Document of
The World Bank
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Public Disclosure Authorized
Report No: ICR00001005
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT
(TF-23406)
ON
A GRANT FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITY IN THE AMOUNT OF
SDR 8.0 MILLION
Public Disclosure Authorized
(US$ 11.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
TO THE
MEKONG RIVER COMMISSION
FOR A
WATER UTILIZATION PROJECT
Public Disclosure Authorized
June 30, 2009
Rural Development, Natural Resources and Environment Sector Unit
Public Disclosure Authorized
Sustainable Development Department
East Asia and Pacific Region
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
FISCAL YEAR
January 1 - December 31
Currency Unit = US$
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADB
Asian
Development
Bank
BDP
Basin Development Program (MRC)
CEO
Chief Executive Officer
CNMC
Cambodia National Mekong Committee
DCG
Donor
Consultation
Group
DSF
Decision Support Framework
EP
Environment Program (MRC)
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GEO
Global
Environmental
Objectives
IBFM
Integrated Basin Flow Management
ICCS
Internal Communication and Coordination Section (MRC)
ICR
Implementation Completion Report
IKMP
Information and Knowledge Management Program (MRC)
JC Joint
Committee
M&E
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
M-IWRMP
Mekong - Integrated Water Resources Management Support Project
MRC
Mekong River Commission
MRCS
MRC Secretariat
NMC(s)
National Mekong Committee(s)
PAD
Project Appraisal Document
PDIES
Procedures for data and information exchange and sharing
PDO
Project
Development
Objectives
PMFM
Procedures for Maintenance of Flow on the Mainstream
PNPCA
Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement
PWQ
Procedures
for
Water
Quality
PWUM
Procedures for Water Use Monitoring
QAG
World Bank Quality Assurance Group
SAP
Strategic Action Program
TACT
Technical Assistance and Coordination Team (successor to ISDIT)
TCG
DSF Technical Coordination Group
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
TRG
Technical Review Group (2 sub-groups dealing with flow and water quality
have been formed to support the technical guidelines under the PMFM and
PWQ)
TSD
Technical Service Department of the MRC
WUP
Water Utilization Project
Vice President:
James Adams, EAPVP
Country Director:
Annette Dixon, EACTF
Sector
Manager:
Rahul
Raturi,
EASRE
Project Team Leader:
Toru Konishi, EASRE
ICR Team Leader:
Toru Konishi, EASRE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Regional Program
(Lower Mekong River Basin-Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam)
Mekong Water Utilization Project
Implementation Completion and Results Report
CONTENTS
Page No.
Data Sheet ........................................................................................................................................... i-iv
1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design ........................................... 1
2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes ...................................................... 4
3. Assessment of Outcomes .................................................................................................... 8
4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ................................................................ 13
5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ............................................................. 14
6. Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................... 16
7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners ................... 19
Annex 1: Project Costs and Financing ................................................................................................. 20
Annex 2: Outputs by Component......................................................................................................... 21
Annex 3: Economic and Financial Analysis ........................................................................................ 24
Annex 4: Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes .................................... 25
Annex 5: Beneficiary Survey Results .................................................................................................. 27
Annex 6: Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results .......................................................................... 29
Annex 7: List of Key Supporting Documents ...................................................................................... 32
Map No. IBRD 30089
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their
official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank permission.
A. Basic Information
4M-MEKONG WATER
Country: Mekong Project
Name:
UTILIZ.
Project ID:
P045864
L/C/TF Number(s):
TF-23406
ICR Date:
02/12/2009
ICR Type:
Core ICR
MEKONG RIVER
Lending Instrument:
SIL
Borrower:
COMMISSION
Original Total
USD 11.0M
Disbursed Amount:
USD 11.0M
Commitment:
Environmental Category: C
Global Focal Area: I
Implementing Agencies:
Mekong River Commission
Cofinanciers and Other External Partners:
B. KEY DATES
Revised / Actual
Process
Date
Process
Original Date
Date(s)
Concept Review:
01/12/1999
Effectiveness:
03/30/2000
Appraisal:
04/05/1999
Restructuring(s):
Approval:
02/03/2000
Mid-term Review:
02/25/2004
Closing:
06/30/2007
06/30/2008
C. RATINGS SUMMARY
C.1 Performance Rating by ICR
Outcomes:
Moderately Satisfactory
Risk to Global Environment Outcome
Substantial
Bank Performance:
Satisfactory
Borrower Performance:
Satisfactory
C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance
Bank
Ratings
Borrower
Ratings
Quality at Entry:
Satisfactory
Government:
Satisfactory
Implementing
Quality of Supervision:
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Agency/Agencies:
Overall Bank
Overall Borrower
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Performance:
Performance:
C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators
Implementation
QAG Assessments (if
Indicators
Rating
Performance
any)
Potential Problem Project No
None (QEA):
Not applicable
i
at any time (Yes/No):
Problem Project at any
Quality of Supervision
No
Not Applicable
time (Yes/No):
(QSA):
GEO rating before
Satisfactory
Closing/Inactive status
D. SECTOR AND THEME CODES
Original
Actual
Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing)
Central government administration
90
90
Law and justice 10
10
Theme Code (Primary/Secondary)
Biodiversity
Primary
Primary
Other rule of law
Primary
Primary
Water resource management
Primary
Primary
E. BANK STAFF
Positions
At ICR
At Approval
Vice President:
James W. Adams
Jean-Michel Severino
Country Director:
Annette Dixon
Ngozi N. Okonjo-Iweala
Sector Manager: Rahul
Raturi
Geoffrey Fox
Project Team Leader:
Toru Konishi
Mei Xie
ICR Team Leader:
Toru Konishi
ICR Primary Author:
Toru Konishi
F. RESULTS FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS
Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators(as approved)
The Project's broad development objectives are to assist MRC to establish mechanisms to
promote and improve coordinated and sustainable water resources management in the
Mekong Basin, including reasonable and equitable water utilization by the MRC countries
and protection of the environment, aquatic life and the ecological balance of the basin. This
objective would be achieved through preparation of "Rules" for water utilization and
procedures for information exchange, notification and consultation. The project would assist
in the formulation and implementation of the "Rules" by facilitating consultations among the
MRC member states and helping the MRC develop a Basin Simulation Model Package and
Knowledge Base. The project would promote protection of sensitive ecological systems
including wetlands, flooded forests, and estuary system that support globally significant bio-
diversity.
ii
Revised Global Environment Objectives (as approved by original approving authority)
and Key Indicators and reasons/justifications
Not Revised
(a) GEO Indicator(s)
Original Target
Actual Value
Formally
Values (from
Achieved at
Indicator
Baseline Value
Revised
approval
Completion or Target
Target Values
documents)
Years
Indicator 1 : Development of a functional, integrated basin modeling package
Basin modeling
package accepted by
Value
the four MRC member
Basin modeling
(quantitative or None Existed
countries and formally
package in place
Qualitative)
adopted by the MRC;
updating in progress
under IKMP
Date achieved 03/30/2000
06/30/2007
12/31/2008
Comments
(incl. %
This indicator is considered to be fully achieved.
achievement)
Development, installation, and testing of a functional and integrated knowledge base
Indicator 2 : and information systems on water and related resources, with a communication system
linking NMCs with the MRCS.
Technical working
groups established by
Establishment of
Value
the MRCS and the
the technical
(quantitative or None Exist
NMCs; the working
working groups on
Qualitative)
groups will continue
water resources
function after project
completion
Date achieved 03/30/2000
06/30/2008
12/31/2008
Comments
(incl. %
This indicator is considered to be fully achieved.
achievement)
Adoption of protocols for information exchange, water use monitoring, and preliminary
Indicator 3 : notification/consultation process
Procedures for
information
Procedures for
exchange and water
information exchange
user monitoring
and water user
Value
adopted, and
monitoring adopted,
(quantitative or None Existed
preliminary
and preliminary
Qualitative)
protocol for
protocol for
notification/consult
notification/consultatio
ation process
n process completed
completed
Date achieved 03/30/2000
06/30/2008
12/31/2008
iii
Comments
(incl. %
This indicator is considered to be fully achieved.
achievement)
Adoption of provincial in-stream flow `rules' and final
Indicator 4 : notification/consultation/agreement protocols
The MRC has put a
In-stream flow
transitional
rules adopted, but
arrangement to finalize
the implementation
the technical guideline
Value
guideline not
for the in-stream flow
(quantitative or None Existed
completed; final
rules. The MRC has
Qualitative)
notification/consult
started help countries
ation agreement
implementing the prior
protocols
notification procedures
completed
using mainstream dam
as a case study
Date achieved 03/30/2000
06/30/2008
12/31/2008
Comments
(incl. %
This indicator is considered to be largely achieved.
achievement)
Indicator 5 : Adoption of the Water Quality Rules
MRC has put
The rules have been
transitional
Value
agreed by the Joint
arrangements in place
(quantitative or None Exist
Committee of the
to finalize the technical
Qualitative)
MRC, but not
guidelines for Water
formally approved.
Quality
Date achieved 03/30/2000
06/30/2008
12/31/2008
Comments
(incl. %
This indicator is considered to be achieved partially.
achievement)
(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)
Original Target
Actual Value
Formally
Values (from
Achieved at
Indicator
Baseline Value
Revised
approval
Completion or
Target Values
documents)
Target Years
Indicator 1 : Basin model package installed and being applied at MRCS and member countries
A comprehensive
basin modeling
The basin model
package is set up
package is used by
and accepted by the
Value
No effective basin model
the BDP of the
riparians to be a
(quantitative or existed or accepted by the
MRC, and the
tool for their
Qualitative)
riparians.
MRCS is promoting
negotiations of
the use at the
water allocation
national level.
and evaluation of
planning activities.
Date achieved 03/30/2000
06/30/2008
12/31/2008
iv
Comments
This indicator is considered to be satisfactorily achieved; and follow- up
(incl. %
arrangements are already in place in the light of a follow up project scheduled in FY
achievement) 10.
