International Waters
Program Study
Final Report
Prepared by:
J. Michael Bewers
Juha I. Uitto
Global Environment Facility
Monitoring and Evaluation
ii
GEF International Waters Program Study
Acknowledgements
The International Waters Program Study was managed by the GEF Secretariat Monitoring and Evalua-
tion Team, and carried out by a team consisting of an independent lead consultant and representatives of
the GEF Secretariat and the three GEF Implementing agencies.
The Program Study Team members were as follows (in alphabetical order):
·
J. Michael Bewers, Lead Consultant, GEF Secretariat M&E Team
·
Christophe Crepin, Senior Regional Coordinator, Africa Environment and Social Development, The
World Bank
·
Alfred M. Duda, Senior Advisor, International Waters, GEF Secretariat
·
Andrew Hudson, Principal Technical Advisor, International Waters, UNDP/GEF
·
Andrea Merla, Senior Environmental Specialist/Program Manager, Land and Water, GEF Secretariat
·
John Pernetta, Deputy Executive Coordinator, UNEP/GEF
·
Juha I. Uitto, Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, GEF Secretariat M&E Team
·
Angela DeLuca Wagener, GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP)
In addition, the following persons made direct contributions to the study:
·
Susanne Leloup, Consultant, Africa Environment and Social Development, The World Bank; and
·
Maria C.J. Cruz, Senior Social Scientist, GEF Secretariat.
Several other individuals assisted in the preparation of the various Annexes to the report of the Study
Team. Additional contributors deserving of acknowledgement in this report are: Laurent Granier
(UNEP), Julius Kinderlehrer (University of Sheffield), Isabelle Vanderbeck (UNEP), Rene Coenen
(IMO), Richard G.V. Boelens (Enterprise Ireland) and Daniel Minchin, (Department of the Marine,
Ireland).
The main report has been drafted by Michael Bewers and Juha Uitto, assisted by William Faries,
drawing upon the various component analyses that are contained in the background documents prepared
by the Program Study Team (listed in Annex 2 to this report and available upon request from the GEF
M&E Unit). The mode of operation was that the background documents each had a lead author and have
been subsequently reviewed by the entire Program Study Team.
Juha I. Uitto
Task Manager
GEF International Waters Program Study
iii
Foreword
The GEF Council, at its meetings in December 1999 and May 2000, requested a review of GEF opera-
tions prior to the next replenishment, which begins in 2001.1 This review, the Second Study of GEF's
Overall Performance (OPS2) is being carried out by a fully independent team which is expected to
complete its work by the end of 2001. The OPS2 is the third major GEF-wide review to take place since
the Facility was created.2 Among the broad topics the OPS2 team will assess are:
·
Program Results and Initial Impacts
·
GEF Overall Strategies and Programmatic Impacts
·
Achievements of the Objectives of GEF's Operational Policies and Programs
·
Review of Modalities of GEF Support
·
Follow-up of OPS1
To facilitate the work of the OPS2 team, GEF's Monitoring and Evaluation team, in cooperation with
the GEF Implementing Agencies, decided to undertake program studies in the biodiversity, climate
change, and international waters focal areas. The role of these program studies is to provide portfolio
information and inputs for the OPS2 team's considerations.
The International Waters Study was undertaken by an interagency team comprised of staff from the GEF
secretariat, the three GEF implementing agencies, and the GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel
(STAP) with additional support from consultants contracted to undertake detailed studies in different
parts of the portfolio as well as to consolidate all the information collected and background documents
prepared.
Jarle Harstad
Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator
1 Joint Summary of the Chairs, GEF Council Meeting, December 8-9, 1999, and GEF/C.15/11.
2 The first two studies, respectively, were Global Environment Facility: Independent Evaluation of the Pilot Phase,
UNDP, UNEP, and World Bank (1994) and Porter, G., R. Clémençon, W. Ofosu-Amaah, and Michael Philips, Study of
GEF's Overall Performance, Global Environment Facility (1998).
iv
GEF International Waters Program Study
v
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
vii
Introduction
1
Methodology and Timeline
2
Background on GEF Approach to International Waters
4
Findings
6
Portfolio Distribution
6
Portfolio Trends
7
Alignment with GEF Guidance and Policies
8
Agreement with Regional and International Treaties
9
The TDA Approach to Preparing SAP
10
Project Performance and Review of Completed Projects
13
Completed Projects
13
Demonstration Projects
14
Findings from Site Visits
14
Geographically Based Approaches
18
Single Versus Multiple Implementing Agency Projects
20
Community-Based Approaches to Managing Transboundary Waters
22
Portfolio-Wide Observations and Responses to Previous Review Efforts
24
Strategic Issues
24
Operational Issues
25
Administrative Issues
25
Recommendations
27
Annexes
31
Annex 1: Initiating Memorandum
32
Annex 2: Background Documents
38
Annex 3: Complete List of Projects Included in the Program Study
40
vi
GEF International Waters Program Study
Glossary of Terms
ASBP
Aral Sea Basin Program
CBD
Convention on Biological Diversity
GPA
Global Program of Action on Land-Based Sources of Pollution
IA
implementing agency
LME
Large Marine Ecosystem
MSP
medium-size project
OP
Operational Program
OPS1
Firsts Study of GEF's Overall Performance
OPS2
Second Study of GEF's Overall Performance
POPs
Persistent Organic Pollutants
SAP
Strategic Action Program
SIDS
Small Island Developing States
STAP
GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
WB
World Bank
Executive Summary
vii
Executive Summary
1.
This report presents the main findings of the
GEF Biennial International Waters Conference in
GEF International Waters Program Study,
Budapest, Hungary, and four field-based reviews.
conducted from August 2000 to February 2001.
The study was undertaken by a team comprising
Conclusions
an independent lead consultant, representatives
of GEF's monitoring and evaluation unit (M&E),
5.
Overall, GEF's projects and PDFs align well
GEF secretariat, the three GEF implementing
with the strategic guidance adopted by the GEF
agencies (UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank),
Council. The allocation of projects among the
and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel
international waters OPs is appropriate. Shifts in
(STAP).
emphasis among the OPs since the completion of
the GEF Pilot Phase are entirely warranted in the
2.
At the time of the review, GEF had provided
context of changing international perspectives on
support to 41 full projects and four medium-size
priority problems in, and threats to, aquatic
projects (MSP) in the international waters focal
environments.
area, which includes GEF Operational Programs
8, 9, and 10. To date, 11 of these projects have
6.
GEF projects have made, and continue to
been completed. In addition, PDFs (Project
make, significant contributions to the implemen-
Preparation and Development Facility funds)
tation of existing global and regional agreements
have been approved for 22 projects which may
that address the protection and restoration of
enter the GEF portfolio upon further develop-
freshwater and marine ecosystems. Indeed, GEF
ment. Not including co-financing, overall GEF
can be considered a major, or possibly the major,
funding to international waters efforts from 1991
facilitator of the implementation and increased
to December 31, 2000, totals $444 million.
adoption of international waters laws, action
plans, and regional environmental protection
3.
At the request of the GEF Council, an
agreements.
independent Second Study of GEF's Overall
Performance (OPS2) has been initiated and is
7.
The regional distribution of international
expected to be completed by the end of 2001.
waters interventions is relatively well balanced.
The goal of the study highlighted in this report,
Overall, Africa has the largest share of GEF
as well as focal area studies underway in
international waters funding ($104.5 million),
biodiversity and climate change, is a systematic
followed by Asia ($90.8 million), Latin America
self-assessment that can contribute to the delib-
and the Caribbean ($56.6 million), Eastern Europe
erations and work of the OPS2 team.
($40.1 million), and Small Island Developing States
($12.3 million). Another $20.9 million has been
4.
In undertaking this work, the review team
allocated to global projects. In addition, the shifts in
used a collection of relevant documents and
emphasis among regions, as evidenced by the
databases provided by the GEF secretariat and
balance between projects currently under imple-
the implementing agencies, broad consultations
mentation and the preparatory and pipeline con-
with GEF stakeholders, participation at the First
cepts, appear entirely appropriate.
viii
GEF International Waters Program Study
8.
Despite these accomplishments, a greater
tion projects continue to justify some allocations
effort should be made to clarify the guidance
of resources under OP 10 to demonstration
which directs GEF's international waters portfo-
projects of similar nature. Only limited impacts
lio. Among other things, this complicates the
could be identified from the four project site
process of sharing lessons among projects and
visits, largely due to the fact that the projects had
may inhibit support for future projects by
not yet reached sufficient maturity to produce
participating countries with insufficient or
quantifiable environmental benefits.
unclear guidance.
13. Efforts to expand the GEF's operational
9.
The nature of international waters projects,
focus, such as creating an operational program
which often involve joint efforts by the three
on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), and to
GEF implementing agencies as well as a number
incorporate greater use of integrated ecosystem
of different countries, highlights the need for a
management (e.g., OP 12) require additional
formal mechanism within the GEF to ensure
thought on the roles and definitions of the
adequate monitoring, coordination, and
different operational programs currently in use.
cooperation.
10. The current emphasis on undertaking a
Recommendations
science-based transboundary diagnostic analysis
(TDA) prior to the design of a strategic action
14. Based on these findings, the review high-
program (SAP) is appropriate for projects in OP
lights the following recommendations for
8 and 9. There does appear, however, to be a
ensuring a more effective and responsive interna-
need for more GEF guidance regarding the
tional waters program for the GEF:
nature of TDAs and the manner in which they
lead to, and are distinct from, the development
·
While it is too early to expect much informa-
of SAPs.
tion regarding measured improvements in
international waters environments from GEF
11. Among individual projects and operational
interventions, as GEF's experience increases,
programs, overall project performance varies.
preparations should be made for including
With regard to the three levels of indicators--
more comparable information on process,
process, stress reduction, and environmental
stress reduction, and environmental status
status--most of the impacts could be found at
indicators in future project evaluations.
process levels. This is not surprising given the
long time required to show actual improvements
·
The use of science-based transboundary
in the international waters environment. The
diagnostic analyses (TDAs) as a basis for
review of completed projects, however, showed
facilitating countries' agreements on joint
that some present and future reductions in stress
remedial or preventive actions (in the form
on the marine environment can be directly
of a SAP) should continue. However, where
attributed to GEF projects. The degree to which
feasible, efforts should be made to shorten
these interventions were effective in reducing
the time required for a TDA.
stress in the regions concerned, however, is
difficult to quantify due to the absence of
·
Given the complex nature of international
uniform tools comparing the impacts of several
waters projects, which can involve the
activities and sources of pollution.
cooperation of a large number of countries
and implementing agencies, an interagency
12. The review of demonstration projects found
advisory function within the GEF is needed
that the projects are generally both well con-
to help ensure coordination and effective
ceived and satisfy the criteria for GEF support.
development of the international waters
The potential incremental benefits that can
focal area.
accrue from both global and regional demonstra-
Executive Summary
ix
·
All high-risk projects, or those with high-
·
The intent of OP 8 and OP 9 should be
risk components, should be subjected to a
clarified to make them mutually coherent
mid-term review. In addition, final or
and consistent with the new OP 12. Along
terminal evaluations of projects should only
these same lines, the emphasis on ship-
be conducted after project implementation
derived impacts on international waters in
has been completed.
OP 10 should be reduced and the emphasis
on land-based activities and their effects,
·
Procedures for feeding back "lessons
including those mediated by atmospheric
learned" to the formulation of projects in the
transport pathways, should be increased.
international waters focal area have been
initiated recently. The first GEF Biennial
·
A procedure and timetable for the prepara-
International Waters Meeting was held in
tion of guidelines on major concepts used
2000 and IW:LEARN is just getting started.
within the Operational Strategy and the
Accordingly, such learning should be
Operational Programs should be devised.
formalized as a transparent and effective
Specifically, these guidelines should provide
mechanism within the GEF.
clear definitions and examples of the follow-
ing topics: incremental cost estimation,
·
GEF should consider increased assessments
application of the "ecosystem management"
of the suitability of proposed executing
concept, TDAs, and the "Large Marine
agencies to ensure competent project
Ecosystem" concept.
management and the sustainability of any
activities (administrative arrangements or
·
A streamlined oversight and tracking
organizations) engendered through GEF
methodology should be prepared and
international waters projects.
implemented by the GEF that defines the
procedures to be used from project inception
·
In South America, an evaluation of progress
through to final review and feedback. This
in the development of projects should be
methodology should include appropriate and
conducted with a view to identifying oppor-
uniform documentation to ensure transpar-
tunities for accelerating attention and
ency and accountability.
national commitments to the resolution of
environmental problems in large multi-
country catchments, particularly those on the
eastern side of the Andes.
x
GEF International Waters Program Study
Introduction
1
Introduction
15. The GEF Council, at its meetings in Decem-
17. To facilitate the work of the OPS2 team,
ber 1999 and May 2000, endorsed the conduct of
GEF's monitoring and evaluation unit, in con-
a review of GEF operations prior to the next
junction with the implementing agencies,
replenishment, which begins in 20011 . This
decided to undertake program studies in the
review, the Second Study of GEF's Overall
biodiversity, climate change, and international
Performance (OPS2) is to be carried out by a
waters focal areas. The role of these program
"fully independent team" which is expected to
studies is to provide portfolio information and
complete its work by the end of 2001. The OPS2
inputs for the OPS2 team's consideration.
is the third major GEF-wide review to take place
Participating members on the international
since the Facility was created2 .
waters program study team included representa-
tives of the three implementing agencies (UNDP,
16. Among the broad topics the OPS2 team will
UNEP, and the World Bank), members of the
assess are:
GEF secretariat, and an independent consultant.
