*Date of submission: August 8, 2007

part i: project IDentification

GEFSEC Project ID[2]: 3341

gef agency Project ID: 3930

Country(ies): Africa continental

Project Title: Regional Dialogue & Twinning to Improve Transboundary Water Resources Governance in Africa

GEF Agency(ies): , ,

Other Executing partners: UNOPS/InWEnt/UNESCO/UNU-INWEH

GEF Focal Areas: ,, ,

GEF-4 Strategic program(S): , ,

A. Tentative Calendar:

Milestones	Dates
Work Program (for Full-sized Projects)
CEO Endorsement/Approval	September 2007
GEF Agency Approval	September 2007
Implementation Start	September 2007
Mid-term Review	Not applicable
Implementation Completion	May 2010

B. Project Results Framework (Expand table as necessary)

Project Objective:
Project Components	Indicate whether Investment or TA	Expected Outputs	Expected Outcomes	Indicative GEF Financing*		Indicative Co-financing*		Total ($)
				($)	%	($)	%
1. Legal, policy and management reforms in transboundary waters management	TA	Africa roundtable conducted; parliamentary dialogues undertaken; networking for basin organizations established; media capacities enhanced.	Enhanced capacities and wider constituencies for transboundary water resource management in Africa	506,000	37.5%	845,000	62.5%	1,351,000
2. Systems thinking approach	TA	Capacities to apprehend water systems built; African priorities articulated and presented at WWF 5	Mainstreaming of groundwater and climate change considerations; framework for lake management agreed	300,000	30.9%	672,500	69.1%	972,500
3. Mechanisms for investment planning and financial sustainability	TA	Methodology for benefit sharing; business plans for 2 shared basins developed; guidelines for engaging finance ministries developed	Financial sustainability and investment planning on track	114,000	33.1%	230,000	66.9%	344,000
4. Project management				80,000	68.1%	37,500	31.9%	117,500
Total project costs				1,000,000	35.9%	1,785,000	64.1%	2,785,000

* List the dollar amount by project components.

C. Indicative Financing Plan Summary For The Project ($)

	Project Preparation	Project	Agency Fee	Total
GEF Grant		1,000,000	100,000	1,100,000
Co-financing		1,785,000		1,785,000
Total		2,785,000	100,000	2,885,000

D. Indicative Co-financing for the project by source ($), If Available

Co-financing Source	Cash	In-kind	Total
GEF Agency(ies)	100,000		100,000
Bilateral Aid Agency(ies)	640,000		640,000
Multilateral Agency(ies)	730,000		730,000
Foundation	130,000		130,000
NGO	135,000		135,000
Intergovernmental organization		50,000	50,000
Total co-financing	1,735,000	50,000	1,785,000

E. GEF Resources Requested by Focal Area(s), agency (ies) share and country(ies)*

GEF Agency	Focal Area	Country Name/ Global	(in $)
			Project Preparation	Project	Fee	Total
		Global		1,000,000	100,000	1,100,000
Total GEF Resources				1,000,000	100,000	1,100,000

* No need to provide information for this table if it is a single focal area, single country and single GEF Agency project.

part ii: project JustiFication

1. State the issue, how the project seeks to solve it, and the expected global environmental benefits to be delivered: The GEF is currently supporting a dozen African freshwater basin projects through foundational-type projects worth 90 million US$. This proposal for a Medium Size Project (MSP) Grant from the GEF is to assist African basins toward effecting policy reforms for governance and transitioning to needed investments. This will be done by supporting (i) the adoption and national ownership of a number of transboundary water partnerships, (ii) the shift to systems thinking approaches by including groundwater, lakes and climate change considerations in shared basin planning and management. (iii) the strengthening of investment planning processes, and (iv) exchanges of GEF project experiences that can inform global policy dialogues such as the World Water Forum (WWF) in 2009.. At the broader development level, the MSP is expected to contribute to the achievement of MDGs and of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation in relation to Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) and reform in the water sector. In particular, this MSP will help ensure that successful experiences in benefit sharing are replicated, that legal reforms support investments and that intersectoral coordination supports poverty reduction efforts in sectors underpinned by the use of water resources. This MSP has been designed to complement the upcoming Petersberg Process Africa Transboundary Basin Roundtable thus reflecting the priorities and concerns of African governments and stakeholders.

B. Describe the consistency of the project with national priorities/plans (Is the proposal consistent with country priorities? How does it build on ongoing programs, policies and political commitments?) The project is anchored in and driven by African stakeholders at three levels: (i) continental in responding to priorities identified by AMCOW as key challenges which need to be addressed for the sustainable development of Africa’s water resources; (ii) sub-regional through the proposals made to the project preparation team by shared basin institutions and economic communities and (iii) national through the articulation of country needs at sub-regional level. The project builds on the GEF partnership with the government of Germany (BMU and BMZ) and the World Bank in the "Petersberg Process" of transboundary water governance dialogues. Critical issues identified in consultation with AMCOW include: bringing value to benefit-sharing, regional water infrastructure and governance, adaptation to climate change, water use efficiency, products and services, donor harmonization, resource mobilization and sustainable financing.