Indicator 2 : A set of provisional "rules" proposed to the MRC JC and Council
Five rules and
procedures
MRC has put
presented and
transitional
Value
approved by the JC;
arrangements in
(quantitative or None Existed
the Council
place to finalize the
Qualitative)
Approved the
technical guidelines
procedures/rules
for Water Quality
except the Water
and Water Flows
Quality.
Date achieved 03/30/2000
06/30/2008
12/31/2008
Comments
(incl. %
This indicator is considered to be substantially achieved
achievement)
Project management teams in place in MRCS and NMCs. WUP unit and working
Indicator 3 : groups established and functioning with appropriate staffing and training
Team was
established and
maintained
WUP
throughout the
implementation team
project
has been terminated
implementation
upon completion of
Value
period. Adequate
the project; however,
(quantitative or No team established yet
funding has been
technical working
Qualitative)
provided
groups are being
throughout the
maintained under the
implementation
other program of the
period, including
MRC
the extension
period
Date achieved 03/30/2000
06/30/2008
12/31/2008
Comments
This indicator is considered to be satisfactorily achieved; and follow- up
(incl. %
arrangements are already in place in the light of a follow up project scheduled in FY
achievement) 10.
G. RATINGS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN ISRS
Actual
Date ISR
No.
GEO
IP
Disbursements
Archived
(USD millions)
1
06/19/2000
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
0.20
2
12/27/2000
Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.42
3
06/18/2001
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
0.98
4
12/10/2001
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
1.77
5
04/08/2002
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
2.45
6
09/20/2002
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
3.67
v
7
02/27/2003
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
4.55
8
09/23/2003
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
5.22
9
03/29/2004
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
5.64
10
06/15/2004
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
6.42
11
12/20/2004
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
6.68
12
06/09/2005
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
7.53
13
05/16/2006
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
9.13
14
09/05/2006
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
9.13
15
10/23/2007
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
10.60
16
08/19/2008
Moderately Satisfactory
Satisfactory
10.99
H. RESTRUCTURING (IF ANY)
Not Applicable
I. DISBURSEMENT PROFILE
vi
1.
Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design
1.1
Context at Appraisal
The Mekong River system is important for the surrounding region in social, economic, and
environmental terms. Freshwater and estuary capture fisheries are major sources of protein for
the majority of the Basin's population (of which more than 80 percent are considered poor). In
addition, the River's water resources provide vital inputs for the irrigation system developed in
the Vietnam portion of the Mekong Delta. The River system has also been utilized for
hydropower and island navigation, yet the Mekong River still provides the very diverse and rich
fresh water eco-system, third only to the Amazon and Congo Rivers. The main challenges for
water resources management in the Mekong River Basin were to (a) achieve equitable sharing of
the water resources, (b) coordinate water resources development to avoid harmful trans-boundary
impacts, and (c) achieve socially and environmentally sustainable water resources development.
In this context, the four lower riparian countries (Lao PDR, Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam)
jointly signed a treaty in April 1995 (the Mekong Agreement) designed to extend and enhance
the Mekong Spirit of Cooperation that dates back to the mid-50's. The Water Utilization Project
(Project) has been developed to support the four lower riparian countries of the Mekong River
Basin (Lao PDR., Thailand, Vietnam, and Cambodia) to start implementing the Mekong
Agreement. The Agreement reflects the commitment of the four countries to cooperate in the
sustainable development of water and related resources of the Mekong River system. The
Agreement sets a framework of riparian cooperation as an objective, outlines general principles
and procedures, establishes the Mekong River Commission (MRC) as an inter-governmental
body, and details the organizational arrangements and scope of the MRC's authority.
As the first step, the MRC has decided to develop a transboundary hydrological model to
understand the hydrological nature of the Mekong River and assess the transboundary impacts on
the water resources infrastructure (e.g. dams). The MRC has also identified the development of
a set of common rules for water utilizations which are agreeable to the four countries, and
requested the Bank and the GEF for support and a GEF grant was approved for a Mekong Water
Utilization Project (the project.
The project was mainly financed by the GEF (60 percent), with Finland, Japan, and France
providing 22, 5, and 3 percent respectively of the total project cost. The detailed financing is
described in Annex 1 (b).
1.2
Original Global Environmental Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators
Global Environmental Objectives:
The Project's broad development objectives are to assist MRC to establish mechanisms to
promote and improve coordinated and sustainable water resources management in the Mekong
Basin, including reasonable and equitable water utilization by the MRC countries and protection
of the environment, aquatic life and the ecological balance of the basin. This objective would be
achieved through the preparation of "Rules" for water utilization and procedures for information
exchange, notification and consultation. The project would assist in the formulation and
implementation of the "Rules" by facilitating consultations among the MRC member states and
1
helping the MRC develop a Basin Simulation Model Package and Knowledge Base. The project
would promote protection of sensitive ecological systems including wetlands, flooded forests,
and estuary system that support globally significant bio-diversity.
Key Indicators:
The following are the key indicators identified at appraisal; (a) setting up a functional, integrated
and comprehensive Basin modeling package by 2003; (b) developing a functional and integrated
knowledge base on water and related resources, with a communication system linking the
National Mekong Committees (NMCs) with the MRC Secretariat (MRCS) by 2005; (c) adoption
of protocols for information exchange, water use monitoring, and preliminary
notification/consultation procedures by 2004; (d) adoption of provisional in-stream flow rules by
2005; and (e) adoption of provisional water quality rules by 2006.
1.3
Revised GEO
Not applicable
1.4
Main Beneficiaries
According to the Project Appraisal Documents, the following is the description of the main
beneficiaries.
From the prospective of the PDO, the ultimate target population would be those living
within the Mekong River Basin or utilizing its waters. The Project would eventually
benefit the populations in the Basin, as well as in the riparian countries that depend
heavily on the Mekong basin's natural resources to sustain their socio-economic
development. It would further benefit the basin's ecosystems. These benefits would
result eventually from the implementation of the "Rules" and procedures for water
utilization and the improved understanding of the river system through the models and
analytical tools. The Project would also benefit the whole region in terms of facilitating
greater political cooperation and dialogue. Donor community and other interest groups
would gain indirect benefits from a more effective and coordinated use of their funds and
assistance.
For this project, it is difficult to distinguish global and national benefits. The main benefit of the
project is support the four lower Mekong Basin countries (Lao PDR, Thailand, Cambodia, and
Vietnam) to develop the knowledge ( transboundary hydrological models) and rules (water
utilization procedures) towards sustainable water resources development, taking the social and
environmental aspects into account.
1.5
Original Components
The Water Utilization Project (the Project) comprises the following three components:
Component A. Basin Modeling and Knowledge Base. This component was designed to support
the development of the necessary analytical tools to improve the understanding of the interaction
between the physical and biological features of the Mekong River. In particular, Component A
had the following three subcomponents: (a) Information and Knowledge Base Development,
aimed at collecting preliminary data and assessing needs for developing a numeric model for
2
basin hydrology, (b) a Basin Modeling Package aimed at developing a transboundary
hydrological model, and (c) Environmental, Economic, and Social Transboundary Analysis to
identify acute environmental issues, and identify priorities, and explore best practice on the river
basin management.
Component B. Rules for Water Utilization. This component is the core of the Project, which
mainly focused on the development of the Rules essential for the water utilization. The
component supported the following: (a) data and information exchange protocols (i.e., data and
information exchange; water use monitoring; and prior notification, consultation and agreement),
and (b) physical rules (i.e., maintenance flows on the mainstream and water quality). The
component aimed to provide the MRC with technical assistance and to facilitate discussions,
negotiations and drafting of the water utilization rules by the four member countries.
Component C. Institutional Strengthening of MRC and NMC to implement the Project. This
component aimed at supporting project management as well as institutional strengthening for the
MRC and the four member countries. In particular, this component included: (a) Project and
Program Management, (b) Technical Training and Capacity Building for MRC and the
concerned officials of the four member countries, (c) Communication, Participation and Public
Awareness to disseminate the knowledge obtained by the MRC and promote the exchange of
ideas, and (d) Participation in GEF Regional and Global Program to exchange experiences with
other GEF supported international water programs within and outside the region.
1.6
Revised Components
The project design was maintained during implementation. However, Component A was split
into Component A-1 (Basin Modeling and Knowledge Base) and Component A-2
(Environmental and Transboundary Analysis) because they required different technical expertise
and coordination arrangements. Component A-1 required hydrological experts while
Component A-2 required a broader expertise encompassing economic, social, and environmental
aspects. However, this division of Component A did not require an amendment of the legal
agreement from the view point of project administration.
Component A-1. Basin Modeling and Knowledge Base: The Project continued to support the
development of necessary analytical tools and a comprehensive basin modeling package to
support the MRC's basin management functions, support the formulation and negotiation of the
Rules, and establish a functional shared information and knowledge management system called
the Decision Support Framework (DSF).
Component A-2. Environmental and Transboundary Analysis: Environmental, economic and
social trans-boundary analysis tools and assessments to support development of the technical
input to development of the technical guidelines for implementing the Procedures under
Component C to include identifying key trans-boundary issues and application of GEF's
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and Strategic Action Program (SAP) approach.
There were no changes in Components B and C.
3
1.7
Other significant changes
Two significant changes were made during project implementation. First, the implementation
arrangements were changed. At appraisal, the Project was expected to be implemented directly
by the Office of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the MRC, given the importance of
developing the `Rules'. However, as a result of an internal reorganization within the MRC, the
responsibility for implementing the project was transferred to the Planning Division of the MRC.
The purpose was to integrate the project under the line department, and achieve better
coordination and increase synergy with the Basin Development Program (BDP), which aimed at
developing a series of scenarios regarding infrastructure development and water utilization. This
issue was discussed and agreed with the Bank mission in May 2006. This not only helped in the
coordination with the BDP, but also facilitated the transitional arrangements after the completion
of the project.
