web-based platform as part of tool delivery. |
G. explain how cost-effectiveness is reflected in the project design:
1. The primary objective of this project is to identify and share lessons learned and best practices with regard to the good governance of international waters. The tremendous cost effectiveness of this project follows from the fact that sharing these lessons learned and good practices will avoid the time, trouble and expense of having to relearn these lessons and good practices with every new GEF initiative;
2. The project proponents have designed the project to be particularly cost effective with regard to such expenses as international travel and other fixed costs by purposefully arranging for project activities to coincide with activities funded by other funders;
3. The project proponents have already attracted more than a 1:1 co-finance match to help make the project particularly cost effective with more to come after approval by GEF.
part iii: institutional coordination and support
A. Project Implementation Arrangement:
Following the successful application of a PDF A grant, an IW experts workshop was held in July 2006 to make recommendations for this MSP. At that workshop members of UBC’s IAR (Dr. Richard Kyle Paisley), UNDP (Dr. Andrew Hudson), El Colegio de Mexico (Dr. Boris Graizbord), and IW:LEARN (Janot-Riene Mendler de Suarez) discussed corrdination and collaboration between the implementing agency (UBC) and executing agency (UNDP).
The cornerstone of this project will be its transparency and critical rigor. The project steering committee (SC) will be formed from key personnel from GEF implementing and executing bodies, including UNDP, UNEP and WB members. The SC will meet at least every 9 to 12 months. The project management team (PMT) will be comprised of key individuals chosen by the executing body, the University of British Columbia, and administered through the Institute of Asian Research at UBC. An Advisory Panel (AP) of specialists in legal and institutional aspects of shared waters management will be created to work with the PMT on substantive project issues and to provide guidance for work. The Chair of the AP will also be a member of the SC to ensure fluid communication between the two bodies. Site choice will be reviewed by the AP to ensure transparency. Analysis will be primarily conducted by the executing bodies, and reviewed by the coordinating body and AP.
The project will be implemented by the UNDP (under the International Waters focal area), and executed, through either by UNOPS or by UBC through UNDP NGO execution modality (TBD), by the Institute of Asian Research, at the University of British Columbia. The executing bodies will consult and collaborate with UNDP/GEF and GEF-IW project staff and partners as appropriate.
Documentation of this arrangement is found under the approved PDF A application dated 8 June, 2006.
part iv: explain the alignment of project design with the original PIF:
The Project Design has been adjusted to be even more demand side driven as compared with the original concept developed in the PDF.
part v: Agency(ies) certification
|
This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for CEO Endorsement. | |
|
UNDP-GEF Deputy Executive Coordinator, a.i. |
Andrew Hudson, UNDP-GEF Principal Technical Advisor Project Contact Person |
|
Date: 21 December 2007 |
Tel. and Email: 1-212-906-6228, andrew.hudson@undp.org |
|
Name & Signature GEF Agency Coordinator |
Project Contact Person |
|
Date: (Month, Day, Year) |
Tel. and Email: |
