PROJECT BRIEF

1. Identifiers

Project Number:

Project Name: Global: Strengthening Capacity for Global Knowledge-Sharing in International Waters

Duration: 3 years

Implementing Agency: UNDP, with UNEP and World Bank

Executing Agency: UN OPS, with UN-DOALOS

Requesting Country or Countries Global

Eligibility: Eligible under para. 9(b) of GEF Instrument

GEF Focal Area(s): International Waters

GEF Programming Framework: Operational Programme #10, Contaminants-based

Regional/Global Technical Support Component

2. Summary

The objective of this project is to strengthen countries’ capacities to integrate sustainable water resources management into their national planning processes and to comply with relevant national, regional, and international agreements and conventions in the area of international waters. The project builds upon the knowledge base and institutional relationships created from the experiences of GEF-funded international waters projects. The project will enable governments, international agencies, NGOs, and other stakeholders to: (1) share critical knowledge and collaborate more effectively across boundaries, using a wide array of new tools and learning methods; (2) develop training courses tailored to the strategic needs of countries, building upon an ongoing global training program (UNDP’s TRAIN-SEA-COAST); and (3) hold two portfolio-wide strategic planning and assessment meetings that will include international waters project directors, implementing agencies, NGOs, and other key stakeholders.

3. Costs and Financing (Million US$):

GEF: - PDF : US$ 350,000

- Project : US$ 4,534,167

- Executing Agency : US$ 362,733

Subtotal GEF : US$ 5,246,900

Co-financing*: - Implementing Agency

UNDP SIOCAM : US$ 1,100,000 (a)

UNDP Nordic Fund: US$ 440,000 (r)

-- Other International

UN-DOALOS : US$ 750,000 (a)

EC-DG/8 : US$ 650,000 (r)

infoDev : US$ 140,000 (a)

NSF : US$ 160,000 (r)

- Government

CDU Host Countries: US$ 1,440,000 (a)

- Private

Centra Software : US$ 30,000 (a)

INTELSAT : US$ 90,000 (a)

-- Subtotal co-financing: US$ 4,800,000

*(r) = requested; (a) = approved

Total Project Cost US$ 10,046,900

4. Associated Financing (Million US$) : n/a

5. Operational Focal Point Endorsement : n/a

6. IA Contact:

Philip Reynolds Andrew Hudson

SIOCAM Manager and Principal Technical Advisor

Deputy Director, Water Program International Waters

UNDP-SEED, FF-1036 UNDP-GEF, FF1072

1 United Nations Plaza 1 United Nations Plaza

New York, NY 10017 New York, NY 10017

Tel. 212 906 5866; Fax 212 906 6973 Tel. 212 906 6228; Fax 212 906 6998

Email: philip.reynolds@undp.org Email: ahudson@ff101.undp.org

I. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

1. The earth’s oceans and freshwater basins supply the human population with about a sixth of its protein, pollutant retention, climate regulation, drinking and irrigation water, and recreational activities. Yet pollution and over-exploitation increasingly threaten the earth’s great water systems. Major fisheries in every region of the globe are being exploited beyond levels of sustainability. Municipal and industrial discharges, shipping, and agricultural runoff increasingly pollute rivers, lakes and coastal areas. Groundwater supplies are being contaminated and extracted well beyond their replacement capacities. Habitat critical to ecosystem and species survival -- mangroves, wetlands, coral reefs -- are disappearing at alarming rates.

2. Responding to these global water issues, numerous international and regional agreements have been established to regulate fishing rights, navigation, wetland protection, water allocation, transborder pollution reduction, and contamination of oceans. Yet the complexity of these agreements, the fragmentation of institutional responsibilities, physical distances, uneven commitments by governments, lack of national/regional implementation capacities, and insufficient financial resources have hindered their implementation. Once signed, agreements are difficult to sustain over time and space. Existing mechanisms are inadequate to continue the dialogue, research, negotiation, and consensus building that are necessary to translate agreements on paper into meaningful protection of international waters.

3. Global and regional organizations have established many non-binding policy resolutions, action plans, and strategy statements. For example, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which entered into force in 1994, established global norms for the protection of the marine environment. UNEP has facilitated six regional seas conventions with specific agreements on land-based pollution. The Global Programme of Action for the protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities aims at helping nations to adopt new institutional arrangements linking freshwater basin management with downstream marine and coastal impacts. However, in most countries, the content and obligations of such measures are scarcely known beyond a thin stratum of policymakers, researchers, and environmental activists.

4. The recently approved GEF-financed Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) is a UNEP initiative to comprehensively assess the state of knowledge of global waters concerns and their root causes. GIWA is aimed at the strategic prioritization of regional and global international waters interventions. However, unlike issues concerning climate change and biodiversity, no parallel activity exists at the country level for integrating global water issues into national planning and strategic programs.

5. At the same time, knowledge and experience in transboundary water issues are not in short supply. GEF’s portfolio reflects major learning-by-doing experiences in areas such as management of eutrophication (e.g., the Black Sea), creation of protected areas (e.g., the Red Sea), development of sustainable fisheries (e.g., Gulf of Guinea), etc. GEF funded projects are making major methodological advances in areas such as transboundary diagnostic analysis, integrated coastal zone management, integrated freshwater management, pollution monitoring, and environmental assessment. Individuals working within GEF-financed projects have acquired a vast range of technical skills, hands-on knowledge, and problem-solving abilities. The three GEF Implementing Agencies bring added intellectual resources on water, resources for knowledge management, and links to hundreds of non-GEF project experiences. What is missing, however, are system-wide mechanisms to capture, share, and target this knowledge.