Second, the project implementation period was extended by one year. While the Project
activities were nearly completed, the extension was considered to be necessary to: (a) develop
technical guidelines to implement the Rules regarding water quality and minimum flow, (b)
increase capacity of the riparian countries to utilize hydrological models for infrastructure
development, and (c) disseminate the outcome of the Project to direct stakeholders in the basin,
particularly local governments and communities. After consultation with the GEF, the Bank
formally agreed to a one year extension of the Closing Date from June 30, 2007 to June 30,
2008.
2.
Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes
2.1
Project Preparation, Design, and Quality at Entry
Quality at the entry was considered to be satisfactory in general but there was no formal quality
review at entry by QAG. The basic design of the Project, aimed at increasing general knowledge
of the Mekong Basin with the two major focal points (e.g., Tonle Sap, the Mekong Delta) and
developing the Rules for water utilization in parallel, is considered to be relevant and practical to
address the key issues for water and related resources management in the Mekong River Basin.
During the late 1990s after the Mekong Agreement was signed in 1995, the four countries found
it difficult to develop subsidiary agreements to implement the Mekong Agreement including the
water utilization Rules mainly due to a lack of adequate technical knowledge of the hydrological
and environmental aspects of the Mekong River. The Project has addressed the needs to develop
the hydrological model and develop the water utilization Rules.
Further, the project has also included the transboundary environmental, economic, and
environmental analysis. This is also considered to be relevant and practical. During Project
preparation, it was realized that technical and environmental analysis of the Mekong River would
not only deepen the understanding of the four countries on possible trans-boundary effects
resulting from the respective countries' water resources development, but would also facilitate
mutual understanding and nurture regional partnership towards sustainable water resources
development of the Mekong River mainstream and tributaries.
The project, which was rated Substantial Risk, incorporated adequate risk mitigation measures to
address the weak national capacity of the MRC and the member countries, and possible political
complications regarding the development of the Rules. Consequently the implementation
4
arrangement for the Project is considered to be appropriate and prudent. At the MRCS, the
project team was placed directly under the auspices of the CEO in light of concerns over
effectiveness and transparency of the MRC at appraisal. At the country level within each
National Mekong Committee (NMC), a management team was established to be an interlocutor
between the MRC and the line agencies and facilitate negotiations for developing the Rules
(subsequently called "procedures"). The original implementation period was seemingly long,
but in retrospect, it was realistic even though it did not leave sufficient time to adequately
"implement" the adopted procedures.
It should also be noted that the project design paid due attention to the engagement of China and
Myanmar in a low key approach, which was considered to be politically difficult.1 The Project
also aimed to improve communication with and participation of the civil society and general
public and to incorporate poverty reduction and gender equality in its activities, which are key to
the achievement of sustainable water resources development in the Mekong River.
Despite an overall sound design, the project design could have been improved if the following
two aspects had been considered:
Implementation of the Rules and models at the country level. The Project mainly aimed at
finalizing the Rules for water utilization through the MRC, but did not consider the
implementation of these Rules by the line ministries at the national levels. Similarly, the
Project aimed at developing hydrological models in the MRC, but did not pay sufficient
attention to disseminating the models to the countries so that they could apply these to
infrastructure planning. The Project impacts would have been consolidated if these points
were considered. In particular, Component A could have included the demonstration and
dissemination of the models at the national level, and Component B could have also invited
direct stakeholders at the national level. This point was discussed further in Section 6
Lessons Learned.
Coordination with other programs at the MRC. During the late 1990s when the Project was
appraised, a number of programs to support the MRC had been initiated by various donors.
While the Project achieved some degree of donor coordination (resulting in co-financing
arrangement), it would have been beneficial to have had a more explicit agreement with other
programs, notably the Basin Development Program (BDP), to make effective use of the
outputs of the Project (particularly modeling) and avoid duplication.2
1 Under provisions of the 1995 Mekong Agreement, China and Myanmar were invited and later became active
dialogue partners to cooperate and coordinate development and management of the Mekong River Basin water
resources.
2 At project appraisal it was anticipated the BDP would have proceeded much faster than actually occurred and that
WUP would have benefited so that its outputs could be utilized more effectively; however due to a slow start, the
BDP fell out of sync and WUP had to develop data systems and scenarios to accomplish its mission.
5
2.2
Implementation
Throughout the implementation period, the MRC has remain committed to providing with
adequate financial, human resources, and technical support to the project implementation team.
The MRC has recruited a dedicated international consultant as a main technical coordinator for
the project, and the four countries have assigned experienced staff to manage the project,
particularly for the Component B, which required diplomatic skills in negotiating and adopting
the water utilization Rules among the four countries. Adequate counterpart has been provided
on time by the MRC as well as the four countries. The engagement of the Finance and
Accounting Section of the MRC for handling fiduciary matters was also found effective.
It should also be noted that the project implementation was not always smooth, mainly because
of the political nature of the Rules under the Component B. There was a certain degree of
disagreement among the four countries on the content of the water quality resulting from
difference among the four countries in location (upstream and downstream) and stage of
economic development. Discussions and negotiations among the four member countries to
develop 'Rules', were kept on track mainly because of the personal attention of the Chief
Economic Officer of the MRC.
The Project was extended by one year in order to address the inadequate attention to the
implementation and dissemination at the country level (as discussed in Section 2.1), consolidate
the project's impacts and contribute to the achievement of the project development objectives.
In particular, the extension period focused on: (a) preparation of implementation guidelines for
water utilization Rules (particularly for water quality); (b) training on the use of hydrological
models for line ministries through in-country case studies; and (c) dissemination of the Rules
among key stakeholders, including local governments and riparian communities. In order to
nurture ownership by the member countries, the management of these activities has been
transferred to the country level.
2.3
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization
The M&E system under the project, with clearly defined indicators (refer Section 2.1) was
utilized and implemented by the project. There were no major monitoring issues during the
implementation period.
However, in retrospect, the M&E system would have been more meaningful if there had been
some outcome indicators such as implementation of the Rules and adoption of the models at the
national level so as to enable qualitative measurement to assess the stated project objectives. The
key development objective indicators adopted under the Project are mainly outputs, such as
adoption of water utilization rules by the MRC and development of a functional integrated basin
model. The output indicators defined at appraisal were interim products to the rules and models.
In this way, the M&E system of the project could have been more closely linked with the global
environmental benefit to improve water resources management for the economic and social
development of the basin in an environmentally sustainable manner. Learning from the lessons
from the project, MRC is currently developing a comprehensive M&E system regarding the
6
social, environmental and economic status of the Mekong River, which would be shared by the
MRC's various programs. It is expected that the M&E system would be completed by late 2009.
2.4
Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance
This Project was mainly for technical assistance without any physical investment works.
Therefore, the safeguard policy was not applicable.
During implementation, there was no major procurement and financial management issues. This
is mainly because that the fiduciary part of the project was managed by the Financial and
Accounting Section (FAS) of the MRC, which is independent from the project technical team
and has qualified staff. This arrangement has helped the technical team focus on the technical
issues while adequate check and balance were exercised from fiduciary prospective.
2.5
Post-completion Operation/Next Phase:
The Project produced the expected outputs: (a) a series/suite of trans-boundary hydrological
models and supporting knowledge base, collectively called the decision support framework
(DSF) developed under Component A-1; (b) strengthened environmental flow analyses and
identification of key trans-boundary issues developed under Component A-2; and (c) a set of
water utilization rules developed under Component B. In general, the MRC has taken a series of
immediate steps to consolidate the project outputs and integrate them into either a new or
existing program to achieve eventual sustainability of the project.
Regarding the hydrological models and DSF developed under Component A; the MRC has
developed a new Integrated Knowledge Management Program (IKMP) to further refine the
hydrological models developed under the Project. The purpose was to deepen the understanding
of the hydrological and environmental aspects of the Mekong River, taking advantage of
continued progress in the numeric capacity of computers. Accurate, timely and accessible data
and information on a range of parameters in accordance with the procedures noted below and
contained in the DSF are essential to improved and integrated trans-boundary river basin
management. In particular, the IKMP aims at: (a) adding several data parameters (such as
salinity and sedimentation); (b) engaging China to develop a more comprehensive model
including the upper part of the Mekong River; and (c) improving model interface and output
formats to facilitate the use of the models by policy makers. In addition, the IKMP has put
proper emphasis on capacity building and dissemination of the models and incorporating lessons
learned from the Project. The IKMP has taken over implementation arrangement and is
providing human resources to continue the development of the DSF.
Under Component A-2 (transboundary environment, economic, and social analysis), the project
developed a new approach called Integrated Basin Flow Management (IBFM), in close
collaboration with the MRC's Environmental Program (EP). This approach was applied in
preparing the technical guidelines supporting the procedures for mainstream flow maintenance
set out below. The IBFM will continue under the EP.
Under Component B, the Project developed principles and frameworks for water utilization
rules. As pressures on the water resources in the Mekong River substantially increase due to
7
economic development in the region and the global food and energy shortage, after the
completion of the project, the MRC has taken the following actions to finalize the guidelines and
has begun implementing them on the ground at the national level:
Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement. This procedure (PNPCA) is becoming
critical because of the accelerated hydropower development and potential effects of
climate change on Mekong River flows. The MRC assigned its Internal Communication
and Coordination Section (ICCS) and the Basin Development Program (BDP) of the
MRCS to take over these responsibilities, and defined MRCS' internal procedures. Full
implementation is expected soon;
Data and Information Exchange and Sharing and Water Use Monitoring. These
procedures (PDIES and PWUM) were transferred to the IKMP and are fully operational;
Maintenance of Flows on the Mainstream and Water Quality. The first set of procedures
(PMFM) has been adopted by the MRC Council and the second set (PWQ) is awaiting
adoption. The next step is to further refine and finalize the technical guideline to
implement these rules. Since completion of the Project, the MRC has been implementing
its Environmental Program (EP) until a possible follow-up project is in place.