A complete list of study team members is
·
Program results and initial impacts
provided in the Foreword.
·
GEF overall strategies and programmatic
18. At the time of the review, GEF had provided
impacts
support to 41 full projects and four medium-size
projects (MSP) in the international waters focal
·
Achievement of the objectives of GEF's
area. To date, 11 of these projects have been
operational policies and programs
completed. In addition, PDFs have been ap-
proved for 22 projects which may enter the GEF
·
Review of modalities of GEF support
portfolio upon further development. Not includ-
ing co-financing, overall GEF funding to interna-
·
Follow-up of OPS1
tional waters efforts from 1991 to December 31,
2000 totals $444 million.
1 Joint Summary of the Chairs, GEF Council Meeting, December 8-9, 1999, and GEF/C.15/11.
2 The first two studies, respectively, were Global Environment Facility: Independent Evaluation of the Pilot Phase,
UNDP, UNEP, and World Bank (1994) and Porter, G., R. Clémençon, W. Ofosu-Amaah, and Michael Philips, Study of
GEF's Overall Performance, Global Environment Facility (1998).
2
GEF International Waters Program Study
Methodology and Timeline
19. Beginning in August 2000, the program
·
Brazil: Integrated Management of Land-
study team agreed on a series of elements
Based Activities in the São Francisco Basin
required for the study, including specific areas
(implemented by UNEP)
for review, the design of a questionnaire for
project managers and others involved in GEF
·
Brazil: Implementation of Integrated Water-
projects in the field, and the locations and
shed Management Practices for the Pantanal
procedures for site visits. In addition to an
and Upper Paraguay River Basin (imple-
overall portfolio analysis and review of project
mented by UNEP).
performance, the following topics were high-
lighted for in-depth examination:
In addition, the consultant conferred with the
headquarters staff of all three implementing
·
Experiences with the use of the
agencies and the International Maritime Organi-
transboundary diagnostic analysis approach
zation in London, which is the executing agency
for preparing SAPs
for GEF's Ballast Water Project3 .
·
Multiple versus single implementing agency
21. The program study was intended to examine,
efforts
in some detail, the portfolio of projects within
the international waters focal area. The study's
·
Regional approaches to complex situations.
objective was to review the coverage of GEF
international waters programs, as well as the
20. The review team also participated in the First
results and preliminary impacts.
GEF Biennial International Waters Conference,
held in Budapest from October 14-18, 2000, and
22. As part of its work, the study team was
undertook field visits to four GEF projects:
asked to analyze project data using performance
indicators at three levels, considering possible
·
Water and Environmental Management in
alternatives within each of the following types:
the Aral Sea Basin (implemented by the
World Bank)
·
Process indicators (i.e., the processes that are
likely to lead towards a desirable outcome)
·
Implementation of the Strategic Action
Program Toward Achievement of the Inte-
·
Stress reduction indicators (concrete actions
grated Management of the Benguela Current
that reduce the environmental stress on the
Large Marine Ecosystem (implemented by
water body
UNDP)
·
Environmental status indicators (actual
improvement of ecosystem quality).
3 The full project name is Removal of Barriers to the Effective Implementation of Ballast Water Control and Manage-
ment Measures in Developing Countries, implemented by UNDP.
Methodology and Timeline
3
23. The study team also sought to determine the
initiatives regarding damage and threats to such
extent to which current GEF policies agree with
environments. A complete initiating memoran-
the strategic guidance adopted by the GEF
dum for the study can be found in Annex 1.
Council and recommendations provided by both
the Pilot Phase Review and OPS1. In addition,
24. In completing its work, the study team
because there is no single, global agreement on
compiled a number of background documents
international waters like there is in biodiversity
and raw data which deal in greater depth with a
(CBD) or climate change (UNFCCC), the review
number of the issues raised in this report. A
was requested to provide some assessment of
complete list of this background documentation
GEF's policies and procedures on priority issues
is available in Annex 2 and can be obtained from
in international waters and determine the relative
the GEF M&E Unit.
alignment with contemporary intergovernmental
4
GEF International Waters Program Study
Background on GEF Approach
to International Waters
25. GEF's approach to international waters is set
financial, regulatory, and institutional measures
out by the Council in the Operational Strategy
that are necessary to achieve this goal. The long-
document. It calls for a comprehensive approach to
term objective is to undertake a series of projects
water resource management, an approach that is:
to help groups of countries work collaboratively
in achieving changes in sectoral policies and
"...cross-sectoral, integrates ecological
activities so that transboundary environmental
and development needs, and is based on
issues that cause degradation in shared water
holistic analyses of the carrying capacity
bodies can be resolved. OP 8 projects focus on
of the water environment...The GEF will
seriously threatened water bodies and the most
act as a catalyst to ensure that countries
imminent threats to their ecosystems.
better understand the functioning of their
international waters systems, gain an
27. OP 9 is broader in scope. Its long-term
appreciation of how their sectoral activities
objective is to achieve global environmental
influence the water environment, and find
benefits through implementation of projects that
a means for collaborating with neighbor-
integrate the use of sound land and water re-
ing countries to collectively pursue
source management strategies as a result of
effective solutions."
changes in sectoral policies and activities that
promote sustainable development. Both OP 8 and
26. GEF's international waters focal area
OP 9 are often multicountry in nature, but OP 9
includes projects in marine and freshwater
projects tend to focus on preventive measures
systems and are categorized into Operational
rather than remedial, highly capital-intensive
Programs (OP) 8, 9, or 10. These operational
measures.
programs are:
28. In OP 10, GEF projects are intended to help
·
OP 8: Waterbody-Based
demonstrate ways of overcoming barriers to the
adoption of best practices that limit the releases
·
OP 9: Integrated Land and Water Multiple
of contaminants causing priority concerns in
Focal Area
international waters. This includes demonstration
projects for addressing land-based sources of
·
OP 10: Contaminant-Based
pollution, projects related to contaminants
released from ships or persistent toxic sub-
In OP 8, GEF is intended to play a catalytic role
stances, and targeted regional or global projects
in assisting groups of countries to make changes
useful in setting priorities for possible GEF
in various sectors (agriculture, industry, etc) so
interventions. This operational program also
that the particular waterbody and its drainage
aims to involve the private sector in utilizing
basin can sustainably support human activities.
technological advances for resolving these
GEF helps the countries use technical, economic,
transboundary concerns. A more complete
4 Operational Strategy, GEF (1996); GEF Operational Programs, GEF (1997).
Background on GEF Approach to International Waters
5
description of these various OPs and their
·
Priority preventive and remedial actions
objectives is available in the GEF Operational
Strategy and Operational Programs4 .
·
Cross-cutting issues and linkages to
other focal areas
29. In both OP 8 and OP 9, the Operational
Strategy recommends the formulation of a SAP
·
Institutional strengthening and capacity-
as an appropriate initial step in helping countries
building needs
define priority problems, establish commitments
for specific actions, and agree on additional
·
Stakeholder involvement and public
interventions for priority transboundary con-
awareness activities
cerns. SAPs are particularly needed where
"transboundary concerns, additional needed
·
Program monitoring and evaluation
actions, and incremental costs are not adequately
defined."
·
Institutional mechanisms for imple-
mentation."
30. The Operational Strategy states that:
31. A key element for preparing a SAP among
"The SAP should provide for a balanced
countries is a scientific transboundary diagnostic
program of preventive and remedial
analysis (TDA) of priority transboundary
actions, support both investment and
environmental problems. Since this process is
capacity-building activities, and identify
associated with many of GEF's international
key activities in the following areas:
waters projects, it was closely examined in the
program study.
6
GEF International Waters Program Study
Findings
Portfolio Distribution
mental threats and needs, there are some imbal-
ances in the distributions at the sub-regional level
32. The portfolio analysis of GEF's international
and among ocean receiving basins.
waters projects found that the distribution of
projects among the various operational programs,
34. The growth of projects in OP 10 would seem
both by number and funding, is similar. Region-
to put to rest criticisms expressed in OPS1
ally, Africa has the largest share of GEF interna-
regarding the lack of global projects in the
tional waters funding ($104.5 million), followed
portfolio. The review did find, however, that
by Asia ($90.8 million), Latin America and the
there may be a disproportionate investment in
Caribbean ($56.6 million), Eastern Europe
this operational program to projects in the Latin
($40.1 million), and Small Island Developing
America and Caribbean which gives undue
States ($12.3 million). Another $20.9 million has
weight in financial allocations to Caribbean
been allocated to global projects. Figure 1
projects.
provides information on numbers of projects
approved and under development per region. A
35. OP 9 projects are predominantly based in
complete list of the GEF international waters
Asia, with the smallest allocations in the Middle
projects included in these figures is presented in
East/North Africa region and Eastern Europe.
Annex 3.
However, the 10 projects being prepared with
PDF-B funds in Africa will soon give Africa the
33. While the review finds this regional distribu-
greatest emphasis. While this may be entirely
tion to be appropriate in light of known environ-
understandable, the review questions whether the
Figure 1
Number of Approved Projects and Projects Under Development Within Regions
25
20
15
Under Development
Number
Approved
10
5
0
ica
an
ica
ica
ibbean
Afr
acific
Global
Europe &
al Asia
Middle East
th Afr
South Asia
East Asia
Latin Amer
Sub-Sahar
Centr
& the P
& Nor
& the Car
Region
Findings
7
generally lower level of investment in Latin
along with the Arctic and Antarctic oceans. An
America and the Caribbean is appropriate.
examination of projects in the pipeline or under
development, however, suggests that most of
Portfolio Trends
these deficiencies are being rectified, though the
limited focus on the Eastern Indian and Eastern
36. In examining the current portfolio of interna-
Pacific oceans will remain.
tional waters projects, it is helpful to understand
the shifts in emphasis in the development of
39. Finally, it is also helpful to examine the GEF
future projects. An analysis of projects receiving
portfolio in light of a number of particularly
PDF assistance from the GEF is also helpful.
important issues central to international waters
Regionally, for instance, the review found an
(Figure 3). Nine such issues were identified in
enhanced emphasis on projects in sub-Saharan
the initiating memorandum. They are:
Africa, relative to other areas (Figure 1).
I.
Freshwater scarcity and ecosystem conflicts
37. From an international waters perspective, it
(particularly in Africa and the Middle East)
is equally meaningful to examine the distribution
of projects among global international waters
II.
Freshwater basin and coastal pollution and
basins. Each of the international waters areas that
sedimentation
are the subjects of international waters projects is
connected, ultimately, to a major receiving ocean
III.
Degradation of transboundary groundwater
basin. If the projects are broken down in relation
systems
to these basins, it should reflect the degree to
which each has received similar levels of
IV.
Degradation of wetland ecosystems,
investment.
particularly transboundary systems
38. The results of this basin analysis (Figure 2)
V.
Coastal/marine nutrient over-enrichment
show that, by and large, the Eastern Indian
Ocean and the Eastern North and South Pacific
VI.
Persistent toxic substances
are not represented in the current GEF portfolio,
Figure 2
Number of Approved Projects and Projects Under Development
in Relation to Oceanic Receiving Basins
30
25
20
Under Development
15
Number
Approved
10
5
0
Arctic
Indian
acific
acific
acific
acific
Global
W-
E-Indian
ESP
Antarctic
WNAtlantic
ENAtlantic
ESAtlantic
WNP
ENP
WSP
WSAntlantic
Continental
Oceanic Receiving Basin
8
GEF International Waters Program Study
Figure 3
GEF Projects by Issue in International Waters
16
14
12
Pilot Projects
10
Approved
8
Number
PDFs
6
Concepts
4
2
0
ater
ies
etlands
ater basin
ater scarcity
roundw
VI = POPS
IX = global
IV = w
VII = fisher
I = w
III = g
Issue
VIII = ship contam.
II = freshw
V = coastal eutroph.
VII. Coastal and marine fisheries
success in fostering national and multilateral
commitments to improved environmental
VIII. Ship-related contaminants
protection measures and the implementation of
the aims and objectives of a range of interna-
IX.
Global issues.
tional agreements.
Overall, the study team found a justifiably strong
41. Nevertheless, as observed by OPS1, not all
focus in issues II and V, and increased attention
the criticisms and suggestions made in the Pilot
in project development to issues I, III, and VI.
Phase evaluation have been addressed to date,
While the team found minor inequities on a
and there remains room for improvement in the
regional basis when looking at these issues, the
guidance provided by the GEF at both strategic
sample size is essentially too small to draw any
and operational levels. Specifically, the Pilot
concrete conclusions.
Phase evaluation referred to the need for guid-
ance with respect to concepts such as "participa-
Alignment with GEF Guidance
tion," "incremental costs," and "global benefits,"
and Policies
as well as appropriate approaches to promoting
sustainability, innovation, and the development
40. Substantively, the range of projects within
of global dimensions of national environmental
the international waters focal area align well with
policies and strategies and their linkage to GEF
the GEF's Operational Strategy and the Opera-
projects. The need for guidance on these topics is
tional Program specifications adopted by the
still evident for all GEF focal areas.