C. Describe the consistency of the project with gef strategies and fit with strategic programs: Strategic Program 3 “Balancing overuse and conflicting uses of water resources in transboundary surface and groundwater basins” ascertains the findings of the 2006 Human Development report by acknowledging that the global water crisis results from a crisis of governance. Through its interventions, the project contributes to the resolution of this crisis by engaging legislators to accelerate legal reforms and by creating the frameworks for public participation in decision-making processes. More specifically, the proposed MSP will contribute to indicators of IW#1/2 through the promotion of integrated water policies and joint activities to key decision-makers and key policy reform instruments such as basin-wide business plans and the inclusion of groundwater and climate change consideration in economic development planning tools. Finally this MSP will enhance the performance of basins receiving GEF support as well as the commitment of individual countries as part of their participation in basin-wide development activities.

4. Outline the Coordination with other related initiatives (Coordination with other GEF agencies, organizations, and stakeholders involved in related initiatives; if similar projects exist in the same country/region, including GEF projects, report on synergies/complementarity with this proposal and demonstrate that there is no duplication). The project is designed to support the implementation and speed up the transition of GEF and other donor funded projects from confidence building to tangible cooperation and investments. In doing so the preparation phase has entailed close coordination with IW:LEARN, the repository of all GEF IW projects, with other agencies and direct liaison with basin organizations. Furthermore, coordination has been undertaken with other organizations – InWEnt, UNU-INWEH, UNESCO, GWP, OSS, IAEA and other players in the area of water resource management in Africa to seek broader synergies. In doing so, the project has played a catalytic role and now encompasses strictly co-funded activities within its framework. Such coordination will continue throughout the lifetime of the project.
5. Describe the incremental reasoning of the project(What would happen without GEF support and what would be the expected change in global environmental benefits): The prospect of a GEF support has rendered this project a catalyst for a more comprehensive programmatic approach among partners where existing and planned initiatives were aligned to contribute to a higher vision, align behind African state needs and create natural outlets for certain processes. For example, the GEF support to the development of a benefit sharing methodology is on a 1:3 co-finance ratio, but it more importantly provides a natural outlet for this methodology through the basin organization, parliamentary dialogues while also guiding the identification of investment options and means for financing permanent basin organizations.
6. Indicate risks, including climate change risks, that might prevent the project objective(s) from being achieved. Outline the risk management measures, including improving resilience to climate change, that the project proposes to undertake. Risks that the project may not achieve its goal fall within three major categories: institutional in terms of lack of commitment from African governments to undertake reforms and financing for the management of shared basins; operational because the project's geographic coverage and goals are ambitious; fiscal associated with fluctuations in the foreign exchange rate of the dollar. External risks include those caused by the increasing awareness of African governments on the potential impacts of climate change on water resources; such impacts, amplified by ill-informed media and public pressure may lead to hasty decisions destabilizing already fragile transboundary agreements. The project aims to adress these risks through : (i) ensuring full support to inter-sectoral coordination and including a specific outcome related to the financing of transboundary cooperaiton; (ii) engaging UNDP, IW:LEARN and UNOPS in the supervision of project implementation and (iii) building in a specific outcome in relation to the assessment of and communication on climate change impacts on the water sector in Africa. The fiscal risk is beyond the control of the project but will be closely monitored throughout the lifetime of the project in an adaptive management approach.

G. describe, if possible, the expected cost-effectiveness of the project (e.g. $/tons of CO₂ abated). If cost effectiveness is not presented, outline the steps that project preparation would undertake to present cost-effectiveness at CEO endorsement: The project’s cost-effectiveness lies in the fact that it will be delivering its results and goal at a continental level through partnerships, peer-to-peer learning, exchanges and transfers within and among continents rather than engaging with each sub-region or water basin in isolation.

part iii: approval/endorsement by gef operational focal points and GEF agencies

a. GEF agency comparative advantage (leave blank if GEF Agency is within the comparative advantage matrix) As per comparative advantage matrix

b. Record of Endorsement of GEF Operational Focal Point (S) on Behalf of the Government(S): (Please attach the endorsement letter(s) with this template).

(Enter Name, Position, Ministry)

Date: (Month, day, year)

(Enter Name, Position, Ministry)

Date: (Month, day, year)

c. GEF Agency(ies) Certification

This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for project identification and preparation.
Name & Signature Maryam Niamir-Fuller UNDP-GEF Officer-in-Charge	Mirey Atallah Project Contact Person
Date: 8 August 2007	Tel. and Email: mirey.atallah@undp.org; +9613108985

---

Converted with Word to HTML.