Currently, the Bank and AusAID are jointly planning a follow-up project for FY10 entitled the
Mekong Integrated Water Resources Management Project (M-IWMRP) designed to provide
continued support to the MRC as well as the four member countries, to adopt integrated water
resources management. The M-IWRMP is a regional project, and it would not only support the
finalization of the procedures for Water Quality and Maintenance of Flows on the Mainstream,
but also provide the four member countries with technical assistance, capacity building and
institutional development to implement the Rules at the national level. M-IWRMP would also
include outreach to riparian communities through its capacity building and critical infrastructure
investments for poverty alleviation.
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is also planning to provide the Government of Lao PDR
with support focusing on the capacity building for the integrated water resources management;
part of the support is to help the Government implement the procedures on water quality
supported by the project.
3.
Assessment of Outcomes
3.1
Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation
The objective of the Project was considered relevant to the four countries in terms of sustainable
development. The project, focused on the sustainable water resources management, was
consistent with the Country Assistance Strategies for Thailand, Lao PDR, Vietnam, and
Cambodia, all of which identified natural resources management as key for poverty alleviation
and sustainable economic growth.
As stated in the background section of this paper, the Mekong River is of social, economic, and
environmental importance in the region, particularly for the riparian communities which are
largely rural poor. The River's biodiversity, which includes several endangered aquatic species
such as the fresh water dolphin, fresh water ray and the giant catfish, is of high global value. In
the meantime, utilization of the water resources in the Mekong River, especially for navigation,
8
hydropower and irrigation purposes, is critical to sustaining high economic growth in the region.
Therefore, socially and environmentally sustainable water resources development and
management are critical for the six riparian countries of the Mekong River Basin. This goal can
be achieved only by regional cooperation and collaboration given the trans-boundary nature and
issues of shared water resources.
The timing for the Project was most appropriate. By 1999, the region had already started
recovery from the so-called Asian Financial Crisis that started in mid 1997. Accordingly, plans
for many hydropower projects, which had been suspended during the financial crisis, were
restarted. In addition, the atmosphere for regional cooperation was emerging due mainly to the
political stability. The four Mekong riparian countries that signed the Mekong Agreement and
established the MRC in 1995, with the objective of achieving sustainable water and related
resources development in the Mekong River Basin, were committed to working jointly to
develop a common knowledge base and regional rules/procedures for water utilization. The
Project, aimed at supporting the MRC, began at this very critical time.
However, it should be noted that the second part of the project objective was defined somewhat
too broadly. As stated in Section 1.2, the broad objective as stated in the PAD, is to assist the
MRC to establish mechanism to promote and improve coordinated and sustainable water
management in the Basin. This objective is directly related to the project component. However,
the PAD also stated "the Project would promote protection of sensitive ecological systems
including wetlands, flooded forests, and the estuary system that support globally significant bio-
diversity". While the Rules developed under the Component B, and a transboundary
environmental, social, and economic analysis takes the ecological factor into consideration to
develop a concept of the minimum environmental flow, this statement was not directly linked to
the project component and was difficult to achieve.
3.2
Achievement of Global Environmental Objectives
As stated in Section 1.2, the broad objective of the project is to assist the MRC to establish
mechanisms to promote and improve coordinated and sustainable water management in the
basin, including reasonable and equitable water utilization by the countries of the Basin and
protection of the environment, aquatic life and the ecological balance of the Basin. While outputs
of the Project were produced as planned at appraisal, the project achieved this objective only
partially. This is why the (MS) marginally satisfactory rate was made.
Through the development of the DSF and the development and adoption of a series of water
utilization procedures, the Project has contributed to the achievement of the broad objective
stated in the PAD. The objective has been only partially met, mainly because it was too broadly
stated in proportion to the planned activities under the project. During implementation period,
the MRC was not able to complete the guidelines for procedures on Water Quality and
maintenance flows; the MRC was also not able to nurture the adequate human resources at the
national level to apply the DSF and implement the procedures and rules to be agreed by the
MRC.
9
However, it should be noted that the stated overall objective was too broadly stated in proportion
to the project scope, and that the project has produced a satisfactory output. The project has
helped the MRC to develop the DSF, a functional, integrated and comprehensive Basin modeling
package (Key indicator #1 in Section 1,2), contributed to development of a functional and
integrated knowledge base linking the MRC and NMCs (Key indicator #2) through
establishment of a inter-governmental technical working groups, and adoption of protocols for
information exchange, water use monitoring and preliminary notification has been adopted (Key
indicator #3). Adoption of provincial in-stream flow rules and provisional water quality rules
(Key indicators #4 and #5) have been largely completed but not adopted due to the time
constraints.
Nevertheless, it should also be noted that the MRC has already put a transitional arrangement to
finalize the guidelines for the Rules on Water Quality and Water Flows, and started to apply the
procedures for notification and procedures, and consultation (PNPCA) for mainstream dams,
which might have significant environmental and social impacts. It is expected that this broad
objective would be achieved eventually.
On one hand, the formulation of the development objectives should have been closely linked to
the project scope and realistic. In particular, the project would not be able to achieve equitable
water utilization or protection of the environmental, aquatic life and the ecological balance of the
basin, as the project was to help develop a hydrological model, transboundary environmental and
social analysis, and a series of water utilization Rules, all of which would be the basis for
equitable water utilization and protection of aquatic life.
3.3
Efficiency
The Project was mainly designed to provide technical assistance, so, instead of financial and
economic analyses, an incremental cost analysis was carried out at appraisal. The analysis set
out the baseline cost (i.e. without the Project) and the alternative (i.e. with the Project), identified
the benefits and incremental costs, and estimated the project cost to be financed by the GEF.
In preparing for this implementation completion report (ICR), the analysis was reviewed. In
principle, the implementation of the Project was considered to be adequately efficient. The
Project did experience some cost-over runs for Component A: Basin Modeling and Knowledge
Base Building mainly because a separate model had to be developed for the Mekong Delta.
However, the MRC, the member countries, and Finland provided required financial to cover the
cost.
During the one-year extension period, the MRC and the member countries also provided
additional resources to support the project staff and logistic cost.
3.4
Justification of Overall Outcome Rating
Rating: Moderately Satisfactory
On the positive side, The Project satisfactorily achieved expected outputs. The MRC and the
four member countries have put in place a credible transitional arrangement within the MRC to
10
consolidate the Project outcomes to make them sustainable. The Bank is also planning a follow
up project in this context.
However, as stated in Section 3.1, overall outcome rating is considered to be moderately
satisfactory due to the fact that the project's broad objective was met partially, for the following
reasons: (a) technical guidelines on Rules on water flows and quality were not finalized; and (b)
human resources at the national level to implement the Rules and procedures were not adequate.
Notwithstanding the overall outcome rating, it should be noted that the MRC has already taken
the actions to place a transitional arrangement and help its member countries start implementing
the agreed rules/procedures for high priority cases such as the mainstream dams.
3.5
Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts
(a)
Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development
The Project was mainly designed to provide technical assistance. Although the outcome of the
Project is to help establish an effective mechanism for the equitable and coordinated water
resources management, it also generally contributed to poverty alleviation through safeguarding
the riparian communities in the Mekong Basin. Even though the Project itself was not designed
to have direct impacts on poverty, gender or social development, the outcome is consistent with
and promotes the MRC strategic plans in this regard.
(b)
Institutional Change/Strengthening:
The Project made a significant contribution in strengthening the capacity of the MRC as well as
the member countries by establishing a set of multi-national working groups through the NMCs.
These groups played a critical role in discussing and negotiating various technical matters,
drafting of the various procedures, and making recommendations to senior management of the
respective governments and to the MRC Joint Committee and Council. Many of these groups
have become permanent and have been taken over by various programs of the MRC; they
continue to serve the MRC and the member countries. The following is a summary of the
functions of these groups.
Technical Assistance and Coordination Team (TACT) comprised of technical experts
from the member countries and the MRCS provides a forum to support the
implementation of two procedures developed under the Project: (a) data and
information exchange and sharing, and (b) water use monitoring. The TACT has
now been transferred to the IKMP with continued financial support from various
donors including the Government of Finland.
Technical Review Group (TRG) was established to develop the technical guidelines
for implementing the following procedures: (a) maintenance flows on the
mainstream, and (b) water quality. The TRG was transferred to the EP to maintain
momentum in finalizing the guidelines.
Technical Coordination Group (TCG) was established to discuss and agree on
updating the hydrological models developed under the Project. The TCG is
comprised of representatives of the member countries and is chaired by the Director
11
of the Technical Service Department (TSD) of the MRC; TSD was responsible for
maintaining the models. Upon completion of the Project, the TCG was transferred to
IKMP with full financial resources along with TSD responsibilities for maintaining
the models.
In addition to these three groups, the Project contributed to strengthening the human resources
capacity for hydrological modeling at the national level in several ways. First, the Project
supported an internship program which engaged junior water resources engineers nominated by
the member countries in developing the hydrological models. Many of these junior engineers
have returned to the National Mekong Committee (NMCs) of their respective government; the
NMCs are responsible for water resources development in the Mekong River Basin within their
respective countries. Second, during the extension period, the Project focused on increasing the
technical capacity of developing hydrological models at the national level. In particular, the
Project adopted a case study approach where technical experts of the MRC and the government
staff jointly developed detailed and focused hydrological models for high priority areas of
development (e.g., hydropower, flood mitigation, irrigation).
(c)
Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts:
Coincidentally the Project contributed to climate change awareness and adaptation. Since 2006,
there has been a greater awareness of the impacts of climate change in the Mekong sub-region.