6. To strengthen information sharing and communications, many countries (including several developing countries) now have increased access to global electronic media (e.g., Internet). Some GEF financed projects also allocated modest resources, and thus, altered the capacity of GEF’s diverse actors to learn from and work with each other. However, there is a need to improve and expand access and provide more efficient communications especially among multi-country and multi-level stakeholders in transboundary waters projects. Such need arises from problems associated with spottiness of infrastructure, bandwidth restrictions, unfamiliarity, lack of training, and absence of tools and methods that have been demonstrated to meet their practical needs. This situation is now starting to change. This project aims to provide greater opportunities for complex GEF-supported international waters projects to improve the flow of information and active collaboration among stakeholders.

7. Project learning generally takes place within projects themselves, and in general, is underutilized beyond defined boundaries. Older projects that have “learned it the hard way” are seldom accessible to new projects under formulation or those starting implementation. Project directors have scant opportunity to get to know their peers and cross-country partners, even though many are working on similar issues. For junior or mid-level personnel, there are almost no systematic opportunities for exchange visits beyond the local community, peer-to-peer technical assistance, cross-project internships, apprenticeships, collaborative research, access to international science, and participation in international training. Yet, advanced technical training in international waters management is unaffordable and inaccessible to all but a few.

8. GEF and its Implementing Agency partners have adopted key ideas that have become fundamental to its approach to international waters management – for example, the notion of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM). The full consequence of such an idea places enormous challenges on institutions delivering training. In the majority of countries, expertise is limited in the broad spectrum of disciplines and perspectives needed to successfully implement ICZM. Furthermore, in the absence of formal national training programs, experts may be dispersed over a number of agencies. Consequently, training is often developed and delivered ad hoc. One training alternative refined by UNDP over the past 20 years is a decentralized course development and sharing system that goes under the generic name of TRAIN -X. The TRAIN -X family now includes UNDP plus eight other UN agencies covering a total of 200 training centers around the world. Within this family, the Train-Sea-Coast Program, launched in 1993 and hosted by the United Nation’s Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (UN-DOALOS), has established eleven Course Development Units (CDUs), including four within the network of the International Ocean Institute. These training institutions cover the field of ocean and coastal management. However, their resources and expertise is not yet specifically targeted to the needs of the GEF portfolio.

9. Each GEF Implementing Agency has its own comparative advantage in the international waters focal area. UNDP has over twenty years of capacity building experience in fisheries and coastal zone management, and with GEF funding, substantial experience in transboundary projects that strengthen the capacity of groups of countries to manage shared water resources. UNEP acts as secretariat for 14 international waters conventions and agreements relating to the marine environment and has more than 25 years experience in the field of joint international action encompassing shared transboundary waterbodies. The World Bank has invested billions of dollars in loans and technical assistance for projects related to water quantity and quality. GEF plays an important role in bringing these strengths together. Yet information sharing among Implementing Agencies tends to occur mainly at the top and rarely at the level of projects and stakeholders.

II. RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

10. This project will strengthen the capacity for knowledge sharing and collaborative action across political boundaries, ecosystems, institutions, and project lines. The objective is to strengthen countries’ capacities to integrate sustainable water resources management into their national planning processes and to comply with relevant regional and international agreements and conventions in regard to international waters. As currently designed, it will provide the initial set-up and training modules, but may require follow-up and more intensive activities in the future. The project activities will: (1) expand capacity for knowledge-sharing and collaboration over the Internet, starting with an initial group of eight GEF-financed projects with activities in about 50 countries; (2) expand training opportunities that capitalize on the existing course development and sharing network of UN-DOALOS’s Train-Sea-Coast program; and (3) support two biennial in-person meetings that bring together project directors, GEF, Implementing Agency and other donor personnel. The benefits will be: expanded access to project learning among the three Implementing Agencies and non-GEF partners; invigoration of national planning processes, including new opportunities for participation among a widening spectrum of stakeholders and GEF related actors; and strengthened institutions and political constituencies capable of supporting the implementation and compliance with major international agreements and protocols on international waters. The ideas and methods underlying this project are highly scalable; and if shown successful, will be extended to the full suite of GEF projects in a planned expansion of this project.

III. PROJECT COMPONENTS/ACTIVITIES/EXPECTED RESULTS

Component 1: Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration over the Internet (IW:LEARN)

11. Objective. The objective of Component l is to expand knowledge-sharing and collaboration capacity on critical international waters issues over the Internet, starting with an initial group of eight GEF-financed projects working in about 50 countries.

12. These activities will emphasize: (1) the transferability of knowledge into multiple media, especially, interactive person-to-person conversation and text; (2) planning strategies that assist projects to continuously upgrade their technology; and (3) training of project personnel, and other key stakeholders, to meet locally specifically needs. These include increased access to shared Web materials by multiple users, coupled with interactive audio.

13. Agenda and time frame. Choices on methods and specific technologies will be guided by a Technical Advisory Panel consisting primarily of seasoned project directors and specialists in the substantive thematic areas, distance learning, and technology applications. An array of technologically enabled learning methods and products were discussed and evaluated during the preparatory PDF-B phase of this project (see Annex VI). The Technical Advisory Panel will help to finalize the workplan, including judgements on the project’s appropriate pace, scale, and breadth of inclusion. Several tools and ideas to be tested are shown in Table 2. Progress toward completion can be measured as follows:

• By year 1, a group of individuals from the respective GEF projects will be trained and carrying out work plans specific to the key transboundary issues pertaining to their projects. A shared Internet “learning space” will be established among participating projects and the Implementing Agencies. Each project will maintain substantive Web sites with deep internal links and links among the group. Further, the IW:LEARN Advisory Panel will be assisting in a process of brainstorming, “reality checking”, and field testing. A number of new learning products will have been developed (Table 2) and tested within the core group.