GEF Council. Furthermore, they represent viable
vehicles for the promotion of actions to redress
42. In the context of international waters, the
damage to international waters environments. In
topics for which additional guidance could prove
this respect, they have achieved considerable
useful include the utility of the "large marine
5 The review of this OP (Integrated Ecosystem Management) was not in the purview of the program study and would
have been premature given that the operational program only became operational in 2000.
Findings
9
Figure 4
Numbers of GEF International Waters Projects Correlating
with Specific International Agreements
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
PA
ks
G
CBD
CIW
star
CCD
Stoc
ARPOL
FCCC
POPs
SIDS
S.
Ram
Bellagio
M
ecosystem" and "ecosystem management"
·
Global Program of Action for the Protection
concepts that assume prominence in the new
of the Marine Environment from Land-
OP 125 .
Based Activities (GPA)
43. The Pilot Phase evaluation also advocated
·
MARPOL 73/78 Convention
streamlining review mechanisms. The present
study found the current plethora of GEF review
·
Convention on Non-Navigational Uses of
mechanisms to be unwarranted. It places a heavy
International Watercourses (CIW)
burden on resources that are not compensated for
by improved project oversight. A more structured
·
United Nations Agreement on Straddling
and formalized review system is needed, solely
Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish
from GEF perspectives, that leads to much
Stocks
greater effectiveness and transparency in the
processes of feedback to new project conception
·
Draft global Convention on Persistent
and design.
Organic Pollutants (POPs)
Agreement with Regional and Inter-
·
Convention to Combat Desertification
national Treaties
·
Ramsar Convention
44. GEF projects contribute significantly to the
implementation of the provisions of a variety of
·
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
international environmental agreements (Figure
4). The projects within the international waters
Furthermore, a number of the GEF's interna-
focal area promote the implementation of a large
tional waters efforts also contribute to the
number of international agreements at the global
implementation of the United Nations Treaty on
level including:
the Law of the Sea. The fact that the majority of
international waters interventions relate to more
10
GEF International Waters Program Study
than one such agreement is an inherent advan-
49. The GEF has also been instrumental in
tage as it results in more comprehensive, or
achieving country commitments to establish new
holistic, projects and SAPs that focus national
multicountry agreements for the management of
activities on objectively defined priority issues.
shared water bodies, such as Lake Tanganyika
and the Caspian Sea. Many multicountry institu-
45. In addition to these global agreements, GEF
tions are weak, however, both politically and
interventions in international waters have made,
financially, and frequently limited to advisory
and continue to make, contributions to the
functions6 . These findings are of particular
implementation of a range of existing regional
importance because the study authors believe
agreements that address mutual protection and
that the role of regional conventions and interna-
restoration of river drainage basins and marginal
tional river and lake basin organizations is of
sea areas.
critical importance for the success and
sustainability of GEF initiatives.
46. As seen in Figure 4, the main focus is on
land-based activities that degrade marine waters
50. Despite important successes, the study finds
(under the GPA) followed by loss of biodiversity
that several global conventions and their secre-
(CBD), fisheries over-exploitation (Straddling
tariats have not taken full advantage of the
Stocks), loss of wetlands (Ramsar) and hazards
opportunities arising from GEF projects to
associated with shipping (MARPOL).
advance their sectoral goals and foster their
translation into national legislation and policies.
47. Thus, for instance, through GEF action to
In addition, a satisfactory level of synergy has
reduce nutrient pollution in the Black Sea basin,
yet to be achieved with existing international
the provisions and objectives of the GPA, as
convention mechanisms, such as their Consulta-
translated into regional commitments by the
tive Meetings of Contracting Parties and their
Danube and Bucharest conventions, are strength-
secretariats, that would further strengthen the
ened by compliance with the Ramsar Conven-
catalytic role of the GEF, the replication of success-
tion, and vice versa. At the same time, beneficial
ful demonstrations, and global awareness of, and
consequences also accrue with respect to the
compliance with, international agreements.
preservation of biodiversity.
51. The holistic approach that underlies the GEF
48. Furthermore, many GEF projects in different
international waters strategy and the majority of
regions address the fragile ecosystems of coastal
its projects is tangibly demonstrating how the
environments where marine and freshwater systems
effectiveness of international environmental law
interact, hydrodynamic processes are more intense,
can be enhanced through collective arrangements
and the impact of human activities is increasingly
and responses. Indeed, one of the strengths of
manifest. All these projects enhance synergies
GEF interventions is that they allow countries to
between the Jakarta Mandate of the Convention on
address issues in a way that deals not only with
Biological Diversity and the GPA, and in some
national concerns and the internal effects of
instances MARPOL, as is the case with projects in
national activities, but also external effects of
the Yellow Sea, the Patagonian coast and shelf, and
national activities and the effects of activities by
the southern Mediterranean. Where freshwater
other countries sharing the same water body.
scarcity represents the major transboundary threat
to ecosystems, the interplay of the Ramsar, CIW,
52. The GEF can thus be seen as a major, or
and desertification conventions have provided a
possibly the major, facilitator of the implementa-
basis for the design of a number of GEF projects,
tion and increased adoption of international
such as the Okavango and the Niger Basin projects.
water laws, action plans, and regional environ-
6 The prevalence of environmental or water ministries and the lack of interministerial committees at national levels are
additional elements undermining the effectiveness of these organizations.
Findings
11
mental protection agreements. The sustenance
usually within a harmonized multinational
and promotion of such regional agreements and
context, to restore or preserve from further
their environmental protection activities is one of
degradation a specific international waters area.
the measurable and concrete benefits of GEF
Although such analyses can be conducted by, and
international waters activities.
within, single countries, the need to identify
transboundary effects and causes makes it
The TDA Approach to Preparing SAPs
desirable that the analyses be conducted on a
multilateral basis involving all riparian states to
53. As discussed earlier in this report, OPs 8 and
an international water body.
9 place emphasis on the need to formulate SAPs
for interventions to address the degradation of, or
56. The review finds that there are a variety of
threats to, international waterbodies based on
ways in which a TDA is conducted. Some are
sound scientific analysis (the TDA).
more resource-intensive than others, but these
usually offer advantages in providing greater
54. Such scientific and technical assessment is
insight and specificity, thereby providing an
needed to identify and quantify the environmen-
improved information base for the formulation of
tal issues and problems in the international
SAPs. They also improve the objectivity of the
waters area and identify their immediate, inter-
process. Since SAPs are inherently political
mediate, and fundamental causes. The analysis
instruments agreed to by a number of countries,
involves an identification of causes and impacts
objectivity is not a mandatory foundation for a
of environmental disturbances and/or threats and
SAP but it usually improves the effectiveness of
assesses the scale and distribution of impacts at
concomitant actions to resolve environmental
national, regional, and global levels, predomi-
problems. In sum, the TDA is used to objectively
nantly in socio-economic terms. The identifica-
determine the facts, while the politics of address-
tion of causes specifies practices, sources, loca-
ing those facts are undertaken as part of the SAP.
tions, and human activity sectors from which
environmental degradation arises or is threatened.
57. The study focused on four examples taken
from GEF preparatory activities as a basis for
55. A TDA thus provides the basis for the
subsequent observations on their advantages and
formulation of a SAP embodying specific actions
drawbacks. The four examples chosen, which
or interventions that can be adopted nationally,
differ considerably in approach and content, are
Box 1
Creating a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
for the South China Sea
One of the more detailed and well-structured TDAs examined by the study concerned
the South China Sea, which involved the cooperation of seven countries (Cambodia, China,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam).
The development of the South China Sea TDA began with the establishment of na-
tional committees in each of the seven participating countries. Each of these national commit-
tees prepared a country report that contained a national analysis of water-related problems and
concerns. These country reports were then considered at a meeting of national coordinators and
invited regional scientists. At this meeting, each of the issues raised within the country reports
was collectively assigned a weight so that an initial list of major concerns could be defined.
The process of ranking issues in the South China Sea differs considerably from the one
12
GEF International Waters Program Study
Box 1, continued
undertaken for the Lake Tanganyika project, where priorities were assigned partly on the basis
of considerations such as "feasibility" and "additional benefits," which would normally be
considered at a later stage.
In the South China Sea, the analyses in the national reports and in the TDA itself
identify a series of root causes of current environmental problems and threats in the region of
which the most important are: rapid growth in coastal populations, rapid economic growth over
the last decade, the pace of industrialization, and the influence of globalization of trade.
The resulting GEF project in the region, Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends
in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand, contains four major components, three of which
(habitat degradation and loss, over-exploitation of fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand, and land-
based pollution) correspond to categories of issues identified in the TDA. The full project
implemented by UNEP will derive specific national actions in relation to each of these catego-
ries, leading to a high-level intergovernmental meeting at which these actions will be adopted
within a SAP.
for the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, the South
60. In these cases, the study concludes that it
China Sea, Lake Tanganyika, and the Yellow Sea.
would be desirable for TDAs to be part of the
While a summary of the study team's findings is
preparative process leading to project design.
presented here, greater detail on this aspect of the
This would require resource requirements for the
review can be found in Box 1 below.
conduct of TDAs to be satisfied from PDF-B
budget allocations. The TDAs examined in the
58. All the TDAs examined bring the process of
study clearly demonstrate that it is possible to
SAP development to its starting point. In this
conduct relatively comprehensive TDAs within
sense, they can be regarded as valuable examples
the PDF-B budget limits. The increased PDF-B
of a logical sequence of activities leading to the
allocations for multicountry projects, adopted by
formulation of an effective and credible SAP.
the GEF Council, should be adequate to ensure that
This is the real value of transboundary diagnostic
more PDF-Bs include convincing scientific bases
analysis. It permits the logical development of a
for the actions proposed. More recommendations
strategic action program that is based on a
on this issue are included later in the report.
reasoned, holistic, and multisectoral consider-
ation of the problems associated with the state of,
61. Overall, the case studies examined by the
and threats to, international waters. Furthermore,
study adequately demonstrate TDAs' utility as a
it is a valuable vehicle for multilateral exchanges
means of allowing regions to approach problem
of perspectives and constraints as a precursor to
resolution in international waters areas in a
the eventual formulation of a SAP.
pragmatic and coherent manner. The conduct of
TDAs provides a vehicle for multilateral consul-
tation in the early stages of the development of
59. Nevertheless, the TDA/SAP process has
SAPs, thereby reducing the risk of having to
been criticized for unnecessarily delaying action
make a postiori revisions of SAPs and, more
that addresses problems in international waters
importantly, ensuring the devotion of resources
areas. This is particularly the case in areas where
to issues of substance rather than perception.
countries or other concerned bodies have suffi-
Grappling with priorities at early stages in the
cient reason to believe that the environmental
SAP development process offers greater long-
threats and priorities are already known.
term benefits in ensuring that multilateral action
Findings
13
is focused on issues of key importance that are
terms of meeting their originally conceived
likely to offer the largest net benefits.
objectives and in fostering concrete progress on
multilateral action to address prevailing problems.
62. The study finds that encouraging an orga-
In general, the performance of OP 8 projects is
nized, strategic identification of priority issues in
something of a mixed bag. In the final evaluation,
regional areas has been an important ancillary
all OP 8 projects received criticism on some major
benefit of international waters interventions. In
aspects of their performance. However, it should be
this context, the GEF deserves credit for foster-
noted that only two of the completed projects were
ing science-based assessments that help define
designed after the adoption of the operational
SAPs. Through this process, scientific, technical,
programs. The remainder, retroactively assigned,
social, and political considerations are all
did not strictly follow the OP guidance, except for
brought to bear on identifying priorities for the
the three ship-related projects.
adoption of harmonized and coherent multilateral
action. Attention is thereby focused on issues of
Completed Projects
substance conceived from comprehensive
perspectives rather than matters of perception.
65. The performance of the 10 completed
projects* for which final reports exist shows
63. In many cases, the challenge is to achieve a
considerable variability (Table 1). Some projects,
shared vision and commitment among countries
however, have clearly been more successful than
sharing a water resource regarding addressing
others. The two projects on ship waste handling in
priority transboundary environmental issues
the southwestern Mediterranean (Oil Pollution
concerning the water body. Therefore, the
Management Project for the Southwest Mediterra-
development and endorsement of a SAP, and
nean Sea) and in China (China: Ship Waste
hence political commitment to its implementa-
Disposal) can be regarded as very successful in
tion, is in itself often the major achievement.
meeting their objectives. Some present and future
Even in cases where the problems appear to be
reductions in stress on the marine environment can
known (e.g., the Aral Sea basin), the lack of an
be directly attributed to these projects. Moreover, in
agreed SAP can hamper joint action by the
the case of the China: Ship Waste Disposal project,
countries to address the transboundary environ-
these reductions in stress are quantifiable.
mental issues. On the other hand, addressing all
priority issues identified in a comprehensive SAP
66. Despite these successes, the degree to which
is frequently beyond the abilities of GEF and
these projects were effective in reducing stress in
requires coordinated efforts by the countries and
the regions concerned, however, remains an open
donors. Therefore, completing an agreed SAP is
question in the absence of any uniform tool for
itself commonly an important process indicator
comparing the relative severity of impact among
for GEF.
a number of activities and sources. This is the
value of the TDA approach, especially if it is
Project Performance and Review of
conducted holistically and objectively.