Under the Project, the MRC initiated the development of a specific model to assess the potential
impacts of climate change on the flow regimes of the Mekong River, using the DSF and
hydrological model developed under the Project as the main tool. Upon completion of the
Project, this initiative was taken over by the EP with financial support from the Government of
Australia. In addition, the Bank provided a grant to Thailand to develop a hydro-agricultural
model for the Isan Region, a part of the Mekong River Basin tributaries in Thailand, to help
adopt climate change impacts on agriculture. The hydro-agriculture model would be developed
based on the hydrological model developed under the Project and be available for application by
other MRC member countries.
It should also be noted that the Project has encouraged mutual technical support among the
member countries. In particular, the Project supported technical training carried out by Vietnam
NMC and Thailand NMC to Cambodia NMC and Lao NMC. This collaboration further
increased the trust among the member countries and strengthened the `Mekong Spirit of
Cooperation' among the countries. This is essential for coordination and partnership of water
resources development, and particularly for efforts at implementing integrated water resources
and river basin management (IWRM and IRBM) in the Mekong River Basin.
3.6
Stakeholder Workshops
While this is a core ICR, regional workshops were organized by the MRCS in Vientiane on May
7, 2008 and on June 16, 2008, inviting the representatives of the member countries to exchange
views on project design and lessons learned from implementation, and to further discuss and
agree on the transitional arrangements.
12
At the workshops, the representatives generally endorsed the project design and confirmed that
the objectives were relevant to support the implementation of the Mekong Agreement. The
implementation arrangements, particularly the three key technical groups (Section 5.3), have
been effective and robust and remain valid after eight years. Implementation of the Project was
also found to be satisfactory in general, as the project outcomes have met the appraisal targets
despite some delays. The coordination with other co-financers (Finland, Japan, and France) was
also commended.
However, in retrospect, there are a few lessons learned from project design and implementation.
On the project design side, capacity building with adequate resources at the national level should
not have been overlooked. Urgent action at the community level (i.e. investment and capacity
building) is also critical to effectively coordinate water resources utilization and prevent or
mitigate conflicts among stakeholders. Technical assistance itself cannot attain improved water
utilization and poverty reduction.
On implementation, coordination within the Project could have been better. In particular, the
hydrological models developed under Component A-1 and the water utilization procedures/rules
developed under Component C were not as well coordinated as planned at appraisal. Improved
coordination with the BDP would have resulted in synergies between the water utilization rules
and a basin development scenario.
The outcome of the second workshop on June 16, 2008, during which time each country
presented winding down reports, is summarized in the lessons learned in Section 6 below.
4.
Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome
Rating: Moderate
At appraisal, the Bank project team had carried out a comprehensive and realistic risk analysis,
as summarized in the Section F.2 of the Project Appraisal Document (PAD). The analysis
comprises the following risks: (a) political (disagreement among the countries towards adopting
the rules, participation of China and Myanmar), (b) managerial (MRC's implementation
capacity), (c) technical (selection of the model), and (d) financial (co-financing). The risk rating
of S was appropriate and a series of mitigation measures set out and incorporated in the project
design were adequate. For example, implementation of the Project was directly under the
supervision of the CEO of the MRC to ensure proper internal supervision and monitoring;
engagement of China was limited to essential technical matters; and the implementation period
was set at seven years anticipating potential political complications. This `cautious' approach
resulted in the satisfactory implementation of the Project without major issues.
At completion, an independent evaluation of project implementation carried out by the MRC
confirmed that the risks identified were adequately addressed by design or refinement of
implementation measures. The evaluation also concluded that due to the high level of
accomplishments of the Project, particularly in comparison to other MRC programs, the overall
risk rating of S (substantial), was overcome with the commitment and efforts of the MRC and the
implementation teams.
13
5.
Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance
5.1
Bank Performance
(a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry (i.e., performance through lending
phase)
Rating: Satisfactory
The Bank performance during the lending period was satisfactory in general.
As stated in Section 3.1, the project's development objective was rather broadly stated and
should have been closely linked to the project scope. The project was to develop a hydrological
model, transboundary environmental and social analysis, and a series of water utilization Rules,
all of which would be the basis for equitable water utilization and protection of aquatic life.
Nevertheless, the preparatory works for the project should also be fairly evaluated; the Bank
preparation team has carried out extensive consultations with the MRC, the four member
countries, and the donor community in order to identify the priorities and critical gaps
institutional, legal, and human resources to define the basic project design. The principal design
of the project, including project components, institutional arrangement, and implementation
period is considered adequate. Appropriate assessments on the risk and mitigation measures
were also in place.
(b) Quality of Supervision (including fiduciary and safeguards policies)
Rating: Satisfactory
During the entire implementation period of eight years, the Bank team carried out adequate
supervision covering technical, institutional, and fiduciary aspects. During the first half of
implementation (2000-2003), the supervision's focus was to provide technical guidance on the
choice of the hydrological models, and monitoring the progress in developing two sets of water
utilization rules/procedures (PDIES and interim PNPCA). Extensive coordination with the
relevant donors was carried out to smoothen the co-financing. Considering the implementation
capacity risk, fiduciary aspects were also emphasized. During the next three years (2004-2006),
the focus shifted to progression of the water utilization rules/procedures, (particularly finalizing
the PNPCA), water use monitoring, maintenance of flows on the mainstream, and the water
quality. Monitoring missions also provided the MRC with technical guidance on the IBFM,
which is considered to be a challenge. During the last two years (2007-2008), Bank task
management team had been decentralized to the field and focus shifted to finalizing the
transitional arrangements, increasing capacity building at the country level, and developing the
concept for a follow up project in order to consolidate and perpetuate the project outcome.
The project rating has been downgraded from S (satisfactory) to MS (moderately satisfactory)
during the last supervision mission. This is because the technical guidelines for the water flow
and water quality were not finalized at completion and the transitional arrangement had not been
put in place yet. The mission had worked extensively with the MRC and other donors to help
put the transitional arrangement as set out in Section 2.5.
14
In addition to project supervision, the Bank team contributed to donor coordination and policy
dialogue with the MRC. The Bank participated in donor consultation group (DCG) meetings and
key management meetings organized by the MRC, as the Bank had obtained the status of an
`observer' of the MRC. During the meetings, the Bank provided policy advice in the
formulation of the MRC Strategic Plan approved in early 2007. Further, the Bank team also
contributed to the development of a regional assistance strategy for the Mekong Region that
started in early 2005. Along with the transport and power sectors, water resources have been
recognized as one of the key sectors for the countries in the region to achieve sustainable
economic growth. The section on water resources emphasized the necessity for regional
collaboration, and is quoted in The "Greater Mekong Region - Regional Strategy Note" that was
finalized and presented to the World Bank's Board of Directors in June 2007.
(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance
Rating: Satisfactory
As stated in Sections (a) and (b) above, from lending to supervision stages, Bank task
management team provided continuous and consistent technical guidance to the MRC and the
four member countries to implement the project. The team has also been engaged in extensive
donor coordination and policy dialogue to establish timely arrangement of the transitional
arrangement to sustain the project outcome and contribute to development of the broader strategy
for the MRC.
5.2
Borrower Performance
(a) Government Performance
Rating: Satisfactory.
This project involves the four governments as bodies to constitute the MRC: Thailand,
Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam. The overall governments' performance is found to be
satisfactory. All the four countries fully cooperated with the MRC in implementing the project;
these countries have assigned qualified staff from the line agencies to establish a riparian team at
the MRC, and established a national team within their respective NMCs with adequate human
and financial resources. The four NMCs played an important role as interlocutors, linking the
MRC with the respective line ministries involving not only the agriculture and water ministries,
but also the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to proactively support and encourage regional dialogue
to establish a set of new rules and procedures.
(b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance
Rating: Satisfactory
Overall, it should be acknowledged that the MRC fulfilled its project management
responsibilities, fully engaging the four member countries and sustaining the momentum of
15
implementing the project to achieve the expected outputs. From project administration point of
view, the MRC has maintained the core project staff with adequate counterpart funds on a timely
basis, and carried out its fiduciary responsibilities (financial management and procurement) with
no major issues through fully engaging the Financial Section of the MRC.
(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance
Rating: Satisfactory
Overall, the performance of the Government and the implementation agency (MRC)
performance was considered to be satisfactory mainly because of the reasons stated in Section (a)
and (b) above.
From the technical point of view, in retrospect, MRC could have paid more attention to the
outcome of the project. While the Project did not require the adoption of technical guidelines for
implementation of the procedures; these were considered essential at national levels. In addition,
the final supervision mission raised concern about the sustainability of the hydrological models
from financial and human resources viewpoints.
However, the MRC has taken concrete steps to respond to these points after completion of the
project. In September 2008, the MRC began to implement the procedures for notification, prior
consultation and agreement for the accelerated hydropower development, particularly
mainstream dams, which are one of the most critical issues in maintaining the environment and
ecologies of the Mekong River. In particular, the MRC disseminated the procedures and
technical guidelines among the private hydropower developers, and defined internal processes
for implementing these procedures by the MRCS. The MRC has engaged the EP to take over the
process of developing guidelines for the maintenance of flows in the mainstream and water
quality to keep up the momentum and be prepared for implementation in light of the accelerated
hydropower development in the Mekong River Basin. Further, the sustainability of the
hydrological models has been resolved at least for a few years, as the responsibilities have been
transferred to the IKMP with adequate financial support from various donors including the
Government of Finland.
6.
Lessons Learned
As stated in Section 3.1 above, the project design in principle was practical and realistic;
however, the following lessons have been drawn from the implementation of the Project
regarding project designs and implementation. As the project is one of the most unique Bank
funded project in terms of technical assistance project supporting the river basin organization and
engaging multiple countries, the lessons may not applicable to such projects only;
(a) Project Approach and Designs
Focusing on Consensus Building. One important lesson learned from the Project is the need
to develop consensus through dual/parallel track approaches to forge an agreement on
various technical matters in an international river organization. In the case of the MRC, the
four countries differ in terms of geographical location (upstream/downstream) as well as the
level of the development; therefore, the demand for the water resources development differs
16
substantially from country to country. The Project adopted a method of formal negotiations
among representatives from the respective governments, comprising technical (line
ministries) and legal/administrative (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) aspects. These
negotiations often encountered difficulties in the early stage as participants from one country
did not understand other countries' positions. The process for developing Rules would have
been more efficient if the Project had organized more informal national and regional
workshops and by inviting additional stakeholders to deepen their understanding of each
country's view to help develop consensus among the member countries. A formal meeting
would then be organized only after certain achievements and understandings have been
assured.