• By Year 2, participation in IW:LEARN will be broadened from six UNDP-implemented projects, two UNEP-implemented projects, and one World Bank-implemented project (proposed) to additional UNEP and World Bank-implemented projects and at least one or two UNDP projects that are now in PDF-B phase. Non-GEF projects could also be included. (For example, co-financing requested from the European Commission could substantially broaden participation in Africa.). By the end of Year 2, IW:LEARN methods and learning products will be extended across a widening spectrum of countries, ecosystems, and institutional environments. Some ideas (e.g., Internet seminar broadcast) may be tested system-wide.

• By Year 3, there may be widespread demand (GEF and non-GEF) for access to IW:LEARN methods, models, and materials. At the second biennial GEF International Waters Conference in the year 2001, a meeting will take place of all GEF-financed project directors, GEF and implementing agency staff (see Component 3). Participants will be able to review, discuss, compare, and evaluate IW:LEARN progress made during Phase 1. With that feedback and following completion of an independent evaluation, a “replication and scaling up” project (for a possible IW:LEARN, Phase 2) will be submitted to GEF and co-financing partners.

14. The IW:LEARN agenda will be developed in terms of cross-cutting prioritized themes to be determined in consultation with the project Steering Committee and reviewed technically with the Technical Advisory Panel. Examples of such themes might include: the problems of freshwater river basins, sustainability of marine fisheries, the problems of small-island states, and strategies to support implementation of international agreements and accords. Once themes are selected, the project Implementation Team will cast Internet applications drawing heavily upon the experiences of ongoing international waters projects and the intellectual resources and comparative advantage of the three Implementing Agencies (for example, working closely with UNEP in the area of freshwater management or drawing upon the vast body of data and analysis emerging from GIWA). The World Bank will play several roles: first, as a substantive content provider in multiple areas of water resources management; second, as a creative partner in the evolving field of distance learning (e.g., co-developing school-oriented waters material in partnership with the WorLD Links Program, Economic Development Institute); and third, as a source of methodological expertise in the area of knowledge management (for example, how information flows from “computers” to end users). Within UNDP, the project will link to on-the-ground international waters projects and will coordinate activity with the UNDP Strategic Initiative for Ocean and Coastal Management (SIOCAM), which is collecting and disseminating best practices and lessons learned in International Waters management.

15. Activities and expected results

Activity 1: Set up an Internet-based communications framework between and among participating international waters projects and the Implementing Agencies, including deployment of a trained team representing at least eight GEF-funded projects

Expected result: A trained Implementation Team working in an integrated Internet learning environment involving at least eight GEF projects and the three Implementing Agencies

Activity 2: Develop an array of new learning tools and methods, including a set of interconnected GEF IW web sites, online conferencing and meeting capacity among projects, short courses, advanced specialized training opportunities, technical and scientific support, and community outreach.

Expected results: An array of fully tested and capable strategic products

.

Activity 3: Test, implement, and evaluate the new learning tools and methods, intensifying knowledge-sharing activities within each project (i.e., the 50 countries included in the eight initial projects); inclusion of a widening array of GEF and non-GEF international waters projects; create a plan to scale up, in an extended phase, adoption of successful methods to the full suite of GEF funded international waters projects.

Expected results: Broadening access to Internet-based knowledge sharing, within and among projects, including on-the-ground piloting, demonstrations, scaling up, and evaluation.

Table 1

IW:LEARN and Train-Sea-Coast Proposed Participant GEF-Financed Projects

* Proposed IW:LEARN Pilot Site, Phase I

** Candidate for TRAIN-SEA-COAST

Table 2

IW:LEARN Possible Activities and Methods and Examples

Component 2: TRAIN-SEA-COAST

16. Objective: The objective of this component is to develop and support in-country capacity for effectively integrating international waters issues into regional and national planning and strategies through the local development and use of systematic training programs targeted to GEF needs.

18. Planned Activities: This component will capitalize on the existing course development and sharing network of the Train-Sea-Coast program and will focus initially on a core group of six regional GEF funded international waters projects. Within each project’s region, an institution in one country will host a Train-Sea-Coast Course Development Unit (CDU). Each CDU will prepare one or more customized courses on a coastal or ocean management issue of relevance to the GEF international waters project and to priority global waters issues. These courses will be developed using the Train-Sea-Coast pedagogical methodology and will, in line with global environmental priorities, include appropriate elements of marine biodiversity (e.g., Jakarta Mandate) and the integration of freshwater and coastal/ocean management. By contributing one or more high-quality courses, a CDU may then import and adapt courses from other Train-Sea-Coast members to meet their own customized course requirements for other related issues. In order to expand coverage beyond the six core GEF funded international waters projects, invitations to course deliveries will be extended to other GEF supported projects (UNEP, World Bank and UNDP) in the region. Feedback will be sought from this broader group of Train-Sea-Coast users. In addition, during the initial set of activities, an effort will be made to locate funding to include additional CDUs related to other GEF funded international waters projects of UNEP, the World Bank and UNDP, as well as to non-GEF projects.

19. TRAIN-SEA-COAST structure and methodology. The TSC Central Support Unit (CSU) is fully funded by the UN Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (UNDOALOS)-which also functions as the secretariat of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Institutions hosting CDUs meet local costs so that GEF funds can be focused on truly incremental activities. Benefits resulting from this approach include: building up permanent in-country course design and implementation capabilities; improving skills in coastal management among developing country practitioners and policymakers and a system for the sharing of high-quality training materials among GEF IW projects.