Completed Projects
67. In addition, as has been pointed out in the
64. Among individual projects and operational
earlier GEF reviews, there is a continuing need
programs, overall project performance varies. In
for strong and sustainable political commitment
general, projects within OP 10 were clearly
for projects to fulfill their objectives. This was
successful. Among OP 9 projects, the Strategic
clearly demonstrated in the Water Pollution
Action Program for the Binational Basin of the
Control and Biodiversity Conservation in the
Bermejo River and Prevention and Management
Gulf of Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem project,
of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas
which was plainly overambitious. There remains
projects were found to be the most productive in
doubt, based on the final evaluation report, that
*N.B. The Pilot Phase Caribbean "project" was actually a Pre Investment Facility (PRIF) grant that never
matured into a full project.
14
GEF International Waters Program Study
the degree of political commitment is as strong
69. Other lessons learned from completed
or as sustainable as it would have been if the project
projects include:
had been based on more modest ambitions.
·
The need to ensure adequate funding for
68. Among these completed projects, the
communication functions among relevant
importance of the mid-term review in helping
national institutions, NGOs, managers,
turn around an underperforming project is clear.
policy makers, experts, and even implement-
The Pollution Control and Other Measures to
ing agencies
Protect Biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika project,
for instance, accomplished a great deal in the
·
The critical role of management actions or
face of considerable difficulties. An important
interventions that are community-based
part of this success was due to the timeliness and
effectiveness of the mid-term review, which
·
The need to evaluate capacity building
could then be used to redirect the project.
measures following project completion
Table 1
Terminal Evaluations of International Waters Projects
Evaluation
#
Country/Region
Project
IA
OP #
Project Dates
Date
Environmental Management and
8
1
Eastern Europe
UNDP
1997
1993-1996
Protection of the Black Sea
(pilot phase)
Water Pollution Control and Biodiversity
8
2
Africa
Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea
UNDP
1999
1994-1999
(pilot phase)
Large Marine Ecosystem
Planning and Management of Heavily
8
3
Caribbean
Contaminated Bays and Coastal Areas in
UNDP
undated
1995-1998
(pilot phase)
the Wider Caribbean
Developing the Danube River Basin
4
Eastern Europe
UNDP
8
1999
1997-1999
Pollution Reduction Program
1995-July 31,
Pollution Control and Other Measures to
9
5
Africa
UNDP
2000
2000 (scheduled
Protect Biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika
(pilot phase)
to terminate)
South America:
A Strategic Action Program for the
6
Argentina and
UNEP
9
2000
1997-1999
Binational Basin of the Bermejo River
Bolivia
East Asian Seas Prevention and
9
1994-1999
7
Asia
UNDP
1998
Management of Marine Pollution
(pilot phase)
(extension)
Western
10
8
Oil Pollution Management
WB
2000
1994-2000
Mediterranean
(pilot phase)
10
9
China
Ship Waste Disposal
WB
1997
1992-1997
(pilot phase)
Wider Caribbean Initiative on Ship-
10
10
Caribbean
WB
1999
1994-1998
Generated Waste
(pilot phase)
Findings
15
·
The importance of political commitment
Global: Removal of Barriers to the Effective
exemplified by national agency leadership
Implementation of Ballast Water Control and
and a positive legislative environment
Management Measures in Developing
Countries (UNDP)
·
The benefits of clearly defined roles for
implementing agencies prior to project
Operational Program No. 8
implementation.
Hungary-Slovenia: Building Environmental
Citizenship to Support Transboundary
Demonstration Projects
Pollution Reduction in the Danube (UNDP)
70. The study contained an examination of the
Operational Program No. 9
degree to which the projects designated as
Integrating Management of Watersheds and
demonstration projects represent appropriate
Coastal Areas in Small Island Developing
demonstrations of consultative processes, of
States in the Caribbean (UNEP/UNDP)
riparian or regional arrangements for environ-
mental protection, or of technology that can
Although not initially included in the character-
subsequently be applied to advantage in other
ization process, an additional project likely to be
areas than the geographical focus of the project
designated as largely demonstration has been
concerned. Two projects that comprise demon-
submitted for Council approval. This is the
strations predominantly were reviewed: Egypt:
project entitled Global: Removal of Barriers to
Lake Manzala Engineered Wetlands and Removal
the Introduction of Cleaner Artisanal Gold
of Barriers to the Effective Implementation of
Mining and Extraction Technologies in OP 10.
Ballast Water Control and Management Mea-
This project, although as yet not designated a
sures in Developing Countries.
demonstration project, was deemed worthy of
inclusion in this analysis.
71. The study also examined other projects that
have demonstration components. To qualify for
73. The review by the study team found that, by
consideration, projects in this category should
and large, these projects are both well conceived
have the potential for replication elsewhere, but
and satisfy the relevant criteria for GEF support.
such replication would occur through other
The potential incremental benefits that can
mechanisms (i.e., in future projects by other
accrue from both global and regional demonstra-
agencies). An example of a PDF project contain-
tion projects continue to justify some allocation
ing components that might be considered for
of resources under OP 10 to demonstration
replication elsewhere is Support for the National
projects of a similar nature.
Plan of Action in the Russian Federation for the
Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment
Findings from Site Visits
from Anthropogenic Pollution. This project
includes the definition and application of proce-
74. Only limited impacts could be identified
dures for the identification and characterization
from the four project site visits undertaken as
of hot-spots that might be considered suitable for
part of the study. This was largely due to the fact
replication in other areas.
that the projects had not yet reached sufficient
maturity to produce quantifiable environmental
72. The list of projects examined under these
benefits. The two UNEP-implemented projects
two categories are:
visited in Brazil, Implementation of Integrated
Watershed Management Practices for the
Operational Program No. 10
Pantanal and Upper Paraguay River Basin and
Egypt: Lake Manzala Engineered Wetlands
Integrated Management of Land-Based Activities
(UNDP); pilot phase
in the São Francisco Basin, had been under
16
GEF International Waters Program Study
Box 2
Review of the Removal of Barriers to the Effective Implementation of Ballast Water
Control and Management in Developing Countries Project
The Removal of Barriers to the Effective Implementation of Ballast Water Control and
Management Measures in Developing Countries project implemented by UNDP is centered on
the need to minimize the risks of alien species transfer by ballast water shipments. The impor-
tance of this topic has been widely recognized and has resulted in the formulation of Guidelines
for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water published by the International Mari-
time Organization (IMO) in 1998. Furthermore, there is a plan to develop a new international
agreement to address the ballast water issue being developed under the auspices of the
MARPOL 73/78 Convention.
Currently, the only basis for the development of systems for minimizing the risks of
alien species transfer by ballast water is the IMO gguidelines. Moreover, the GEF project will
be completed prior to the formulation of the new convention. This could be viewed as a severe
limitation of the current series of demonstration activities within the project. However, the
countries that are the focus of the six demonstration port sites in the GEF project are actively
involved in the negotiations leading to the formulation of the new convention, and will likely
use their experience to affect the development of appropriate guidelines. These participating
countries and project sites include Brazil (Port of Sepetiba), China (Port of Dalian), India (Port
of Mumbai), Iran (Kharg Island), South Africa (Port of Soldanha), and Ukraine (Port of
Odessa).
In addition to providing valuable lessons learned, this will help ensure that any devel-
opments applicable to the nature of the management and compliance systems for alien species
transfer by ballast water be identified early on, thereby enabling them to be addressed in project
implementation before the project ends.
Overall, the study team found that this project appears to be a well-founded and, at the
early stages in project execution, a well-managed demonstration project. It ideally fits the aims
and objectives of demonstration projects within the GEF international waters portfolio. Recipi-
ent countries have greatly benefited from contacts and the exchange of information with
countries already having national mechanisms for addressing ballast water issues. In addition,
project managers are informed of the limitations of a strict focus on ballast water transfers of
alien species. This is particularly important if, as currently proposed, tributyltin (TBT) coatings
and paints are ultimately prohibited from use on all vessels. Such a change could make it likely
that hull transport of alien species by commercial vessels will exceed the transport of biological
material in ballast water, forcing some rethinking in project priorities.
To date, however, the indicators of success are positive and some additional actions
taken by the project coordination unit in the IMO has increased the broader benefits of the
project beyond those intended.
Findings
17
implementation for 13 and 15 months, respec-
implementing agencies and other institutions.
tively, at the time of the visit.
Two well-attended workshops were held nine
months apart to conduct the consultation pro-
75. Furthermore, the original design of the
cesses necessary to undertake the strategic work,
Pantanal/Upper Paraguay project had assumed
and small groups collaborated during the interim
the existence of a SAP prepared with World
to polish the strategic products (TDA and SAP).
Bank support. However, it was evident that there
The project brief that the GEF Council approved
was no full SAP with priority actions, targets,
for the full project contains the TDA (establish-
and schedules but only a diagnostic inventory of
ing several top priorities for activity among all
the broad priority areas that could be used as a
the different environmental and transboundary
strategic framework. The task of the present
concerns), the SAP (signed by several sectoral
project is, thus, to produce a SAP that will
ministers from each of the three countries
articulate the detailed action program for the
detailing joint commitments), and a list of
region. In the present project, all components are
country-specific policy/legal/institutional
geared towards preparing a SAP. The São
reforms the ministers pledge to implement in
Francisco Basin project also employs the TDA/
each country during the project addressing the
SAP approach. Collaborative work towards this
few priorities and are responsive to the SAP.
goal has commenced and both projects can
demonstrate process indicators based on the
77. The Water and Environmental Management
organization of planning workshops and estab-
for the Aral Sea Basin project deals with the
lishment of work programs bringing together
world's most dramatic case of environmental
broad categories of actors, including federal and
collapse and land degradation: the progressive
state agencies, local universities and research
drying up of the Aral Sea, the extinction of most
institutions, and NGOs.
forms of its aquatic life, and the contamination of
huge land areas with salts and toxic substances.
76. Similarly, the Implementation of the Strate-
This environmental tragedy was brought about in
gic Action Program Toward Achievement of the
a relatively 30-year period by excessive water
Integrated Management of the Benguela Current
abstractions (90%) from the two rivers which
Large Marine Ecosystem project implemented by
feed the Aral (the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya)
UNDP displayed significant process indicators
for irrigation purposes. Against a scenario of
based on the successful Block B preparation
political, social, and economic complexity, the
phase. The preparation process resulted in
efforts and support of the donor community have
completion of a TDA/SAP only 17 months after
been generally unsuccessful in improving basin
the initial workshop for stakeholders in August
management, including interstate institutional
1998. No other projects in OP 8 have accom-
arrangements. Most major development assis-
plished this effort during preparation or so
tance institutions are presently downsizing their
quickly. While several projects in OP 9 have
commitments7, or considering discontinuing their
produced SAPs during Block B preparation, they
programs (EU-Tacis, UNDP, bilaterals). The
were for preventive actions associated with OP 9
environmental and social objectives which at
rather than the complex situations characteristic
least partly inspired the institution of IFAS (to
of OP 8. During the course of preparation, four
save the Aral, and its riparian populations), have
management committee meetings were held with
been lost, if not totally forgotten (see Box 3).
an average of three participants from Angola,
The short-term focus is now on preventing the
five from Namibia, and four from South Africa,
further collapse of the irrigation system while
and including an average of six others from the
efforts to support agreement on a joint vision/
7 Technical assistance programs have generally focused on treating the symptoms and meeting the basic needs of the
affected populations, rather than addressing the root causes of the disaster.
18
GEF International Waters Program Study
Box 3
The Challenge of Changing Priorities:
The Case of the Aral Sea
Few projects better exhibit the importance of solidifying an agreed and strategic
approach to international waters problems than the GEF's Water and Environmental Manage-
ment in the Aral Sea Basin project, implemented by the World Bank. The project was selected
to be one of the four sites visited by the study team.
The objective of the project is to address the root causes of the overuse and degradation
of the basin by assisting the participating countries in implementing a mutually agreed SAP.
This effort is intended to stimulate and achieve substantive and concrete progress towards the
four objectives of the Aral Sea Basin Program (ASBP):
·
Stabilizing the environment
·
Rehabilitating the disaster zone around the Sea
·
Improving the management of international waters
·
Building the capacity of the regional institutions.
In particular, the GEF project is focused on the first and third objectives with the target
of "effectively reducing water consumption in the productive sectors, mainly irrigation, of at
least 15 percent" by the end of the project. This approach corresponded to the priorities and
needs perceived by the riparian countries: restoring some level of ecosystem functioning in
areas surrounding the Aral, and stabilizing the sea itself while optimizing upstream irrigation.
Later, however, these priorities changed, and concern was mounting about the manage-
ment of the salt mobilized by drainage waters, and the maintenance and sustainability of the
irrigation system itself. While the Council-approved project document maintains the 15-percent
reduction in water abstractions from the two rivers as a major project objective, the study
believes this objective is not realistic. Moreover, it is no longer considered a priority given the
new scenario of growing land degradation within the irrigated lands, among other problems.
Compounding this problem, basin-wide multicountry arrangements on water and environment
are apparently losing political support in the region, as indicated by the lack of activity, initia-
tives, and even formal meetings, of IFAS (the project's executing agency).
commitment for water sharing among riparians,
conditions in waterbodies; (c) identify actions to
and the establishment of multisectoral and
address the highest priority transboundary
multicountry management structures, are ongoing.
problems; and (d) implement both agreed
regional and national policies, and legislative and
Geographically Based Approaches
institutional reforms, in turn attracting the
investments needed to address them.