Strengthening the Human Resources at the MRC and the countries. As the Project considered
the hydrological models and the rules/procedures as the project's main outputs, the Project
should have included a detailed plan for human resources development both at the MRC and
the country level. In an international river organization, the quality of riparian staff (i.e. staff
with nationality of the member countries) is the most crucial factor to ensure ownership and
sustainability. Application of the hydrological models and the implementation of the Rules
and procedures requires adequate human resources at the country level. The Project could
have put more effort into this aspect of the project design. In particular, the following issues
have been identified;
Retaining core technical staff. Some of the trained technical staff had to leave the
MRC after a few years of engagement in the Project due mainly to its staff rule (ref.
Article 33 of the Mekong Agreement), which limits staff tenure to 6 years. The
Article also sets out the possible exceptions, and it would have been better if this
exception were applied to key technical staff, particularly for those who developed
the hydrological models in order to retain the institutional knowledge and provide
trainers for training for junior staff. 3
In order to develop human resources at the national level in a cost effective way, the
following options should be considered: (a) secondment of personnel from the NMCs
to MRC to provide the concerned NMC staff with on-the-job training to familiarize
themselves with the hydrological models and their applications, and (b) promoting
mutual support among member countries (e.g., Vietnam NMC successfully
supporting Cambodian NMC), which is not only cost effective, but also very useful in
strengthening the partnership among the riparian countries. Such mutual support
could be institutionalized by the MRC.
Technical staff from the line ministries of the member countries should be invited to
carry out case studies in order to provide hands-on training on the DSF and
strengthen the linkage among the MRC, the NMC, and the line agencies. The case
studies supported during the extension period were to be very effective in providing
line ministries with hands-on training for applying the hydrological models to assess
national investments for the water resources developments. This would also help the
3 The staff rule has also set out the exception, but the exception has not been used.
17
MRC in strengthening its linkages with the line ministries and make the MRC
relevant to the infrastructure development process.
Communication Strategy A better communication strategy to the stakeholder regarding the
application of the hydrological models and water utilization procedures could have been
considered. The DSF is now used as the main tool for planning water resources investments.
However, sources of the models need to be disclosed to the general public for independent
review and examination, at least through a step-by-step approach to confirm the accuracy and
robustness to make the model more credible and trustworthy; otherwise, the model would be
considered as a black box that cannot be evaluated objectively. Further, the progress and
final outcome of the water utilization procedures would have been disclosed and
disseminated not only to the line ministries, but also to the riparian communities and local
governments which were directly affected by the procedures.
(b) Project Implementation.
Use of long-term international consultants. While the project was managed by a riparian
project team leader, the Project provided financing of a full time international consultant as a
coordinator to support the project team leader during most of implementation. It appeared
that long-term reliance on international consultants does not lead to the effective capacity
building for riparian staff which is essential for the sustainability of the project outcome.
This issue was one of the major concerns of the member countries. For the future projects in
the MRC, it is recommended that the use of a long-term international consultant should be
reviewed carefully and supplementary capacity building plan for the riparian staff should be
prepared.
Engagement of the Financial and Accounting Section. As stated in Section 2.4, the key to
the satisfactory performance of the fiduciary aspects (financial management and
procurement) was the engagement of the Financial and Accounting Section of the MRC in
carrying out these responsibilities. This arrangement was effective for: (a) managing a
multiple donors' accounts, (b) monitoring the activities at the national level (the technical
team focus on the technical matters, whereas the Financial and Accounting Section
supervises the financial transactions carried out by the NMC. Following the Project, the
MRC has adopted a similar approach for all programs.
Developing a strategy for upgrading a hydrological model. It would have been useful if the
strategy for upgrading the hydrological model was developed before the completion of the
project so that follow up actions could have taken in a timely manner. The Project has
successfully developed the first generation trans-boundary hydrological computerized model;
however, the capacity of the computer has increased continuously, and the model needs
continuous upgrading such as: increasing the accuracy and resolution; adding some
parameters (sediment, salinity, etc.); improving user-friendly interfaces, and conversion to
GIS-GPS based programs. It should also be noted that some part of the hydrological model
depended on the program which requires expensive license fee, and the dissemination and
promotion of the use require financial resources.
18
7.
Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners
(a) Borrower/implementing agencies
The MRC has in general agreed with the rating and review of this report, and provided with no
comments. Lessons learned presented in this report would be incorporated in a follow up
operation in the future.
(b) Cofinanciers
The following comments were provided by Finland.
Considering the results of WUP, we have to remember that the program
started in 2000 and was planned and designed before that based on the
knowledge and possibilities available on that time. For the time being
we would know better and plan many things to be done in the different
way. The capability, capacity and especially commitment of the member
countries and NMRCs were also on reasonable weak level when the program
started and that is one reason why the role of international consultant
has been so strong. The riparianization of the MRC is supported
including also increasing financial responsibility of the member
countries. All of this needs still capacity building, which was maybe
not considered enough in the planning and design of the program.
We agree that the work has been very useful and most of the objectives
have been reached. The most important aspect is that the work is
continuing especially in IKMP but also it is utilized in other
programs of MRC. Utilization of the results guarantees sustainability
of the program also in the future and the methods and information
provided by the program should be used as basis for the decision
making in the MRC member countries.
(c) Other partners and stakeholders
N/A
19
Annex 1: Project Costs and Financing
(a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million
Actual/Latest
Appraisal Estimate
Percentage of
Components
Estimate (USD
(USD millions)
Appraisal
millions)
BASIN MODELING &
KNOWLEDGE BASE
9.10 11.41
125%
BUILDING
RULES FOR WATER
1.20 1.53
128%
UTILIZATION
INSTITUTIONAL
4.70 5.48
117%
STRENGTHENING
Total Baseline Cost
Physical Contingencies
0.00
N/A
Price Contingencies
1.20
N/A
Total Project Costs
16.20 18.42
Project Preparation Facility (PPF)
0.00
0.00
Front-end fee IBRD
N/A
N/A
Total Financing Required
16.20
18.42
The project cost was increased due mainly to more elaboration on the hydrological model. The cost was mainly
financed by Finland.
(b) Financing
Appraisal
Actual/Latest
Type of
Estimate
Estimate
Percentage of
Source of Funds
Cofinancing (USD
(USD
Appraisal
millions)
millions)
Borrower (MRC)
Counterpart 2.50
1.83
73
Government of Japan (parallel)
Parallel
1.0
1.00
100
Government of Finland (parallel)
Parallel
1.2
4.01
333
Government of France (parallel)
Parallel
0.60
0.59
98
Global Environment Facility (GEF)
11.0
11.00
100
20
Annex 2: Outputs by Component
The following provides a progress summary of each of the three project components.
Component A-1. Development of Basin Modeling Package and Knowledge Base. This
component was implemented in a satisfactory manner in general. The implementation of this
component was entrusted to MRCS's Modeling Team (named as Working Group 1). The output
of this component is the formulation of a set of hydrological models named Decision Support
Framework (DSF), which comprises a suite of analytical modeling tools and a knowledge
management system to support MRC in the identification and planning of different development
scenarios. The model has become a core asset of the MRC, widely shared among the various
programs. The member countries have also jointly endorsed the DSF to be the standard tool to
assess the impacts of infrastructure development on water resources in the main basin. The three
legal covenants related to the DSF have been fully met within the stipulated period.
During the last 12 months, the MRCS focused on developing capacity at country level to
promote application of the DSF modeling tools to the various line agencies. In particular, the
MRCS had NMCs carry out a series of case studies to apply the DSF to assessments on the
tributaries with the concerned line ministries. Thailand NMC and Vietnam NMC have proven
their capacities to run the DSF on their own, whereas the Lao NMC and the Cambodia NMC
may require further hands-on support.
The MRCS also put in place transitional arrangements to maintain and sustain the DSF; namely,
the MRC's Integrated Knowledge Management Program (IKMP) will take over the
responsibility for the DSF; IKMP has also been nearly fully funded by Finland to continue
improving the current system.
Component A-2: Environmental and Transboundary Analysis: This component was
implemented in a moderately satisfactory manner in general, with the scope and constraints
discussed above. The objectives of this component were to provide environmental, economic and
social transboundary analysis tools and assessments to support preparation of the technical
guidelines for several procedures adopted under Component C and to include identifying key
transboundary issues and application of GEF's Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and
Strategic Action Program (SAP) approach. The main outputs of this component based on key
performance indicators were:
1. Trans-boundary Analysis: Various trans-boundary analyses were carried out in 2001 and
2002 culminating in the introduction in early 2003 of Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis
(TDA) to improve environmental management. TDA was introduced to the MRC in support
of the Basin Development Plan (BDP) and Environment Program (EP) activities.
2. Technical inputs to support developing the Technical Guidelines for Implementation of the
Procedures for the Maintenance of Flows on the Mainstream required enabling adoption of
provisional in-stream flow "rules" (including defining and proposing environmental and
minimum flows) which are continuing to be refined through a program of activities at the
MRCS entitled Integrated Basin Flow Management (IBFM). Two specific outputs from this
effort were: a comprehensive review and assessment of available hydro-meteorological data
for the Basin summarized in a report entitled Overview of the Hydrology of the Mekong
21
Basin (MRCS 2005), and a numerical description of the existing baseline flow regime of the
Lower Mekong Basin (LMB) in the form of draft Technical Guidelines for Implementation of
the Procedures for Maintenance of Flows (MRCS 2004).