20. While targeting local/regional needs, the Train-Sea-Coast Coast methodology allows for the incorporation of the best available training material as well as subsequent adaptation to different local situations. The Train-Sea-Coast Methodology starts with the identification of a problem (e.g., overfishing in small bays). The next step is the identification of training solutions (e.g., a short training module (a) to increase awareness of the impact of over-fishing and (b) to train in techniques for community-based fisheries management). For each of the two training objectives in parentheses above, the Train-Sea-Coast Course Development Unit will prepare top-quality course modules using either material which they developed themselves or material available from other sources around the world and adopted to the needs of particular GEF projects. These standardized training packages are then delivered as courses and evaluated, redrafted and delivered again. The standardized training packages can be transferred to another GEF project setting; but based on a fresh analysis of local problems and possible training solutions, there may be a slightly different mix of training objectives.

21. Activities and expect results

Activity 4 . With pedagogical and technical support from the TRAIN-SEA-COAST Central Support Unit (CSU), each of the six core CDUs prepares, delivers and validates at least two Standardized Training Packages (STPs) , which take account global waters strategic approaches. With assistance from the GEF's Implementing Agencies, the training packages will include, “Preparation of a GEF Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and Strategic Action Program.”

Expected result. Effective CDUs serving GEF funded international waters projects, 12 TSC/GEF Standard Training Packages, 300 to 500 personnel trained.

Activity 5. The CSU will conduct three two-week Course Developer Workshops to reinforce the capabilities of the GEF-supported Course Development Units.

Expected results: 36 new GEF/Train-Sea-Coast course developers

Activity 6: The Central Support Unit at UN-DOALOS will provide overall coordination of the program including: frequent monitoring of CDU operations and courses, the conduct of three four-day TRAIN-SEA-COPAST coordination meetings involving GEF supported projects, overseeing the adaptation of at least nine TSC courses (STPs) to local conditions in new regions and the translation of materials into languages of the GEF projects.

Expected result: Monitoring, coordination and maintenance of the GEF/TSC course development and sharing system.

Component 3: Biennial GEF International Waters Meeting for Portfolio-wide Strategic Planning and Exchange of Project Experience and Lessons Learned

22. Objective: The objective of this component is to provide opportunities for GEF financed international waters projects to share knowledge, engage in strategic planning, and do collaborative assessments via two face-to-face meetings among the GEF family of projects, Implementing Agencies, and partners.

23. While a principal focus of this project is on GEF international waters needs-oriented training and distance learning, the project also acknowledges the need for regular, face to face contact among key GEF project, agency and partner personnel. In this context, a biennial GEF international waters conference would be organized. The purposes of the conferences are: 1) to permit GEF, recipient countries, the implementing agencies, co-funders, project directors, and other key stakeholders to strategically review and assess the GEF international waters portfolio with the view aim towards improvements and needed adjustments based on lessons learned; and 2) to facilitate the identification and dissemination of best practices and lessons learned in international waters management and project development, both within and outside the GEF portfolio of projects, and the practical application of training solutions to project priorities. The conferences will feature issue and region-based plenaries, seminars, workshops and individual meetings. Proceedings will be published in print and on-line. The conference could also be “live cast” on the World Wide Web, using the technological tools developed in IW:LEARN. A key output of a second conference will be to plan extension of this project in a participatory setting, based on the demonstrated (and evaluated) results.. The first conference (1999) will likely be held at a location in Europe adjacent to a GEF supported international waters project.

24. In addition, there is value to be gained through inter-project staff visits and exchanges. These allow visiting staff, including Train-Sea-Coast and IW:LEARN teams, to experience first hand the approaches used and challenges faced by their project counterparts working on similar international waters issues.

25. Activities/expected results

Activity 7. Hold First GEF International Waters Conference on June, 1999, in Europe; a Second GEF International Waters Conference June, 2001 (location to be determined) Conduct short-term staff exchanges among GEF international waters projects (UNDP, UNEP, World Bank).

Expected result: Two International waters conferences (1999, 2001); conference reports; 15 inter-project staff exchanges.

IV. RISKS AND SUSTAINABILITY

26. See Table 3.

V. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

Stakeholder Participation

27. IW:LEARN. The development of IW :LEARN is broad-based and participatory. The project idea initially evolved from an NGO consultation on popular participation held in Bolivia in 1993. The project idea was then formulated in Mexico in 1994 at a meeting on participatory planning in Latin American focal points. In a prototype developed and tested in the Dominican Republic in 1995, IW:LEARN (then referred to as GEFRII) was conceptualized as an experiment in the use of information technology to broaden public participation in GEF projects. The idea that the Internet could be used to support “decentralized project development” was presented at a GEF-sponsored planning workshop held in Costa Rica in 1995, which evoked feedback on the design of this project from several countries. Within UNDP, IW:LEARN evolved from a Latin American to a global project in 1996 in response to growing interest in Internet applications as a potential strategy to widen stakeholder participation in GEF projects.

28. In addition to greatly enhancing the level of connectivity and communication between different international waters project sites and implementing agencies, IW:LEARN will also provide the opportunity to test knowledge sharing tools within a group of countries participating in a given GEF-IW project. For example, in the Danube River Basin, IW:LEARN methods could enhance the capacity of decision-makers and their constituency groups to discuss, strategize and negotiate approaches to the reduction of nutrient inputs to the Danube and downstream Black Sea. Similarly, IW: LEARN could be used to test new ways of linking established NGO networks such as the Black Sea NGO Network towards their improved efficacy in advocacy and public awareness of Black Sea issues. Another important component in regard to stakeholder participation is “school linking and community outreach,” which could engage schoolchildren in international waters issues through hands-on learning activities and active data collection and analysis.