78. The Operational Strategy recognizes that a
series of international waters projects in a given
79. In essence, this comprehensive approach
region may be needed over time to: (a) build
requires a set of relatively straightforward projects
capacity and political commitment of countries
that collectively cover complex situations and
to work together; (b) jointly acknowledge and set
activities. This breaks complex challenges up into
priorities based on assessments of environmental
manageable pieces and fosters action at three
Findings
19
institutional levels: multilateral, national (i.e., inter-
ment in the Tonle Sap Region project, implemented
ministerial), and sub-national (i.e., essentially
by UNDP with the Asian Development Bank.
provincial and community) levels.
83. In the Reversing Environmental Degradation
80. The Danube River and Black Sea region was
Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of
chosen by the former GEF International Waters
Thailand project brief, the summary of activities
Task Force, in collaboration with the countries,
includes "regional harmonization." Thus, there is
as a test geographic region for this approach. The
a clear reflection of the need and means of
results to date of this approach demonstrate a
consultation between the South China Sea
number of lessons learned. Among these,
project and the Mekong River project. The fact
considerable involvement--and funding--by
that the project is being executed partly by the
lending institutions such as the World Bank may
secretariat for the Action Plan for the Seas of
be needed to accelerate or intensify activities in
East Asia (EAS/RCU) and the Coordinating
the international waters focal area. In addition,
Body for the Seas of East Asia (COBSEA) is
the very broad consultation process was a tool
directly involved means that there are broad
for developing common understanding among
regional bodies involved in the project that have
not only the recipient countries, but other
a diversity of regional interests.
interested organizations. Such understanding
facilitates joint action and collaboration and
84. The review also reveals a clear recognition
prevents duplication and the creation of gaps.
of the need for mutual consultation in a regional
context. Not only are such inter-project and
81. In addition to work in the Danube/Black Sea
regional consultations specifically referred to in
basins, there are other regions where geographi-
the relevant project briefs but the funding
cal approaches are being undertaken, including
requirements to ensure such consultation are
the Mekong River-South China Sea region (four
included in the two project's projected alloca-
projects), as well as the Paraná/Paraguay/Plata
tions. There would thus appear to be an adequate
River basin systems and Patagonian Shelf Large
basis for ensuring coherence between the two
Marine Ecosystem (seven waters projects).
projects and also an enhanced likelihood of post-
project collaboration with the possible consolida-
82. In the Mekong River-South China Sea
tion of future mutual interests into a regionally
region, for instance, there are strong links in the
comprehensive umbrella.
relationship between the Reversing Environmen-
tal Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
85. The review found that the implementing
and Gulf of Thailand project and the Mekong
agencies have a mixed record when it comes to
River Basin Water Utilization Project. Both
collaborating on a series of projects in the
projects are implemented by the World Bank.
Paraná/Paraguay/Plata River basins and
The projects were not, however, conceived
Patagonian Shelf. UNEP's Strategic Action
together. Nevertheless, the relevant GEF project
Program for the Binational Basin of the Bermejo
briefs were reviewed to determine the extent of
River and Integrated Watershed Management
mutual recognition as well as the extent and
Program for the Pantanal and Upper Paraguay
nature of any consultative arrangements pro-
River Basin projects, for example, have so far
posed for exchanging information and experi-
failed to establish effective means of cooperation
ence and ensuring that issues of mutual interest
with other projects in the wider basin. UNDP's
were considered in concert. Both explicitly refer
Plata Maritime Front project and the World
to the other project. There is concern, however,
Bank's Argentina Coastal Contamination
about the low level of coordination between the
project, however, are essential for fostering
Mekong River project and the Cambodia-based
collaboration among countries, implementing
Integrated Resource Management and Develop-
agencies, and provincial governments.
20
GEF International Waters Program Study
86. In addition, the World Bank has three
89. Within the international waters portfolio,
relevant, non-GEF initiatives in the region,
there is only one full project and no PDF-Bs that
including a pollution reduction effort in Buenos
are formally implemented by all three IAs. There
Aires that should be linked to the UNDP Plata
are, however, two full projects and seven PDF-Bs
Maritime Front project. Two other initiatives
in which two agencies cooperate (three with
involve loans for addressing Patagonian Shelf
UNDP and UNEP and four with UNDP and the
issues (one for pollution abatement and the other
World Bank). These nine projects are:
to restructure fisheries management to stop the
most important cause of overfishing in the large
Full Projects
marine ecosystem). The review also found a
number of other linkages between projects and
·
Implementation of the Strategic Action
implementing agencies in the region, all posi-
Program for the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden
tive developments to ensure effective coordina-
(UNDP/WB/UNEP)
tion and use of limited resources.
·
Addressing Transboundary Environmental
87. In some cases, the study found that good
Issues in the Caspian Environment Program
intentions regarding collaboration at the start of
(UNDP/UNEP/WB)
projects may not be realized for many reasons,
including turnover in implementing agency staff
PDF-Bs
or GEF institutional task forces, changes in
governments, and disputes among nations over
·
Control of Euthrophication, Hazardous
shared areas of marine ecosystems such as those
Substances and Related Measures for
associated with fishing and oil exploration rights.
Rehabilitating the Black Sea Ecosystem
In general, however, the review found some very
(UNDP/UNEP)
good examples of agency coordination and
effectiveness in collaboration.
·
Nile Basin Initiative Basin-Wide Shared
Vision Program (WB/UNDP)
Single Versus Multiple Implementing
Agency Projects
·
Development of a SAP for the Guinea
Current LME (UNDP/UNEP)
88. The GEF Operational Strategy in interna-
tional waters emphasizes implementing agency
·
Baltic Sea Regional Project (WB/UNDP)
cooperation according to each agency's respec-
tive comparative advantage. The Operational
·
Integrating Management of Watersheds and
Strategy states that:
Coastal Areas in Small Island Developing
States in the Caribbean (UNEP/UNDP)
"[These] operational programs will help
capture additional programmatic global
·
Senegal River Basin Water and Environmen-
benefits in a cost-effective manner by
tal Management Project (WB/UNDP)
linking country-driven needs for interna-
tional action with the comparative
·
Reversing Land and Water Degradation
advantage of different Implementing
Trends in the Niger Basin (UNDP/WB).
agencies...A comprehensive approach
will be followed in designing projects so
In addition, Integrated Management of the Lake
that complementarities among Imple-
Chad Basin consists of a full project imple-
menting agencies...will be achieved"
mented by UNDP and a complementary PDF-C
(italics added).
by the World Bank that is intended to contribute
to the full project.
Findings
21
90. In undertaking this comparison, there were
In general, there appears to be little communica-
two basic sources of information. First, the team
tion and exchange of experiences between GEF
analyzed the results of a questionnaire sent to
projects, even those that operate in the same
project participants and proponents. Second, an
geographical area and would thus be the greatest
in-depth analysis of project experiences was
beneficiaries of collaboration that incorporated
carried out through documents and site visits.
lessons, prevented duplication, and ensured
efficiency. Lessons from earlier projects and
91. Several respondents to the questionnaire
projects from other implementing agencies are
highlighted the benefits of involving several
insufficiently channeled into new project de-
implementing agencies in developing a project. It
signs. The reasons for this state of affairs were
was recognized that more could be achieved
identified as competition between the imple-
through a comprehensive approach and collabo-
menting agencies and consequent unwillingness
ration between the agencies. In line with the
to cooperate, as well as the lack of a comprehen-
Operational Strategy, the respondents recognized
sive database on GEF projects.
the advantages of each implementing agency
contributing according to their respective
94. More positively, the study found that the
comparative strengths. It was also mentioned that
implementation of UNDP's Strengthening
ideally a project should be prepared in consulta-
Capacity for Global Knowledge Sharing in
tion with as many stakeholders as possible. The
International Waters project (IW:LEARN) and
development of the SAP for the Red Sea in
the organization of the First GEF International
which all implementing agencies participated, as
Waters Conference in October 2000 were
well as the Nile Shared Vision (PDF-B imple-
promising steps taken to address these deficien-
mented in collaboration by the World Bank and
cies. Similarly, the PIR process is intended to
UNDP) were mentioned as positive examples.
ensure that feedback of lessons to new projects
takes place. In the particular case of the Black
92. However, virtually all respondents had
Sea-Danube-Dnieper basins, significant progress
experienced instances where implementation by
has been made in coordinating the efforts of the
multiple implementing agencies created addi-
implementing agencies.
tional burdens. It was mentioned that this had
resulted in longer project preparation times and
95. Overall, the consensus from the question-
higher transaction costs and coordination costs.
naire was that, while harnessing the comparative
This is partly due to the differing procurement
advantages of the various implementing agencies
rules and other administrative procedures
was desirable and the projects benefited from
between the agencies. But it was also felt that
leveraging expertise and experiences vested in
agencies had competing interests that did not
the various agencies, there should normally only
necessarily translate into the project focusing on
be one implementing agency in charge of a
its objectives. It was emphasized that the willing-
project. Good communication and coordination
ness to cooperate must come from the agencies
between all implementing agencies during
themselves and not be imposed by GEF. Similarly,
project preparation and implementation was seen
an opinion was expressed that having two or three
as a necessity and preferred over multiple-agency
implementing agencies may lead to an unclear
implementation.
division of responsibility and accountability.
96. The study team selected projects for closer
93. Another issue highlighted in the survey was
examination on the basis of different implemen-
the lack of communication and coordination
tation arrangements and varying levels of
between the implementing agencies. It was noted
implementing agency coordination (see Box 4).
that better communications existed upstream at
While it is hard to draw definitive conclusions on
the concept stage but this communication
the information available, the study finds that the
between projects and agencies deteriorated later.
experience of using multiple implementing
22
GEF International Waters Program Study
agencies, according to their comparative advan-
Community-Based Approaches to
tages, has been positive. This is the case whether
Managing Transboundary Waters
the implementing agencies are working together
jointly, in parallel on similar efforts, or in
98. Typically, stakeholders in international
sequence on a project (i.e., one agency prepares a
waters projects range from the implementing
SAP while another implements follow-up
agencies and executing agencies, which are often
projects). For this to occur, however, it appears
regional institutions or a consortium of national
beneficial to clearly define the co-implementa-
water and infrastructure ministries, to national
tion arrangements and to outline the comparative
and sub-national counterparts, private firms
advantages of each implementing agency at the
involved in shipping, service providers in ports
outset in a memorandum of understanding or
and harbors, tourism agencies, large-scale fishing
similar agreement.
fleets, and, to some extent, coastal communities
and non-governmental organizations.
97. On the other hand, the consensus emerging
from the questionnaire survey with the project
99. While this multi-country set-up is necessary
coordinators and proponents suggests that joint
to bring together decision makers bordering a
implementation arrangements unduly complicate
common water resource, the study found some
project management and add to the bureaucracy
projects that creatively blend community-based
through increased and often conflicting reporting
approaches with regional cooperation. Three
requirements and administrative procedures of
such approaches that may provide lessons or
the agencies. It appears that the initial costs of
models for replication in other projects are: (a)
implementation partnerships are indeed higher
application of the integrated coastal zone man-
but the expectation is that there would be net
agement approach; (b) development of in-
benefits at the end of the process. It is, thus,
country and local outreach programs; and (c)
clearly necessary to assess the benefits vis-à-vis
establishment of working groups and local
the costs at the design stage before deciding on
committees.
joint implementation between agencies.
Box 4
Differing Approaches
The international waters program study team selected several projects for closer
examination on the basis of different implementation arrangements and varying levels of
Implementing Agency coordination. The Integrated Management of Land-Based Activities in
the São Francisco Basin and Determination of Priority Actions for Further Elaboration and
Implementation of the Strategic Action Program for the Mediterranean Sea projects, for
example, represent a model where a single agency is implementing the present project stage,
but where interagency collaboration took place or is foreseen at different stages. The Water and
Environmental Management in the Aral Sea Basin project, on the other hand, was developed
under the umbrella of the Aral Sea Basin Program (ASBP) established by UNDP, UNEP, and
the World Bank in the early 1990s.
In some cases, one implementing agency is best positioned to carry out a project. In the
Implementation of the Strategic Action Program Toward Achievement of the Integrated Man-
agement of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem project, for example, UNDP has
been the only implementing agency involved. According to the completed TDA and agreed
Findings
23
Box 4, continued
SAP, policy, legal, and institutional reforms and capacity development to facilitate their imple-
mentation appear to be the key interventions to address the transboundary environmental issues.
Assisting the countries with these issues falls within UNDP's comparative advantage in GEF.
Therefore, not having the other implementing agencies involved was not seen as a problem.
Linkages are being developed with other implementing agency projects proposed for GEF
support in the area.
The Aral Sea Basin Program, on the other hand, is more complex. Implemented
through the World Bank, the project currently suffers from the lack of a multisectoral or
interministerial coordinating body. As originally conceived, the GEF project was intended to
catalyze efforts of the international community to build a coherent common strategy in the
region. Substantial co-financing was negotiated with several multilateral and bilateral donors.
Since the approval of the project document, however, the country priorities have shifted, making
environmental assistance a lower priority. Most of the other major programs, including that of
UNDP, are being downsized or cancelled, leaving the World Bank- implemented GEF project
isolated. The World Bank is concerned about the fragmentation of efforts and is taking steps
through the project to facilitate alternative arrangements and enhance cooperation. GEF actions
in the Aral Sea basin would clearly benefit from a broader collaboration among the implement-
ing agencies. This is, however, difficult in the context of the current situation in the region.