3. Technical inputs to support initial development of the Technical Guidelines for
Implementation of the Rules for Water Quality through a program of activities at the MRCS
entitled Integrated Water Quality Management (IWQM) required to enable adoption of
provisional water quality procedures (PWQ) by the MRC Joint Committee and approved in
principle by the Council.
In summary, on the positive side, under this component, the MRC developed and established a
new concept of an integrated basin flow management (IBFM) approach under Component A-2,
which developed a sound scientific basis for assessing the flows to be maintained on the
mainstream to protect economic, social and environmental interests of the concerned
communities. IBFM transboundary flow assessments were carried out under Component A-2
using the DSF developed under Component A-1, and contributed substantially to a better and
objective understanding of the hydrological aspects of the Mekong.
Component B: Development for the Rules for Water Utilization. The implementation of this
component is found moderately satisfactory mainly due to the difficulties to finalize agreed
technical guidelines to implement the procedures for water flow and quality. While the Project
was designed to and did achieve the adoption of three `procedural rules' namely, the procedures
for notification, prior consultation and agreement (PNPCA), procedures for data and information
exchange and sharing (PDIES), and procedures for water use monitoring (PWUM), the Project
was not able to fully fulfill its expectations for the two `physical' rules, namely Procedures for
Maintenance of Flow on the Mainstream (PMFM), and Procedures for Water Quality (PWQ).
The PMFM was adopted by the MRC Council; however, implementation of the PMFM is not
possible in a foreseeable future due to the delay in finalizing the technical guidelines which
remain in draft awaiting Joint Committee approval. The PWQ were approved by the MRC Joint
Committee, but the Project was not able to formally adopt the procedures for water quality
(PWQ) due mainly to the political crisis in Thailand starting mid 2006; although agreed to by the
other three Council members, it was not adopted by the MRC Council because Thailand was
unable to discuss this matter as the interim government has not authorized cabinet endorsement
during 2007, and the newly establish governments in early 2008 and mid 2008 were not able to
focus on this agenda in the midst of political turmoil. At this moment, the adoption of the PWQ
is not certain; the PWQ are not yet accepted by the Government of Thailand, and thus it cannot
be put into effect as the MRC Council has not adopted it. Even if it is adopted by MRC Council,
implementation of the PWQ in the lower Mekong basin would require institutional strengthening
of Lao PDR and Cambodia. Preparation of the technical guidelines for PWQ has begun but
cannot proceed further until the PWQ is adopted by the Council.
However, it should be noted that the despite these implementation issues, the MRC has
continued to elaborate on the technical guidelines for the PMFM and PWQ even beyond the
completion of the project by engaging the services of the IKMP and EP.
22
Component C. Institutional Strengthening of MRC and NMC to implement the Project.
Implementation of this component is considered satisfactory. The program has been managed in
general in a satisfactory manner without any major issue on the fiduciary aspects.
Project Management Support (C1) At the MRC, the WUP has been managed by a team of four
riparian experts; three of them lead working groups responsible for each component, and one
serves as team leader. The team was supported by a full time international expert. At the
member country level within the national NMC, two staff (WUP coordinator and WUP assistant)
has been assigned to form a WUP national team and together the eight staff will form a regional
team to provide guidance to the MRC WUP Team. The WUP coordinators have played more
substantive role during the extension period when certain activities have been delegated to the
NMCs. In the mission's view, this arrangement was effective to implement the Project.
In summary, the following achievements are noted:
Technical Training and Capacity Building (C2). In general, the Project was effective to
strengthen the MRC and NMCs through extensive engagement in the process of developing
the DSF and computer models, and the rules/procedures and guidelines. The Project has
effectively engaged the technical staff at the MRC as well as at country level to develop the
hydrological model and negotiate over the water rules. During the extension period, the
Project has focused on the development of human resources at the NMCs and line ministries;
this approach has been adopted under the IKMP to some extent.
Communications, Participation, and Public Awareness (C3). In general, there has been no
major achievement in this subcomponent, except for a few stakeholder workshops carried out
to disseminate the outcome of the agreed procedures and technical guidelines to the
stakeholders. In retrospect, this subcomponent should have supported the broader MRC's
communication strategy, rather than a project-specific communication support.
Participation in GEF Regional and Global Programs (C4). The outcome of this
subcomponent is modest. The Project has supported the MRC to participate in some global
programs, such as the World Water Forum, to exchange views on the international river
management. The MRC has also received delegations from the Nile River Basin to exchange
experience and learn from each other.
23
Annex 3: Economic and Financial Analysis
The Project is exclusively technical assistance, and a conventional economic and financial
analysis has not been carried out.
24
Annex 4: Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes
(a) Task Team members
Responsibility/
Names
Title
Unit
Specialty
Lending
Supervision/ICR
Guy J. Alaerts
Lead Water Resources Specialist
EASRE
Greg J. Browder
Sr Water Resources Spec.
LCSUW
Toru Konishi
Senior Economist
EASRE
Chinnakorn Chantra
Procurement Specialist
EAPCO
Kannathee Danaisawat
Financial Management Specialist EAPCO
Yoshiharu Kobayashi
Sr Water Resources Specialist
MNSSD
Oithip Mongkolsawat
Senior Procurement Specialist
EAPCO
Douglas C. Olson
Lead Water Resource Specialist
LCSEN
Cuong Hung Pham
Senior Operations Officer
EASVS
Manida Unkulvasapaul
Sr Environmental Specialist
EASRE
(b) Staff Time and Cost
Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)
Stage of Project Cycle
USD Thousands (including
No. of staff weeks
travel and consultant costs)
Lending
FY96
FY97
FY98
Data not available
122.74
FY99
Data not available
76.75
FY00
20.36
80.27
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
Total:
20.36 279.76
Supervision/ICR
FY96
FY97
25
FY98
Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)
Stage of Project Cycle
USD Thousands (including
No. of staff weeks
travel and consultant costs)
FY99
FY00
1.90
7.85
FY01
17.88
83.47
FY02
17.08
76.39
FY03
17.62
71.52
FY04
15.61
78.91
FY05
8.97
43.36
FY06
15.23
97.81
FY07
15.95
71.26
FY08
10.72
42.55
FY09 9.37
62.44
Total:
120.96 635.56
26
Annex 5: Beneficiary Survey Results
While there was no formal beneficiary survey for the project, an extensive consultation with the
NMCs has been carried out in conjunction with an independent evaluation of the project
commissioned by the MRC, which took place in May 2007. The interview included an
evaluation survey followed by a 1-2 day interviews with each. The survey was designed to get
the views from each NMC on the project in general including the approach, outputs, lessons
learned and recommendation for a possible future follow up operation. The following is a brief
summary of the results.
Cambodia NMC & Joint Committee Representative
The CNMC viewed that the project design was good and realistic. The project is very important
and useful for implementation of the 1995 Mekong Agreement and utilization and sharing of
benefits of the Mekong River System; it strengthened cooperation among the MRC member
countries and helped harmonization of position of MRC members. Although it was on an ad hoc
base, the project has also offered an opportunity for mutual learning. The VNMC provided
CNMC with a one-week training and application course to address some commonly shared
border water issues. This would be scaled up and institutionalized.
Overall implementation has also been satisfactory with concrete outputs; in addition, the project
has made good impacts on improving the technical capabilities of the CNMC and line agencies.
The CNMC feels that the project outputs have not been yet fully consolidated, and continued
support is needed. In particular, for the hydrological model, the most critical issue is data
updating; even though the PDIES and PWUM are in place, some countries do not send their data
to the MRCS in a timely fashion. The CNMC also sees that the MRC needs to work on
improving the procedures developed under the project, as these procedures are now under the
authority of the MRC Procedures. Lastly, the CNMC feels that special attention should be given
to a continued capacity building program in order to strengthen the riparian staff at the MRC as
well as NMCs, as the MRC has accelerated full "riparianization", phasing out international staff.
Lao PDR NMC
The LNMC's view is that the project has met project requirements; the project design and
implementation were good and much was accomplished in the original components. The
hydrological model is considered very complex and a follow-up would be necessary to apply the
model to national issues to address acute water resources issues such as floods and hydropower
development. In this context, the training carried out during the extension period was valuable,
based on the national cases.
The procedures that were negotiated and finalized are very important. The PWQ was completed
and accepted by the JC but were not adopted by the Council due to a political reason, and MRC
should not be considered at fault for this. The most critical issue is how to implement the
procedures in the future, particularly in the context of IWRM.
27
Thailand NMC
The overall assessment of WUP is moderately satisfactory. In particular, TNMC's concerns are
about weak monitoring and evaluation, team management. The design of the project could have
been better if the project focused on technical knowledge on water resources management before
tackling the legal issues. The project implementation could have been more flexible to respond
to the reality.
While there was good progress on the hydrological model, the knowledge base and use of the
model could have been better; at this moment, the model is quite limited in use and information.
The project could have also focused more on the strengthening of NMCs from the beginning, as
many of the activities have been captured by the MRCS.
Viet Nam NMC and Joint Committee Representative
The project, its design, components, framework of organization and outputs are very good.
The progress and outputs should be considered to be par to many other international river basin
organizations. The PAD was clear about the project design and procedures, and with GEF
support there was an important major step to take into account the environment in terms of water
resources management, particularly environmental flows. The studies on legal issues and
international laws, rules and practices were important to build confidence that the MRC could
develop procedures and a basin-wide model. The transboundary hydrological model, which is
one of the more important outputs of the project, is becoming the core knowledge asset of the
MRC.
The implementation was overall satisfactory; most important is that only in WUP have there
been produced good tangible results, outputs, powerful tools and improvement in data useful to
member countries. The project approach of substantial involvement of member countries
produced five sets of procedures, many supporting technical guidelines and several permanent
technical bodies to support the MRC. Lastly, it should not be overlooked that the project has
nurtured and developed the momentum of the "Mekong Spirit" and kept it alive.