29. Train-Sea-Coast. The Train-Sea-Coast methodology obliges course developers to reach out to governmental and non-governmental institutions, the private sector, and other key stakeholders, to assess the needs for training, to recruit subject matter experts, and to recruit trainees. The Train-Sea-Coast program is entirely demand driven. Participants to the training programs, and inputs to the CDUs, come from in-country institutions, including substantial government counterpart and co-financing of training candidates. Because course content is based upon actual projects and on-the-ground experiences, public involvement and consultation procedures are built into the program.

Table 3

Risks, Assumptions, Sustainability: Summary

Implementation arrangements

30. Inter-agency coordination. A Steering Committee for this project will be comprised of representatives from GEFSEC, UNDP, UNEP, the World Bank, and co-funders. They will meet annually to review project status and outputs. The IW:LEARN and Train-Sea-Coast Coordinators will serve as Secretaries to the Steering Committee.

31. The GEF International Waters Task Force, which includes all three implementing agencies and the GEF Secretariat, will provide direct input to all three project components, including:

• Identification of key global and transboundary international waters issues to focus on in both course and distance learning products development

• Identify expertise within the respective agencies and facilitate linkages with the IW:LEARN Implementation Team

• Development of GEF International Waters Conference agenda, program, and invitee list.

32. IW:LEARN is to be guided technically by an Advisory Panel consisting of appropriate agency personnel, substantive technical specialists, distance learning experts, and present or former GEF International Waters project directors. The Principal International Waters Advisor for UNDP/GEF, who serves as primary technical advisor to IW:LEARN, will chair the advisory panel. The GEF Secretariat Team Leader for Biodiversity and International Waters (Operational Liaison) will serve as the Secretariat's liaison to the project. The Advisory Panel will meet virtually. IW:LEARN presents an unusual project implementation model: a virtual work environment. Activities will not be carried out by an office-based staff, but will be carried out by small teams and work groups often separated by vast distances. Team activities will involve the project coordinator, an administrator/technology manager, a program developer, a Web site developer, and an IW:LEARN Implementation Team working from the respective participating projects. These individuals could be drawn from PCU-based project staff; but depending on financing and interest, they could also be drawn from the government, implementing agency field offices, NGOs, research institutions, universities, or private sector communities. Inclusion will be widened from the core of 8 projects that will launch activities in Year 1.

33. Train-Sea-Coast. makes use of a network based, decentralized process of implementation through a network of CDUs based within a national infrastructure, but addressing the training needs pertaining to the key transboundary issues of each regional GEF project. Each CDU is composed of a team (one CDU manager, two course developers, and support personnel) responsible for the development and delivery of TRAIN-SEA-COAST training courses. The Central Support Unit at UN/DOALOS is responsible for overall program management and co-ordination of the network. The CSU will keep in continuous contact with the regional GEF International Waters project coordinators in order to keep them abreast of T-S-C progress and achievements. All CDUs will be electronically linked with each other as well as with the Central Support Unit and the GEF regional project coordinators to facilitate transfer of appropriate information and ideas between the teams.

VI. INCREMENTAL COSTS AND PROJECT FINANCING

34. The baseline costs of this project consist of committed government counterpart funding and co-financing from 50 or so countries in a subset of GEF-funded international waters projects and cofinancing mobilized by this project. These represent the counterpart expenses for communications and outreach, regional negotiations and agreements, and training. Total baseline costs amount to $56.17 million. The breakdown of expenses for baseline, the alternative, and the GEF increment is described in Annex 1.

35. Component 1: IW:LEARN. The baseline costs of this component are based upon expenditures from government counterparts and international funding agencies for communications, outreach, and regional negotiations. The total allocation from 13 projects is $9.15 million. Co-financing of activities under this component adds another $3.75 million, for a grant total baseline expenses of $11.2 million. The cost of the alternative for three sets of activities is $12.41 million, and the GEF increment is $1.62 million.

36. Component 2: TRAIN-SEA-COAST. The baseline costs of this component comprise the training and capacity building costs estimated from nine GEF-funded projects, counterpart contributions to the TRAIN-SEA-COAST program from 34 countries, and mobilized co-financing of $6.62 million. The total baseline cost is $44.07 million and the cost of the alternative is $45.96 million. The GEF increment is $2.04 million.

37. Component 3: IW Conferences. This component is considered fully incremental costs because it covers GEF-specific and global waters issues. The cost is $0.72 million.

VI. MONITORING, EVALUATION AND DISSEMINATION

38. The project will be subject to the various evaluation and review mechanisms of UNDP, including Project Performance and Evaluation Review, Tri-partite Review, and an external Evaluation and Final Report prior to the termination of the project. The project will also participate in the annual PIR (Project Implementation Review) exercise of the GEF.

39. Since all IW:LEARN activity will be conducted over the Internet, all activity will be highly visible and easily accessible to a vast range of stakeholders and other participants. Monitoring and evaluation will be significantly simplified and expedited since an electronic record is automatically created as a result of digital activities.