A third example is that of the São Francisco Basin project, which is aimed at support-
ing an integrated approach to the planning and management of the São Francisco River Basin
and its coastal zone. Its main components include the development of a diagnostic study (TDA)
to provide a sound scientific and technical basis for strategic remedial actions to protect the
marine environment from land-based sources. Based on this, the project is intended to formulate
a Watershed Management Program (i.e., a SAP) for the basin. GEF assistance to Brazil in this
work is implemented through UNEP.
In light of UNEP's comparative advantages, this is an appropriate role for the agency.
The intention is that once the SAP is completed and investment needs are identified, the World
Bank--either through its regular program or with GEF--can assist the country in implementing
these. Similarly, if the needed actions identified include legal, policy or institutional reforms,
these would fall under the purview of UNDP. GEF implementing agency cooperation in this
case would thus be sequential. It is still too early to assess whether this model will work in
practice. Promising signs include the regular communication mechanisms that have been
established between the project and the World Bank, and the coordination of all regional water
projects in the area by the same person in the Brazilian government.
100. In the Building Partnerships for the
protect small-scale fishermen, enhanced aware-
Environmental Protection and Management of
ness of coastal zone management issues among
the East Asian Seas project, for example, the
local people, and cooperation with the private
implementation of integrated coastal zone
sector on reducing coastal pollution.
management at pilot sites in China and the
Philippines has had positive impacts in the
101. In general, the study found a number of
establishment of coastal and marine legislation to
innovative mechanisms for stakeholder participa-
24
GEF International Waters Program Study
tion built into several international waters
time. These outstanding recommendations are
projects (Table 2). Among other things, these
augmented by additional observations by this
mechanisms clearly facilitated the creation of
study and have been collectively itemized within
local and regional bodies, the participation of the
three categories: strategic, operational, and
private sector, and measurable improvements in
administrative.
environmental indicators.
Strategic Issues
Portfolio-Wide Observations and
Responses to Previous Review Efforts
103. In general, the study team found that the
approach embodied in the Operational Strategy
102. The study found a number of issues within
continues to be valid as a basis for further
the GEF international waters portfolio which
development of the international waters focal
may hinder the effectiveness and understanding
area. In its work, however, particularly at the
of the GEF. Many of these issues were previ-
Budapest conference, it became evident that
ously identified in the Pilot Phase evaluation and
much of the terminology and requirements
the OPS1, though they may not have been
associated with the preparation of international
considered "major recommendations" at the
waters projects is either ambiguous or unclear.
Table 2
Institutional Mechanisms for Stakeholder Participation
Classification of
Institutional Mechanisms for Stakeholder Participation
Examples of
Projects
Projects
Water Body
· Regional NGO Forum with international and regional NGOs providing
Danube River
Based
advisory services and small grants given to local NGOs on water
Black Sea
management sub-projects
· Multilevel project execution set-up with NGO and private sector
Caribbean
representatives
· Joint management set-up of government with NGOs and private sector
Lake Ohrid
Integrated Land
· Regional body for project management, including scientific and academic
Aral Sea
and Water
institutions
· Local implementation teams formed; composed of farmers and NGOs to
Poland
carry out project outreach
· Periodic consultations through public meetings for feedback to project
Brazil Pantanal
steering committee involving private sector
Argentina
· Multi-sectoral project coordination committees formed in pilot sites,
East Asian Seas,
including agreements with end-users in communities
SIDS
· Creation of multi-sectoral Environmental Working Group involving
Tumen River
scientists, private sector, and NGOs
Contaminant
· Creation of Advisory Panel representing NGOs, academic institutions,
Global Knowledge
Based
local governments, private sector, and coastal communities
Sharing
· Local committee composed of port authorities, fishery operators, shipping
China Ship Waste
companies, and scientific institutions formed to assist project management unit
· Intercountry project steering committee formed with NGO and private
Wider Caribbean,
sector representatives
Southwest
Mediterranean
Findings
25
This is despite the fact that the preparation of
107. The study found a need to improve the
guidance on several of these topics had previ-
efficiency of project assessment and review
ously been recommended by earlier GEF re-
procedures used within GEF focal areas, particu-
views. Clarifications could improve understand-
larly when examined in the context of the
ing of, and support for, ongoing and future GEF
implementing agencies' review practices. This is
projects.
highlighted further in the "Recommendations"
section of this report.
104. In light of the emphasis on indicators for
judging the performance of GEF interventions in
108. The team found that little attention appears
international waters, the review found that there
to have been given to the qualities (e.g.,
are tools, such as the estimation and utilization
sustainability) of prospective executing agencies
of net benefits, which could further help measure
in the review of proposed projects. There is
the effectiveness of GEF's efforts.
evidence that weaknesses on the part of execut-
ing agencies have, in some instances, resulted in
Operational Issues
substantial problems during project implementa-
tion. Accordingly, the team found that steps need
105. The study found that the current opera-
to be taken to incorporate reviews of the suitabil-
tional programs contain ambiguities and opportu-
ity of executing agencies at the project submis-
nities for misinterpretation. Moreover, as the
sion stage.
GEF's experience grows, and its mandate
expands to incorporate concerns like integrated
109. Finally, a major finding of the study is the
ecosystem management (OP 12) and persistent
effectiveness of coordination and programmatic
organic pollutants, there may be a need to revisit
planning in international waters achieved through
the original operational programs in international
interagency coordinating mechanisms, such as
waters. For example, clarifying OP 8 and 9 to
the task force. This is particularly important in
make them mutually coherent, consistent, and
light of the multiagency, multinational character
distinct in relation to the new OP 12 may be
of the international waters portfolio.
necessary. Similarly, the description of OP 10
warrants revision to reflect the transfer of certain
Administrative Issues
contaminants to the proposed operational
program to address the new POPs Convention.
110. Complementing comments made earlier,
the study found considerable confusion or lack of
106. The danger that funding may be assigned to
understanding regarding the following: incre-
immediately tractable issues that are of less
mental cost calculations; application of the
significance in a given region was also noted.
"ecosystem management" concept; transboundary
The likelihood of such approaches is heightened
diagnostic analysis; and the "Large Marine Ecosys-
in the absence of a preparatory TDA as a basis
tem" concept. These observations are consistent
for the formulation of a SAP. Ideally, support for
with ones made by the two previous GEF-wide
specific project activities should be provided on
performance reviews.
the basis of a comparative evaluation of all
causes of the damage or threat concerned,
111. The review also found a number of other
thereby ensuring that a dominant cause or source
issues of GEF-wide relevance that made assess-
is being addressed and that limited funding is
ment of the portfolio more challenging--and less
spent most effectively. Nevertheless, the study
efficient--than should be expected. These
also acknowledges the desire by many recipients
problems relate to:
to see concrete action occurring on important
issues where the relative impact of different
·
Lack of uniformity in project titles and
environmental concerns are better known.
numerical coding (The names of projects
26
GEF International Waters Program Study
often change as they progress from develop-
ongoing projects or the project development
ment through implementation. Added to this
process
is the proliferation of abbreviated names for
projects, and it becomes difficult to have any
·
Lack of increased monitoring for high-risk
certainty about the project to which a
projects, the need for improved efficiency in
reference is being made.)
review procedures, and better follow-through
of lessons learned
·
Lack of uniformity in length and formats of
project documents and evaluations, particu-
·
Need for quantifiable indicators of perfor-
larly terminal evaluations
mance at project proposal stage and in-
creased attention to those indicators in
·
Difficulty in determining whether lessons
terminal evaluations.
learned are being channeled back into
Recommendations
27
Recommendations
112. Based on its conclusions, the study team's
guidelines should provide clear definitions and
recommendations follow.
examples of the following topics: incremental
cost estimation; the application of the "ecosys-
113. The review found that much more could be
tem management" concept; transboundary
done to clarify the role of the various operational
diagnostic analysis; and the "Large Marine
programs, particularly in light of the expansion
Ecosystem" concept, assuming these concepts
of GEF's mandate to address persistent organic
will continue to be of relevance to the interna-
pollutants and integrated ecosystem management
tional waters focal area.
(OP 12). For instance, OP 8 and OP 9 should be
clarified to make them mutually coherent and
117. Consider increasing assessment of the
consistent with the new OP 12.
suitability of proposed executing agencies to
ensure competent project management and the
114. Along these same lines, the definitions in
sustainability of any activities (administrative
OP 10 should be revised to reduce the emphasis
arrangements or organizations) engendered
on ship-derived impacts on international waters
through GEF international waters projects. Such
and increase the emphasis on land-based activi-
evaluations would reduce the prospects of
ties and their effects, including those mediated
implementation delays and other problems
by atmospheric transport pathways. Concur-
attributable to executing agencies. There is a
rently, the classes of priority contaminants
need to ensure, at the project proposal stage, that
should be reconsidered and revised to reduce the
appropriate measures are incorporated into
emphasis on metals, hydrocarbons, and those
projects to maintain the viability of any basin or
persistent organic pollutants of primary relevance
regional organizations used or established for the
to the new POPs Convention.
purposes of executing GEF international waters
projects beyond the life of the project.
115. The use of science-based transboundary
diagnostic analyses as a basis for the formulation
118. All high-risk projects, or those with high-
of strategic action programs should continue.
risk components, should be subjected to a mid-
This will increase confidence that priority threats
term review. Most projects, in fact, would benefit
are being effectively addressed in SAPs. It will
from mid-term reviews. The clear benefits
also ensure that in cases where land degradation
exemplified by the influence of the mid-term
is a priority issue, appropriate resources are
review of the Lake Tanganyika project suggest
provided to meet that threat in subsequent GEF
that such reviews can significantly improve
interventions.
project performance. However, the costs associ-
ated with mid-term review of all projects would
116. A procedure and timetable for the prepara-
consume too large a proportion of project
tion of guidelines on major concepts used within
implementation costs. Therefore, mid-term
GEF's Operational Strategy and the Operational
reviews could be confined to those projects
Programs should be devised. Specifically, these
exhibiting high risks of failure to deliver on the
28
GEF International Waters Program Study
major objectives as judged during the Project
123. In South America, an evaluation of
Implementation Review process.
progress in project development should be
conducted with a view to identifying opportuni-
119. In addition to increased use of mid-term
ties for accelerating attention and national
reviews, final or terminal evaluations of projects
commitments to resolving environmental
should only be conducted after project imple-
problems in large catchments, particularly those
mentation has been completed. Moreover, GEF
on the eastern side of the Andes. Consideration
should insist on uniformity for these final
should also be given to opportunities for devel-
evaluation reports. This will require GEF to
oping country-driven projects that address
define and adopt a common format for these
dominant problems in the smaller catchments
reports and insist on adherence to it. Such a step
draining regions to the west of the Andes. Such
would enable easier comparison of performance
projects could be the basis for projects in all
among projects and streamline feedback pro-
western South American countries.
cesses, leading to improvements in the quality of
project proposals.
124. A streamlined oversight and tracking
methodology should be prepared and imple-
120. Given the complex nature of international
mented by the GEF defining the procedures to be
waters projects, which can involve the coopera-
used from project inception through final review
tion of a large number of countries and Imple-
and feedback. This methodology should include
menting agencies, there is a need for an inter-
appropriate and uniform documentation to ensure
agency advisory function within the GEF to help
transparency and accountability. The methodol-
ensure the coordination and effective develop-
ogy should be reviewed by an independent group
ment of the international waters focal area. In
of management and technical experts prior to its
addition to providing advice on overall portfolio
adoption within the GEF. By eliminating the
development, this also could ensure that demon-
redundant and ineffective procedures currently in
stration projects are replicable in a global context
use, the costs of such an exercise should be more
and focus on priority problems for which
than recovered.
solutions are needed beyond the project area.
125. The reviews of GEF projects should
121. Procedures for feeding back "lessons learned"
concentrate increasingly on those offering the
to the formulation of projects in the international
greatest potential benefit to international waters
waters focal area have been initiated through the
activities. Reviews at the concept/PDF and
IW:LEARN project and the GEF Biennial Interna-
project submission and completion phases, plus
tional Waters Conference, held for the first time in
the PIR, are the most valuable to the program.
October 2000. Accordingly, there is a need to
Other forms of GEF review, including mid-term
formalize this process in a transparent and effective
reviews of high-risk projects and reviews
mechanism within the GEF.
periodically carried out by the M&E unit for
specific purposes of overall focal area align-
123. While it is too early to expect much
ment and performance, should be carried out
information regarding measured improvements
as need arises.
in international waters environments from GEF
interventions, as GEF's experience increases,
126. The GEF secretariat should take immediate
preparations should be made for including more
steps to ensure that all documents pertaining to
comparable information on process, stress
GEF projects produced by the secretariat are
reduction, and environmental status indicators in
amenable to proper citation and accessible
future project evaluations. Process indicators, for
through a single website. Furthermore, in view of
instance, are already available in most cases, but
the lack of universal access to the Internet,
it is also extremely difficult to make coherent
hardcopy and electronic (diskette or CD-ROM)
and objective comparisons among the process
copies of all documents should be maintained in
indicators for individual projects.