The outstanding issue beyond project completion is how to maintain the momentum and examine
what have we learned from the project that can help guide us in future water resources
development. The MRC needs to cooperate more with China, but equally important, each MRC
member must look to other members and see how they can support each other. Riparianization
of the MRC is important in the future to make the MRC a truly riparian organization. The
Mekong Agreement should be implemented not by article, but by objectives, principles and
expectations. This is the most important lesson we should have learned from the WUP
experience.
28
Annex 6: Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results
Two workshops were organized by the MRCS in Vientiane, Laos with representatives from the
four NMCs and relevant national and international specialists from the MRCS, the first on May
7, 2008 to discuss the WUP Independent Evaluation Report (IER December 2007) and draft
WUP Implementation Completion Report (ICR-January 2008) prepared by the MRCS, and the
second on June 16, 2008 to enable presentations by the NMCs of their WUP "winding down"
reports.
Regional Discussion Meeting May 7 2008
The meeting focused on the IER and its recommendations, and the draft ICR. The meeting
endorsed the IER, particularly overall satisfactory outputs of the project, and needs for a follow
up project to sustain the outcome of the project.
The meeting also agreed on the transitional arrangement, including the transfer of the project
staff to other programs such as EP. The meeting also endorsed and adopted key
recommendations made by the IER (refer Appendix).
Regional Discussion Meeting of NMC Winding Down Reports 16 June 2008
On 16 June 2008 at MRC Headquarters each NMC presented winding down reports, presenting
the activities carried out by the respective NMC during the extension period (July 2007 June
2008), their reflection on the project implementation, and their prospective beyond project
completion.
The Cambodia Winding Down Report mainly stressed the need to improve model capability
and strengthening staff capacity to use it at the country level; and welcomed that the IKMP take
over the responsibilities. The report also reiterated the importance of finalizing the procedures
on water quality.
Lao PDR Winding Down Report confirmed the relevance and realism of the original project
design to support the implementation of the 1995 Mekong Agreement. However,
implementation arrangements faced challenges in management due to placement of MRC project
team members in different divisions and no budget support to NMCs. The basin modelling had
very good capacity building process for national modelers in water resources management, but
since established the hydrological model, the model has not been applied by BDP to plan and
check the BDP scenarios/project proposals before making a short-list of BDP national project
proposals. Coordination with the BDP could have been better.
The environment and transboundary analysis is complex to understand and not easy to reach
agreement among riparian countries. The procedures and related Technical Guidelines are in
place but a common understanding for application has not been reached. Lastly, the report
recognized the need to improve national water resources databases by establishing a National
Data Base Center in each member country.
Thailand Winding Down Report presented their view on the project design and
implementation quantitatively using a five-point scoring system with 1 (superior) to 5
29
(unsatisfactory), the overall design was rated good (Score 2.44), management was rated
moderate (Score 2.67) and implementation scored moderate (Score 2.89). The basin modelling
was scored moderate (Score 2.89), the impact assessment tools and knowledge base/database
rated moderate (Score 2.78), and the environment and transboundary analysis was rated
moderate (Score 3.22). Good progress was made on building up MRCS/NMCs modelling
capacity in general, but they still lack capacity/capability to update/upgrade the DSF. The
database is the main output of the project. Preparing the procedures for water utilization, both the
legal and technical aspects scored a moderate (Score 2.78). On capacity building and institutional
strengthening, the MRCS was rated moderate (Score 2.67) and NMCs and line agencies both
scored a moderate (Score 3.00).
Viet Nam Winding Down Report: On the WUP design, the objective was very clear in setting-
up linkages to "Rules of Water Utilization", but not sufficient links to BDP. Outcomes for
Components A and B were well anticipated and proven the two most proud achievements.
Negotiations demonstrated one of the most revolutionary and successful processes in Mekong
cooperation; it helped build an invaluable capacity (both technically and legally) and trust for
regional forums.
While overall implementation was satisfactory, in retrospect, the implementation could have
been better; for example, in building the model, data verification and updating were not given
serious consideration, and not all capabilities of the hydrological model have been properly
demonstrated and/or documented, and surprisingly no consultant of other WUP components
utilized the hydrological models in their works let alone other programs.
Further, Capacity building and institutional strengthening was not been mapped-out and
implemented at expected levels. Collaboration with the two upper Mekong Basin countries
never was a serious issue in the agenda due to the lack of initiations from the MRCS
management.
Major recommendations were: (a) upgrading the DSF software to be more robust and user-
friendly, improving the performance of model efficiencies but especially the hydrodynamic
model in the Mekong Delta, and (b) using the hydrological model as the decision support tool of
first choice for BDP, FMMP, IBFM and other MRC projects and programs requiring data and
modeling support.
30
Appendix to Annex 6
Short statement on MRC actions to implement WUP Independent Evaluation Report
Recommendations
The WUP Independent Evaluation Report (IER) provided MRCS in mid-2007 (finalized and
released in December 2007) contained 27 recommendations. When the MRCS completed its
Project Implementation Completion Report in January 2008, many of the recommendations had
already been acted upon or in the process of being carried out during the turnover period or
included in the potential follow-up project. The MRCS fully agreed with the main conclusions
and recommendations recognizing the achievements of the WUP as well as the fragile nature of
their sustainability. MRCS concluded that strengthening and sustaining of the WUP key outputs
(modeling and procedural tools) would only be achieved through their application when the
member States begin to see evidence of sustainable development of tangible investments enabled
and facilitated by the work of the MRC in transboundary water resources management projects
and programs. Recommendations completed or being acted upon include:
1. The NMCs have prepared and presented WUP "winding down" reports to obtain input
from the member countries into lessons learned and shaping of a follow-up project.
2. The MRCS has established permanent offices for the Council and Joint Committee at the
MRC Headquarters to more fully integrate the three bodies of the MRC.
3. Improvements and updating of the models and DSF have been and will continue to be
made as will making the DSF available to and encourage its use by other projects and
programs of the MRC.
4. The IKMP and TACT will continue to strengthen and improve the quantity, quality and
timeliness of data and information placed in the MRC-Information System and update
baseline data.
5. The MRCS has initiated the process for annual status review, strengthening and reporting
of all procedures and has adopted MRCS internal procedures for processing and
facilitating submissions under the PNPCA.
6. Member states, through their respective NMCs and line agencies are more directly
involved in MRC activities and implementation efforts through case studies and capacity
building.
31
Annex 7: List of Key Supporting Documents
A.
Key Project Documents:
GEF2 Concept Note, GEF Contribution to the MRC Programme, 1999
Global Environmental Facility Trust Fund Grant Agreement, IBRD, 2000.
Project Implementation Plan, Water Utilization Project Start-Up Project (GEF-TF23406),
MRCS, December 1999.
Project Appraisal Document, Water Utilization Project Start-Up Project, World Bank, January
2000
Progress Report 2002 and Workplan 2003, Water Utilization Project Start-up Project (GEF-
TF23406), MRC, 2002.
Mid-Term Review Report 2003 and Workplan 2004, Water Utilization Project Start-up Project
(GEF-TF23406), MRC, 2003.
Progress Report 2004 and Workplan 2005, Water Utilization Project Start-up Project (GEF-
TF23406), MRC, 2004.
Progress Report 2005 and Workplan 2006, Water Utilization Project Start-up Project (GEF-
TF23406), MRC, 2005.
Extension Workplan WUP 2007, Water Utilization Project Start-up Project (GEF-TF23406),
MRC, 2006.Independent Evaluation of Water Utilization Project, Final Report, Dr. G.
Radosevich and Dr. G. Wright, World Bank, December 2007
World Bank WUP Aides Memoires, (2003, 2004, 2005, 2007), World Bank Supervision
Missions.
Project Implementation Completion Report, Water Utilization Project (WUP) Start-up Project
(GEF-TF23406) MRCS, January 2008
B.
Key WUP Output Documents:
Decision Support Framework Final Report, Water Utilisation Project Component A:
Development of Basin Modelling Package and Knowledge Base (WUP-A), DSF 100 Main
Report, Volumes 1-16, Halcrow Group Limited, MRCS, March 2004
Integrated Basin Flow Management, Phase 1 Reports 1-4 2004, Phase 2 Reports 5-8 2005,
WUP & EP, MRCS.
Documents of the MRC: MA 1995 Agreement, Rules of Procedures, and Water Utilization
Procedures and Technical Guidelines, MRCS, 2007.
Overview of the Hydrology of the Mekong Basin, WUP, MRCS, November 2005
32
IBRD 30089
95°
100°
105°
110°
MEKONG RIVER BASIN
Mekong
BASIN BOUNDARY
UPPER MEKONG BASIN
River
RIVERS
2%
PERCENT FLOW CONTRIBUTION
NATIONAL CAPITALS
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
30°
30°
0
100
200
300
400
500
UPPER
KILOMETERS
MEKONG
INDIA
BASIN
C H I N A
25°
25°
Mekong
River16%
MYANMAR
2%
Hanoi
LAO PEOPLE'S
Gulf of
20°
DEM. REP.
20°
Tonkin
35%
Hainan
Vientiane
N. Ca
Dinh
LOWER
Yangon
(Rangoon)
MEKONGBang
THAILAND Lam Chi
Hieng
Mun R.
18%
Kong
15°
15°
BASIN
Se
Bangkok
VIETNAM
CAMBODIASrepak
Tonle
18%
R.
Sap
11%
Phnom
Andaman
Penh
Sea
Gulf of
Thailand
10°
10°
g
n
eko
This map was produced by the
M Delta
Map Design Unit of The World Bank.
The boundaries, colors,denominations
and any other information shown on
this map do not imply, on the part of
The World Bank Group, any judgment
on the legalstatus of any territory,or
any endorsement or acceptance of such
boundaries.
100°
105°
110°
JANUARY 2000