40. The STAP technical review is included in Annex III and, in general, the comments are supportive of the project. The reviewer gave several useful suggestions for improving the focus and staging of the project and flags a number of issues for consideration during the next stage. The suggestions call for: (1) careful analysis of training tasks and the priority in relation to management; (2) careful review of practitioner as opposed to academic priorities; (3) the need to systematically test the relevance of information being assembled; and (4) the need to address translation of generic materials into the languages and cultures of specific groups. In some instance, the reviewer's suggestions have been addressed by the project team; in other cases, it is underscored that there is a need for more creativity, attention, and effort. The reviewer reiterates the importance of frank arms-length evaluation and assessment, particularly for innovative work to be done in technology application. The reviewer's suggestion that the international waters meeting include a session devoted to demonstration and review of IW:LEARN and Train-Sea-Coast is excellent and will be recommended to the Interagency Planning Committee for these meetings. Similarly, the recommendation that the organizing committee target good project management examples rather than general paper submissions will be communicated to the Planning Committee. The reviewer suggested adding a list of major international aid agencies and regional programs that are active in the marine environment. This is an excellent idea and will be included in the final project preparation.

Budget

a/ INTELSAT, $90,000 (a)

b/ infoDev, $140,000 (a); NSF, $160,000 (r), Centra Software, $30,000 (a)

c/ UNDP Nordic Fund, $440,000 (r); EC-DG/8, $650,000 (r)

d/ Course Development Unit host countries, $1,400,000 (a)

e/ UNDP SIOCAM, $1,100,000 (a); UN-DOALOS, $750,000 (a)

(a) = approved; (r) = requested

LIST OF ANNEXES

(included in printed version)

Annex 1. Logical Framework

Annex 2. Incremental Cost

A: Incremental Costs and Benefits of the Project

B: Incremental Cost Matrix

Annex 3. STAP Roster Technical Review

(included in electronic version or to be provided by the IA upon request)

Annex 4. Train-Sea-Coast Participation Assessment Missions: Summary of Results

Table showing participating countries, institutions, locations, projects involved in the IW Learn Standardized Training Package.

Annex 5. PDF-B: Current Status of IW:LEARN and Train-Sea-Coast

Annex 1

Logical Framework Matrix

Intervention Logic Verifiable Indicator Means of Verification Assumptions

Annex 2-A

Incremental Costs and Benefits of the Project

Context and Broad Development Goals

1. Approximately half a billion people depend upon scarce water supplies today, and by the Year 2025, that number is expected to rise five fold or more. In addition to the pressing demand for usable water, there are serious concerns with the sustainability of marine and freshwater ecosystems, especially as wetland, aquifer, river, coastal and ocean ecosystems are increasingly degraded and/or overharvested. In response, several international waters projects have been financed to address issues of overfishing, loss of flood plains and wetlands, increasing discharges of pollution, filling of rivers with mud from deforestation and land erosion, and flow reductions caused by wasteful irrigation practices and dam construction.

2. In many cases, water problems that were local in scope have crossed boundaries, inextricably linked through the global hydrological cycle to urbanization, watershed degradation, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and climate change. These interrelationships occur within and among countries, involving geopolitical concerns, regional and global markets, monetary and other policies, and trade. A water crisis results not from the vagaries of nature, but from lack of cooperation among countries sharing common water borders, weak institutions and government policies, and market distortions. A basis for a global effort to assist countries to improve communications and outreach and strengthen government and stakeholder capacities is needed at a much larger scale.

Project Objectives

3. This project addresses one area of the global waters crisis -- the lack of knowledge, poor communications and weak capacities to implement national and transboundary water projects. It will provide the opportunities for sharing knowledge and lessons learned. Specifically, it aims to: (a) improve sharing of knowledge and information among, possibly, 50 or more countries through a wide array of communication, outreach, and learning approaches and tools; (b) develop training courses tailored to the strategic needs of governments, NGOs, and affected stakeholders especially in GEF funded international waters projects; and (c) provide opportunities for systematic exchange of project experiences and lessons learned.

Current Activities: Baseline

4. Approximately 50 countries in ten GEF financed international waters projects with at least one year of implementation experience engage in various types of coordination for planning and management of shared waters. Countries involved in these projects have produced transboundary diagnostic analyses (TDA) and/or strategic action programs (SAPs) through various regional institutional arrangements, some of which have been supported by GEF funding. Many of these agreements are finalized through international support (e.g., Danube River Protection Convention, Bucharest Convention and Odessa Declaration, MARPOL) and local initiatives. Governments allocate their own funds to facilitate inter-country coordination and dialogue. The costs of such discussions, including ministerial meetings and preparatory work, are estimated at $ 3.75 million, representing government counterpart and cofinancing contributions for seven GEF-funded projects.¹

5. Most of the expenses for communications and negotiations preceding regional cooperation agreements are covered by government counterpart funds and co-financing from bilateral and international donors. These include in-country provisions for complying with activities, such as ratification of a treaty or agreement, new laws and enforcement measures, and government investments in and around coastal and marine sites. The government counterpart contributions, for example, in six GEF-funded projects for communications, training, and outreach (e.g., stakeholder consultations and NGO Forum in the Danube and Dnieper River Basins), amount to roughly $5.40 million. Total committed baseline expenditures from 13 GEF-funded projects is $9.15 million and co-financing generated by this project is $2.05 million, for a total baseline cost of $11.2 million.

6. A major program undertaken by governments is human resources development and capacity building in the water sector, and specifically, in coastal and marine sites. Government counterpart and co-financing contributions for training, including in-country staff training and fellowships, in nine GEF-funded projects are about $6.85 million.

7. In addition, UNDP has a comprehensive human resources development program called TRAIN-X that focuses on training and capacity strengthening. A specific program for water resources is TRAIN-SEA-COAST, which was started in 1993, with an annual operating cost of about $300,000. There are also participant costs shared with counterpart government institutions and fellowships from bilateral and international agencies. The TRAIN-SEA-COAST program receives about $30.6 million from counterpart government contributions in 34 countries for the costs of participants and course development.