Recommendations
29
a central facility within the secretariat for
formats of all project documents both to enhance
distribution on request.
transparency and facilitate comparative evalua-
tions of projects and project reviews. It is
127. A unique alphanumeric identifier for each
understood that the implementing agencies have
project should be assigned by the GEF secretariat
their own procedures, requirements, and docu-
to avoid confusion among projects and to obviate
mentation regarding project formulation, admin-
the current widespread practice of using diverse
istration, and management. This recommendation
short form or truncated titles for the same
applies only to the documents collated and
project, a problem not limited to international
assembled by the GEF secretariat, for which
waters projects. This should be complemented by
greater uniformity, simplicity, and transparency
guidelines defining the length, structure, and
is warranted.
30
GEF International Waters Program Study
Chapter Title
31
Annexes
Annex 1: Initiating Memorandum
Annex 2: Background Documents
Annex 3: Complete List of Projects Included in the Program Study
32
GEF International Waters Program Study
Annex 1: Initiating Memorandum
I. Background
Europe ($22.3 million; 6 projects), and Small
Island Developing States (SIDS) ($12.3 million;
1 project). Another $20.9 million has been
The International Waters Focal Area
allocated to global projects.
1.
Since the Pilot Phase, GEF has supported 41
4.
In 1997, GEF adopted three Operational
full projects and 4 medium-size projects (MSP)
Programs (OP) for the International Waters focal
in the International Waters area. Eleven of these
area1 . The OPs provide the objectives, scope,
have been completed to date. In addition, 22
expected outcomes and outputs for each program
project development funds (PDFs) have been
to achieve during the FY1998-2000 (Annex 1).
approved.
The OPs are:
2.
Twelve projects were approved during the
·
OP 8: Waterbody-based Operational
Pilot Phase (1991-1994) for a total GEF alloca-
Program;
tion of $117 million. Leveraged co-financing was
$100 million. The major geographic focus was in
·
OP 9: Integrated Land and Water Multiple
Africa ($41.5 million), followed by Asia ($38
Focal Area Operational Program;
million), the Caribbean ($18 million) and Europe
($17.8 million). The main issue addressed by
·
OP 10: Contaminant-based Operational
Pilot Phase projects was ship-related contamina-
Program.
tion with emphasis on remediation measures and
contingency planning. All other projects repre-
5.
The projects that have been undertaken
sented attempts to address marine/freshwater
within the OPs 810 have been grouped accord-
pollution with a variety of approaches.
ing to the type of intervention/objective into the
following categories in the 1999 Program Status
3.
After the adoption of the GEF Operational
Review (PSR)2 :
Strategy, a total of 27 projects for a cumulative
allocation of $212 million were approved during
a.
OP 8 Diagnostic priority-setting
the period of FY1995-1999. The anticipated co-
projects embracing entire LMEs or
financing ration is slightly over 1:1. Africa has
watersheds (remediation);
had the largest share of fund allocation ($63.4
million; 4 projects), followed by Asia ($52.8
b.
OP 8 "Action oriented" projects
million; 5 projects), Latin America and the
involving demonstrations of remediation
Caribbean ($38.6 million; 6 projects), Eastern
measures (pollution, focus on nutrients);
1 GEF Operational Programs. Global Environment Facility, Washington, DC, 1997.
2 GEF International Waters Program Status Review, September 1999.
Annex 1: Initiating Memorandum
33
12
c.
OP 9 Diagnostic priority-setting
projects embracing entire LMEs or
10
watersheds (prevention);
8
d.
OP 9 Prevention of land degradation,
6
water scarcity, adaptation to climate
4
change, integrated land/water manage-
ment (freshwater resources only),
2
underground waters management;
0
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
e.
OP 10 Global Plan of Action (GPA)
full projects, MSPs
demonstrations, freshwater-marine
PDFs, concepts
interface;
f.
OP 10 Global contaminants;
g.
OP 10 Ship-related pollution/environ-
mental hazards;
tional Waters projects, carried out by the M&E
Team jointly with the implementing agencies in
h.
OP 10 Regional/global technical
FY2000, will provide inputs to and will be made
support (assessments, training, targeted
available for the Program Study. The objective of
research).
the review was to identify emerging lessons
about what kinds of multi-country approaches
6.
The distribution of full projects and MSPs
have worked, what have not, why, and under
into the above categories is seen in the following
what circumstances4 .
figure3 . The figure also includes the PDFs and
new project concepts. This reveals a shift over
II. The Task
time in the emphasis of the portfolio from
priority-setting/diagnostic to action-oriented
Relationship with the OPS2
projects thus reflecting the maturing of the
portfolio. We may also note the expected in-
8.
The Second Study of GEF's Overall Perfor-
crease in global contaminant related projects
mance (OPS2) will focus on the assessment of
which in turn reflects the emerging global
the GEF's program results and initial impacts. It
concerns on persistent toxic substances.
will evaluate the GEF's overall strategies and
programmatic impacts, achievement of the
Thematic Review of Multicountry Project
objectives of GEF's Operational Policies and
Arrangements
Programs, and review the modalities of GEF
support. OPS2 will be carried out by a fully
7.
The Thematic Review of Multicountry
independent team appointed in consultation with
Project Arrangements with a focus on Interna-
the GEF Council.
3 Source as 2 above.
4 The results of the review suggest the importance of addressing the environmental issues at all levels. In a multicountry
setting, regional cooperation arrangements at the shared waterbody level are needed. At the country level, inter-
ministerial committees should provide inputs to the multicountry process, as well as to ensure coordinated implementa-
tion at the sub-national level. At the same time, local level actions in each basin country are necessary. Carrying out a
transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA) and preparing a strategic action program (SAP) have proven helpful in
fostering a shared vision, political commitment, and a framework for addressing the transboundary environmental
problems. Demonstrations and pilot projects that start to address concrete problems on the ground have been found to be
a useful means of moving towards action oriented projects while completing the strategic work.
34
GEF International Waters Program Study
9.
The focal area Program Studies are intended
III) Degradation of Transboundary Groundwater
to contribute to the OPS2 through a systematical
Systems (Bellagio Draft Transboundary
critical self-assessment of the portfolio. The
Groundwater Treaty);
International Waters Program Study will focus
on the coverage of GEF international waters
IV) Degradation of Wetland Ecosystems,
programs, as well as the results and preliminary
particularly Transboundary Ones6 (Ramsar
impacts. The Program Study will be undertaken
Convention; Convention on Biodiversity);
internally by the GEF M&E Team together with
the GEF Secretariat Land and Water Team and
V) Coastal/Marine Nutrient Overenrichment
the implementing agencies.
(Global Plan of Action for the Land-based
Sources of Pollution);
Response to Global International
Waters Issues
VI) Persistent Toxic Substances (POPs Convention);
10. The GEF Operational Strategy (OS) for 7
VII) Coastal and Marine Fisheries (Law of the Sea);
Technical assistance programs have generally
focused on treating the symptoms and meeting
VIII) Ship-Related Contaminants (MARPOL).
the basic needs of the affected populations, rather
than addressing the root causes of the disaster.
Analysis of Expected Results and Impacts of
International Waters5 was developed to respond
the GEF International Waters Focal Area
to the main global environmental issues that
threaten transboundary water resources. The OPs
12. Due to the long-term nature of ecological
810 further defined the issues. The Program
changes in international water bodies it is
Study will assess whether the GEF is addressing
expected that the impacts of GEF International
the priority issues in each geographical setting
Waters programs on the environmental status
and to evaluate how well it is responding to the
will be difficult to detect in a global context.
threats.
Nevertheless, it is assumed that results may be
measurable in specific waterbodies in which
11. The global transboundary issues that form
GEF programs and projects have been active.
the priority areas of action for the GEF have
been identified in the GEF OS as follows. Each
13. The Program Study will analyze the avail-
one of these issues is a subject of an international
able data utilizing performance indicators at
treaty or agreement, or an intergovernmental
three levels, considering possible alternatives
process intended to lead to one.
within each of the following types:
I)
Freshwater Basin Scarcity and Ecosystem
·
Process indicators (focusing on the processes
Conflicts (in particular, but not exclusively,
that are likely to lead towards a desirable
in Africa and the Middle East) (Convention
outcome);
on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of
International Watercourses);
·
Stress reduction indicators (focusing con-
crete actions that reduce the environmental
II) Freshwater Basin and Coastal Pollution and
stress on the water body); and,
Sedimentation (Convention on the Law of
the Non-Navigational Uses of International
·
Environmental status indicators (focusing on
Watercourses);
actual improvement of ecosystem quality).
5 GEF Operational Strategy. Global Environment Facility, Washington, DC, 1996.
6 Linkage to OP 2 in biodiversity focal area.
Annex 1: Initiating Memorandum
35
14. Based on the analysis of the relevant data,
II. Types of project interventions/design
the Program Study will attempt to draw likely or
features; and,
plausible linkages between GEF International
Waters project interventions and observed
III. Projects organized into a geographically-
changes in all three types of indicators, taking
based programmatic approach.
into account known or likely contributions of
other actors to the observed changes.
19. Level I: The Program Study will assess the
coverage, expected results and impacts of the
15. These data will be aggregated for all project
projects addressing each specific issue. It will
results and impacts, with regard to each indicator
also relate the program performance to the short-
where it is relevant in order to arrive at measures
term objectives stated under each OP. The
of overall global impacts in regard to that
Program Study will address, i.a.:
indicator.
·
Numbers of projects addressing each of the
16. The Study will formulate overall conclusions
priority issues;
on GEF International Waters project influence on
the processes that reduce stress on the interna-
·
Geographical coverage;
tional water environment, the reduction of these
stresses at the sectoral source, and the state of the
·
Resources allocated and leveraged;
international water environment.
·
Implementing agency collaboration;
III. Methodology
·
Extent of stakeholder participation; and,
17. The Program Study will utilize a variety of
methodologies tracking down the coverage,
·
Expected results and impact.
results and initial impacts. These methodologies
cover quantitative analyses of project documen-
20. Level II: The Program Study will focus on
tation, review of evaluation reports, interviews
the types of projects as defined by different
with task managers in the implementing agen-
design approaches. The basic dichotomy reflects
cies, questionnaires and interviews with project
whether they are: (i) strategic priority-setting
personnel, and selected field visits. Agreed
projects, like those utilizing primarily the TDA/
indicators will be used for the Study (cf. para-
SAP7 approach; or (ii) action-oriented projects,
graph 13).
utilizing primarily replicable demonstrations,
capacity development, and resource assessments.
Levels of Portfolio Analysis
21. The Study will, i.a., assess the effectiveness
18. The Program Study will focus on assessing
of the two categories of projects in part drawing
the results of the International Waters focal area
from the Multi-Country Project Arrangements
in relation to the above priority areas of action
Thematic Review. Emphasis will also be placed
(cf. paragraph 11). This will be done through an
on the following aspects:
analysis of the portfolio from three different
perspectives. The portfolio subject to the review
·
The types of interventions and institutional
will include all projects completed, ongoing and
arrangements, including cooperation mecha-
under preparation. The three perspectives for
nisms between countries and implementing
portfolio analysis are:
agencies;
I.
Global transboundary issues addressed;
·
Implementing agency collaboration;
7 Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis/Strategic Action Program.
36
GEF International Waters Program Study
·
Demonstration effects and replication
Collection of Relevant Data
potential/modality;
and Creation of Databases
·
Institutional sustainability.
25. Basic documents informing the Study
include the GEF Operational Strategy, GEF
22. Level III: The assessment will focus on the
Operational Programs, and documents relevant
experiences gained with the Programmatic
to work on performance indicators for the
Approaches, defined as the strategic organization
International Waters focal area, including the
of countries' requests in a specific geographical
Multicountry Project Arrangements Thematic
region and transboundary issue. The Program-
Review and Addressing Transboundary Environ-
matic Approach is also seen as an opportunity to
mental Problems in the Black Sea Basin: A
achieve multiple global benefits and to build
Programmatic Approach.
upon the synergies and complementarities
between the various GEF focal areas.
26. The Program Study shall identify and collect
all project documents on GEF international
23. The programmatic framework for Address-
waters projects available in the GEF Secretariat,
ing Transboundary Priorities in the Danube/
implementing agencies, and the STAP, including
Black Sea Basin is the first attempt to develop a
GEF Secretariat project reviews, project mid-
full-fledged GEF Programmatic Approach to a
term review and completion reports, other
geographic area and issue in the International
evaluation documents, and STAP selected
Waters focal area, as called for in OP 8 short-
reviews.
term objective (e). It establishes a common
agreement among the countries and GEF imple-
27. The Thematic Review of Multicountry
menting agencies for objectives and program-
Project Arrangements will be used to inform the
matic indicators that will be utilized to measure
Program Study concerning the experiences with
progress over the five-year program.
different kinds of institutional and organizational
arrangements and processes used in International
24. In addition to the Danube/Black Sea Basin
Waters projects. In some case, further analysis
program, other emerging programmatic ap-
building upon the review will be carried out in
proaches will be included in the Program Study.
the Program Study.
Regions where there is a framework in place or
emerging to link the freshwater catchment areas
28. The First GEF Biennial International Waters
to the receiving marine ecosystem in an inte-
Conference, October 14-18, 2000, will be used
grated manner include, i.a.:
as an opportunity for data collection, interviews
and discussions with project proponents and
·
South China Sea, Mekong;
personnel.