8. The committed baseline costs of training and outreach in nine projects is $6.85 million, and contributions of the 34 countries is $30.64 million, or a total of $37.45 million. In addition, the project generated co-financing for this component of $6.62 million, for a grand total of $44.07 million of baseline costs.

Global Environmental Objective

9. The global benefit to be derived from this project is improved in-country and transboundary capacities for managing shared water resources. Countries participating in this project will have well-trained and informed decision makers, planners, and field staff that will have the necessary information and skills to integrate global water issues into national environmental plans and strategies. Further, governments and regional bodies will be better equipped to engage in cross-country discussions, negotiations, consensus-building, and collaborative planning over complex and multi-level transboundary water issues. There will be better and more efficient information exchange, lessons learned, and training programs involving several countries, multiple agencies within countries, and among competing stakeholder groups (e.g., NGOs and coastal communities).

GEF Project Alternative

10. This project will build upon the existing and committed baseline expenditures of countries involved, initially, in ten GEF-funded international waters projects. Aside from mobilizing non-GEF funds for the project, at a scale of over $4.80 million, this project will strengthen transboundary and regional cooperation through improved information exchange, better staff skills, and augment the knowledge base for integrating global water issues into regional transboundary agreements and national environmental programs.

11. Component 1: IW:LEARN. Project activities will improve communications, knowledge, and information dissemination through the following: (a) set-up network of internet-connected GEF funded international waters projects (initially 8 projects) at a cost to GEF of $0.62 million (co-financing of $1.03 million) ; (b) develop extensive information dissemination, including a website, short courses, technical and scientific support, and popular publications at a cost to GEF of $0.42 million (co-financing of $0.09 million); and (c) provide opportunities for formal and informal training schemes, including distance learning, evaluation and creation of new products, etc. at a cost to GEF of $0.59 million (co-financing of $0.33 million). Total baseline cost is $11.2 million, and the GEF increment is $1.67 million.

12. Component 2: TRAIN-SEA-COAST. Project activities will build upon the existing course/module of UNDP to address technical and institutional training needs of countries (initially in ten projects). The activities include: (a) creation of effective course development units (CDUs) at a cost to GEF of $1.35 million (UNDP and government counterparts: $1.44 million); (b) course developer workshops at a cost to GEF of $0.24 million; and (c) country training needs assessment, monitoring, and development of training materials at a cost to GEF of $.44 million (UNDP and international agencies: $1.85 million). Total baseline costs have been estimated at $44.07 million, and the GEF increment is $2.04 million.

13. Component 3: Meetings and Staff Exchanges. Activities focus on cross-country and cross-project exchange of lessons learned and programmatic discussions. These include: (a) two GEF-supported international waters conferences; and (b) site visits, publications, and others at a cost to GEF of $ 0.72 million. These activities are considered full incremental costs due to the specific focus on GEF-defined global water issues.

Annex 2-B

Incremental Cost Matrix

ANNEX 3

stap roster technical review

“Global: International Waters Distance Learning and Project Phase 1”

1. Relevance to the GEF

This project is addressing the extremely urgent topic of developing and sharing learning from the experience of GEF and related projects relating to marine and coastal environments. I consider such learning should be core business of all GEF programs. This one is directed particularly at international waters and is fundamental to maximizing learning and progress as a result of GEF and other projects in this area.

2. Objectives

2.1 Validity of Objectives

I consider the project objectives to be valid ad to address the priority areas for achieving the overall purpose of the project.

2.2 Focus of project objectives

IW Learn - the objectives are adequately focused as regards the range of technical innovations or prototypes which are to be developed. Within several of those there will be a need for further focus to determine clear and appropriate targets for the particular information to be delivered through the various methods being developed.

Train Sea Coast is well focused on the development of course development units and the evaluation of their effectiveness. Again within the program there will need to be a specific focus on particular target groups in order to ensure that the training packages are designed to address particular real management issues and approaches of problems rather than a generalized approach.

2.3 Feasibility of Achievement of Objectives

The program is ambitious. The staging may need to be structured so that there is a sequence based on the achievements of performance milestones and that the lessons of this GEF project are systematically recorded and developed for the broader GEF and marine communities. That said, I consider the objectives are feasible but the next state of project development would need to be carried out before a detailed feasibility evaluation could be made.

3. Approach - IW Learn

3.1 Definition

IW Learn is addressing a lot of cutting edge aspects of the application of technically realized information delivery vehicles in a practical situation with extensive global reach and range of technologies. Within the scope of this document, I believe the approach is adequately defined but, as mentioned, above, the feasibility will not be clearly assessable until the next stage of project development has been carried out. I consider that it will be important in developing the next phase of the documentation to be very clear and to focus and prioritize through questions such as: what are the target groups? What are the messages needed for those target groups? And thus what are the appropriate or inappropriate means for attempting to deliver those messages? There will be some interesting cultural interface issues in ensuring that the structure and presentation of information is appropriate in a range of different circumstances for people form different cultures, educational background and philosophical frameworks.

3.2 As am R & D project, I consider IW Learn has an appropriate approach and it would be important step in the development of the application of new technologies in the age of the capacity for broad dissemination of information. The concept is soundly based technically although the soundness of the individual technical components will need to be firmly established in the next stage of more detailed documentation so that we can be sure that the proposed applications of technology are feasible in the geographic and economic contexts of the range of partners.

3.4 The proposal appears to have the capacity to address a very wide range of environmental opportunities and solve a wide range of problems. The issue of targeting will be critical in the next stage of project development and the critical questions which will need to be addressed in that targeting is why does the target group need the information? And how will the target group use the information to achieve an environmental outcome?

3.5 The approach of the project preselects the countries on the basis of those where there are already GEF projects and others from which this project will learn. I have no suggestions for others at this stage.

4. Approach Train Sea Coast

4.1 The approach is clearly defined in the brief. As mentioned above the detailed development of the project will need to address the targeting of the materials. The merit of the approach is to go beyond the current phase where there are literally dozens of sets of materials developed or being developed around the world to a pooling or sharing so that there is a capacity to draw on well made materials in order to assemble, adapt and target specific materials for issues and locations. This is clearly recognized in Activities 6.3 and 6.4.

4.2 The approach of the project is appropriate and technically sound. There is a heavy focus on the pedagogical approach. This is welcome. It is particularly important that the instructional profiles of target audiences are carefully considered. In many of the situations the key targets are likely to be local officials, elected or paid who may have a limited educational background. However, since these are the people who make and implement many of the key decisions which affect marine and coastal environments it is important that careful consideration be given to course design to address their needs in a means which uses locally appropriate examples and languages.

4.3 The project refers to undergraduate and masters training. This is important but there is need to be very clear about the targets for this project so that any other opportunities which are not going to be addressed by this project are clearly identified and there is the option for them to be addressed either by extension of this project or by others. This is recognized in activities 6.5, 6.6 and output 7.

4.4 My overall comments on the approach and interlinking of IW Learn and Train Sea Coast are that the meetings under Train Sea Coast (output 7) are particularly important. Given the research and development angles of IW Learn and the almost inevitable technical difficulties which will need to be resolved, I would strongly recommend that the proposed GEF International Waters Conferences have very specific and carefully targeted sessions to address the IW Learn interactions. From experience I would like to advocate a workshop associated with such a conference so that the remote technology can be bedded down in a test situation with the participants in the same building (if not the same room). This will give a basic confidence to the use of the technologies which will stand the project in good stead when the next phase of such a remote information exercise is carried out with the participants at home locations widely separated and subject to the vagaries of land line and satellite link variability.

4.5 On the more general topic of the organization of the proposed GEF International Waters Conferences I would very strongly advocate a substantial effort to go into design and achievement of the structure of the conferences so that they do indeed produce a major significant outcome for management. I make these comments on the basis of the organizational arrangements being developed for the International Tropical Marine Environment Management Symposium being held as part of the International Coral Reef Initiative in Townsville, Australia in November 1998. In developing this conference the ICRIO coordinating planning committee and secretariat have operated on the premise that the needs for a conference of managers which will also serve a significant capacity development role are in several ways significantly different from the needs for a conference of scientists reviewing scientific work.

4.6 As a consequence we have developed and will be proto-typing a conference which is based on sessions targeted at very specific management issues relating to topics such as land based sources of marine pollution, fisheries, managing tourism and managing petroleum exploration and mining in marine and coastal environments. The particular distinction is that rather than inviting a general submission of papers the organizing committee is targeting good management examples of projects which have been or are being undertaken to address specific issues so that the presentation of these examples can lead to the consideration of clearly identified management questions. The theory behind this design is that we should end up with a clear outcome which identifies the lessons learnt though successes of projects and through consideration of the problems encountered by those projects. ICRI would of course welcome participation by GEF Project Managers at the ITEMS Conference and would welcome feedback on the degree to which we are able to achieve a satisfactory direction for management conferences.

4.7 The background information is adequate for a project brief of this scope. There are clearly many matters of detail, particularly in relation to the technical operative aspects of IW Learn which cannot be presented in substantial detail in such a format.

4.8 Additional information which might be helpful (although I appreciate it would be difficult to assemble in short period), would be a listing of major international aid agencies and regional programs which are active in the marine environment. The reason I advocate consideration of this is that the core of this project has an implication and substantial interest for a wide range of program beyond those which are funded by GEF. I appreciate that the proposal recognizes this but it would be helpful to make the broader relevance of this proposal more explicit.

4.9 The budget proposals look reasonable in relation to the amount of detail which can be provided in scoping document of this scale.

5. Innovation

5.1 The most innovative aspects of this proposal relate to developing the application of a wide range of the state of the art technologies to a wide spread dissemination of information to support marine management programs.

5.2 The greater strength of the proposal is that it addresses the urgent need to develop means of applying new technologies to trying for marine and coastal projects. The project will present a significant management task to the agencies undertaking because of its research and development nature it will be essential to have a careful and frank

review process. There is frequent mention of the necessary process for validating the various techniques used. Clearly there will be need for a robust management of these validation processes to ensure that validation is carried out at appropriate arms length from development so that the validation and evaluation are both fair and frank.

In summary I believe this has the potential to be a fundamental and extremely useful program taking training for marine management into the 21st century. I can identify four issues which will need to be borne in mind in developing the project to the next stage.

The first will be a careful analysis of training tasks and the priority in relation to management.

The second will be a careful review of the practitioner as opposed to the academic priorities reflected in proposed agendas.

The third will be to develop a system of testing the relevance of information being assembled in the various forms to ensure that there is a good signal for the information noise.

The fourth is the need to address the translation of generic materials in training units to specific materials which take account of the language culture and specific socio-economic context of management issues.

The underlying points is that we do not manage environments, marine or terrestial. We manage what people do or do not do to those, so it is essential that we keep focusing training materials on the people who have an influence on the environments.

Overall I commend this project for further development.