·
Paraná-Plata-Patagonian Shelf Large Marine
29. The Program Study will identify any gaps in
Ecosystem;
data that could be filled later. The task of filling
the data gaps, however, goes beyond the scope of
·
Western Africa;
the present Study.
·
East African Great Lakes;
Field-Based Reviews
·
The Baltic Sea.
30. A limited number of field visits will be
undertaken to selected projects to verify and
Annex 1: Initiating Memorandum
37
supplement reported on-the-ground results and
plan showing when specific tasks need to be
impacts, focusing on process and stress reduction
underway or accomplished.
indicators. The selection of projects for in-depth
study and visits will be based on carefully
33. The Program Study will engage in extensive
crafted analytical questions that will lead to
collection of data and information through the
specific criteria. Additional criteria that will
implementing agencies, as well as directly from
influence the selection of the projects include:
projects at country level. The Study Team will
travel to selected countries as determined necessary.
·
Cluster of global transboundary priority
In other cases, local consultants will be hired and
issue;
thoroughly briefed for country level work.
·
Type of project (priority-setting vs. action-
Expected Outputs
oriented/demonstration);
34. The Program Study will result in a report
·
Duration of implementation;
covering the three levels of analysis (I, II, III)
with regard to the achievement of results and
·
History of PIR (Project Implementation
impacts, as measured through the process, stress
Review) ratings;
reduction, and environmental status indicators.
The report will consist of an executive summary,
·
Implementing agency; and,
a concise main report, and detailed annexes. The
report and background documents will be made
·
Geographical region.
available to the OPS2 team.
IV. Mode of Work
Timeframe
31. The Study Team for the International Waters
35. The Program Study will be undertaken from
Program Study will consist of one full-time staff
July 2000 to February 2001, with early results
member of the GEF Monitoring and Evaluation
fed to the OPS2 team, which is expected to begin
Team, members of the GEF Secretariat Land and
work around January 2001. The First GEF
Water Team, implementing agencies, a representa-
Biennial International Waters Conference will be
tive of STAP, and one senior external consultant.
held in October 2000. Country-level fieldwork
will be carried out during SeptemberDecember
32. The Study Team at the Inception Meeting on
2000. Final completion of the Program Study
August 24-25, 2000, prepared an initial work
will take place in JanuaryFebruary 2001.
38
GEF International Waters Program Study
Annex 2: Background Documents
The main report was drafted by Michael Bewers and Juha Uitto drawing upon the various component
analyses reported in the background documents. The mode of operation was that the background documents
each have a lead author and have been subsequently reviewed by the entire Program Study Team.
The background documents and principal authors were as follows:
1.
Initiating Memorandum J.I. Uitto
2.
Inception Meeting Decisions J.I. Uitto
2a Component Analyses J.M. Bewers
2b Questionnaire for GEF International Waters Project Principals J.M. Bewers
2c Process for the Detailed Examination of Projects Used for the Purposes of Component Analyses
and for the Selection of Site Visits J.M. Bewers
2d Aide-Memoire for Site Visits J.M. Bewers
2e Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators for GEF International Waters Projects A.M. Duda
3.
Analysis of Composition and Trends within the International Waters Portfolio J.M. Bewers and
S. Leloup
3a Full and Medium-Size Project Characterizations
3b PDF Characterizations
3c Overall Project Characterization
4.
Strategic and Operational Analysis of the International Waters Focal Area J.M. Bewers
5.
Surveillance and Advisory Functions in the International Waters Focal Area J.M. Bewers
6.
Project Performance: Analysis of Terminal Evaluations of International Waters Projects J.M. Bewers
7.
Review of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) Approach to the Preparation of Strategic
Action Programs (SAPs) J.M. Bewers
Annex 2: Background Documents
39
8.
Analysis of the Land Degradation Linkage Study from International Waters Perspectives J.M. Bewers
9.
Review of Geographic-Based Programmatic Approaches A.M. Duda
10. Analysis of International Waters Demonstration Projects J.M. Bewers
10a Review of the Ballast Water Project J.M. Bewers
10b Strategic Issue Bearing on the GEF Full Project: Removal of Barriers to the Effective Imple-
mentation of Ballast Water Control and Management Measures in Developing Countries
J.M. Bewers and J. Pernetta
11. Review of Contributions to Global and Regional Agreements A. Merla
12. Single v. Multiple Implementing Agency Project Review J.I. Uitto
13. Community-Based Approaches to Managing Transboundary Waters M.C.J. Cruz
14. Analysis of Questionnaire Results J.M. Bewers
15. Mission Reports
15a Water and Environmental Management in the Aral Sea Basin A. Merla
15b Integrated Management of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem C. Crepin and
A.M. Duda
15c Brazil: Integrated Management of Land-Based Activities in the São Francisco Basin J.I. Uitto
15d Brazil: Integrated Watershed Management Program for the Pantanal and Upper Paraguay River
Basin J.I. Uitto
These background documents are available upon request from the GEF Secretariat Monitoring and
Evaluation Team.
40
GEF International Waters Program Study
Annex 3: Projects Included
in the Program Study
Project Title
Project Type
IA
OP
Africa: Industrial Water Pollution in the Gulf of Guinea Large Marine
UNDP
FP
8 (PP)
Ecosystem
Africa: Pollution Control and Other Measures to Protect Biodiversity in
UNDP
FP
8 (PP)
Lake Tanganyika
Africa: Lake Victoria Environmental Management
WB
FP
8
Africa: Implementation of the Strategic Action Program Towards the
Achievement of the Integrated Management of the Benguela Current
UNDP
FP
8
Large Marine Ecosystem
Africa: Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem
UNEP
PDF-B
9
Africa: Reversal of Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Lake
UNDP
FP
9
Chad Basin Ecosystem
Africa: Integrated Management of the Lake Chad Basin
WB
PDF-C
9
Africa: Western Indian Ocean Islands Oil Spill Contingency Planning
UNEP
PDF-B
9
Africa: Integrated Management of the Okavango Basin
UNDP
FP
9
Africa: Support to the Nile Basin Initiative - Basinwide Shared Vision
WB/UNDP
PDF-B
9
Program
Africa: Reversing Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Niger Basin
UNDP
PDF-B
9
Africa: Integrated Management of the Volta River Basin
UNEP
PDF-B
9
Africa: Development of a SAP for the Guinea Current LME
UNDP/UNEP
PDF-B
9
Africa: Senegal River Basin Water and Environmental Management
WB
PDF-B
9
Program
Africa: Oil Pollution Management Project for the Southwest
WB
FP
10 (PP)
Mediterranean Sea
Africa: Western Indian Ocean Islands Oil Spill Contingency Planning
WB
FP
10
Argentina: Coastal Contamination Prevention and Sustainable
WB
FP
8
Fisheries Management
Asia/Pacific: Reducing Environmental Stress in the Yellow Sea Large
UNDP
FP
8
Marine Ecosystem
Asia/Pacific: Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in the
UNDP
FP
9 (PP)
East Asian Seas
Asia/Pacific: Mekong River Basin Water Utilization
WB
FP
8
Asia/Pacific: Reversing Degradation Trends in the South China Sea
UNEP
FP
8
Annex 3: Complete List of Projects Included in the Program Study
41
Project Title
Project Type
IA
OP
Asia/Pacific: Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem
WB
PDF-B
8
Asia/Pacific: Building Partnerships for the Environmental Management
UNDP
FP
9
of the East Asian Seas
Asia/Pacific: Implementation of the Strategic Action Program of the
UNDP
FP
9
Pacific Small Island Developing States
Brazil: Integrated Watershed Management Program for the Pantanal
UNEP
FP
9
and Upper Paraguay River Basin
Brazil: Integrated Management of Land-Based Activities in the Sao
UNEP
FP
10
Francisco Basin
Bulgaria: Wetlands Restoration Project
WB
PDF-B
8
CE Europe/FSU: Danube River Basin Environmental Management
UNDP
FP
8 (PP)
CE Europe/FSU: Developing the Danube River Basin Pollution
UNDP
FP
8
Reduction Program
CE Europe/FSU: Preparation of a Strategic Action Program for the
Dnieper River Basin and Development of SAP Implemantation
UNDP
FP
8
Mechanisms
CE Europe/FSU: Addressing Transboundary Environmental Issues in
UNDP/UNEP/-
FP
8
the Caspian Environment Program
WB
CE Europe/FSU: Lake Ohrid Management
WB
FP
8
CE Europe/FSU: Strengthening Implementation of Nutrient Reduction
UNDP/WB/UN-
PDF-B
8
Measures and Transboundary Cooperation in the Danube River Basin
EP
CE Europe/FSU: Water and Environmental Management in the Aral
WB
FP
9
Sea Basin
China: Ship Waste Disposal
WB
FP
10 (PP)
Egypt: Lake Manzala Engineered Wetlands
UNDP
FP
8 (PP)
Georgia: Agricultural Development II
WB
FP
8
Global: Regionally-based Assessment of Persistent Toxic Substances
UNEP
FP
10
Global: Development of National Implementation Plans for Persistent
UNEP
PDF-B
10
Organic Pollutants
Global: Removal of Barriers to the Effective Implementation of Ballast
UNDP
FP
10
Water Control and Management Measures in Developing Countries
Global: Regional Oceans Training Program
UNEP
FP
10 (PP)
Global: World Water Vision - Water for Nature
WB
MSP
10
Global: Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA)
UNEP
FP
10
Global: The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and
UNEP
MSP
10
Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
Global: Strengthening Capacity for Global Knowledge-Sharing in
UNDP
FP
10
International Waters
Global: Tropical Shrimp Trawling
UNEP
FP
10
Jordan: Gulf of Aqaba Environmental Action Plan
WB
FP
8
Latin America/Caribbean: Environmental Protection of the Rio de la
Plata and Its Maritime Front - Pollution Prevention and Control and
UNDP
FP
8
Habitat Restoration
42
GEF International Waters Program Study
Project Title
Project Type
IA
OP
Latin America/Caribbean: Strategic Action Program for the Binational
UNEP
FP
9
Basin of the Bermejo River
Latin America/Caribbean: Formulation of a Strategic Action Program for
the Integrated Management of Water Resources and the Sustainable
UNEP
FP
8
Development of the San Juan River Basin and its Coastal Zone
Latin America/Caribbean: Integrating Management of Watersheds in
UNEP/UNDP
PDF-B
9
Caribbean SIDS
Latin America/Caribbean: Environmental Protection and Sustainable
WB
PDF-B
9
Integrated Management of the Guarani Aquifer
Latin America/Caribbean: Demonstration of Innovative Approaches to
UNDP/UNEP
FP
10
the Rehabilitation of Heavily Contaminated Bays in the Wider Caribbean
Latin America/Caribbean: Reducing Pesticide Runoff in the Caribbean
UNEP
PDF-B
10
Latin America/Caribbean: Ship-Generated Waste Management
WB
FP
10 (PP)
Latin America/Caribbean: Wider Caribbean Initiative for Ship-
WB
FP
10 (PP)
Generated Waste
Latin America/Caribbean: Environmental Protection of the Gulf of
PDF-B
10
Honduras and Maritime Transport Control
Latin America/Caribbean: Strategic Action Program Implementation
UNEP
FP
9
for the Bermejo River Basin
Latin America/Caribbean: Comprehensive Action Program to Phase
Out DDT and Reduce the Long Term Effects of Exposure in Mexico
UNEP
PDF-B
10
and Central America
Poland: Rural Environmental Project
WB
FP
9
Regional: Black Sea Environmental Management
UNDP
FP
8 (PP)
Regional: Developing the Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic
UNDP
FP
8
Action Plan
Regional: Determination of Priority Actions for the Further Elaboration
and Implementation of the Strategic Action Program for the
UNEP
FP
8
Mediterranean Sea
Regional: Building Environmental Citizenship to Support
UNDP
MSP
8
Transboundary Pollution Reduction in the Danube
Regional: Preparation of a Strategic Action Program and
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis for the Tumen River Area, Its
UNDP
FP
9
Coastal Regions and Related Northeast Asian Environs
Regional: Implementation of the Strategic Action Program for the Red UNDP/WB/UN-
FP
9
Sea and Gulf of Aden
EP
Regional: Baltic Sea Regional
WB/UNDP
PDF-B
9
Romania: Black Sea Agricultural Pollution Control
WB
PDF-B
8
Russian Federation: Support to the National Plan of Action in the Russian
Federation for the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment from
UNEP
PDF-B
10
Anthropogenic Pollution
Russian Federation: Persistent Toxic Substances, Food Security, and
UNEP
MSP
10
Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North
Yemen: Protection of Marine Ecosystems of the Red Sea Coast
UNDP
FP
8
Document Outline
- Acknowledgements
- Foreword
- Table of Contents
- Glossary of Terms
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Methodology and Timeline
- Background on GEF Approach to International Waters
- Findings
- Portfolio Distribtion
- Portfolio Trends
- Alignment with GEF Guidance and Policies
- Agreement with Regional and International Treaties
- The TDA Approach to Preparing SAPs
- Project Performance and Review of Completed Projects
- Geographically Based Approaches
- Single vs. Multiple Implementing Agency Projects
- Community-Based Approaches to Managing Transboundary Waters
- Portfolio-wide Observations and Responses to Previous Review Efforts
- Recommendations
- Annexes
- Annex 1: Initiating Memorandum
- Annex 2: Background Documents
- Annex 3: Projects Included in the Program Study