Trainee Manual
Module 3
TRAINING COURSE ON THE TDA/SAP APPROACH IN THE GEF
INTERNATIONAL WATERS PROGRAMME
TRAINEE MANUAL
MODULE 3: JOINT FACT-FINDING I - IDENTIFICATION
AND PRIORITISATION OF PROBLEMS AND THE
ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 1 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
MODULE 3
JOINT FACT-FINDING I
9
Identification and Prioritisation of Problems
9
Impact Analysis
1. This Module
This module and Module 4 cover the two stages of the execution of the TDA, which are
carried out by the Technical Task Team after the project development phase (covered in
Module 2).
This module deals with the identification and prioritisation of the transboundary problems
and the determination of their environmental impacts and socio-economic consequences.
Module 4 covers the development of causal chains for the priority transboundary
problems, the role of governance analysis and the integration of the component parts of the
TDA.
The formulation of the SAP is covered in Module 5.
1.1 Stepwise approach to joint fact-finding
The flow diagram shown in Figure 1 identifies the major steps taken towards the
development of the TDA document in both Modules 3 and 4.
Each step described in this flow diagram is further expanded in Sections 3 and 4 of this
module.
You will find a contents list of Module 3 at the end of this document.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 2 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Description
Module
section
TDA preparation
Module 3
information and data `stock taking' exercise
3.1
Identification and initial prioritisation
Module 3
Identification of transboundary problems
3.2
Initial prioritisation of transboundary problems
3.3
Analyse impacts/consequences of each problem
Module 3
Analysis of environmental impacts
4.1
Assessment of socio-economic consequences
4.2
Detailed final prioritisation of transboundary problems
4.4
Causal chain analysis
Module 4
Analysis of causal chains (identification of immediate,
3.1
underlying and root causes of each priority transboundary
problem)
Governance analysis
3.4
Production and Submission of Complete Draft TDA
Module 4
Integration of the component parts of the TDA
4.1
Drafting the TDA
4.2
The TDA review process and submission for final approval
4.3
Figure 1 Major steps taken towards the development of the Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 3 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
1.2 Module Objectives
At the end of the module, you should be able to:
A. Identify and prioritise transboundary problems
1. Describe the principal types of transboundary problems.
2. Explain the process of identifying and prioritising the problems.
3. Explain the need to take account of current developments and future risks in
deciding on priority problems.
4. Describe common criteria and scoring systems for assessing problems and methods
of prioritisation.
5. Describe how to conduct a `Delphi Exercise'
B. Determine the environmental impacts and socio-economic consequences
6. Describe methods for examining the impact of a problem from an environmental
and socio-economic perspective.
7. Describe the types of information necessary to demonstrate the scale and scope of
an problems:
a. environmental impacts; and
b. socio-economic consequences.
8. Explain the usefulness of quantitative data on socio-economic effects, as measures
of potential benefit when assessing policy options.
9. Identify potential sources for the information indicated in item 6 above, and
develop an initial plan for obtaining such information in a given situation.
1.3 Module Activities
In this module, you will be invited to:
1. Study a series of texts and case-studies.
2. Complete a short self-assessment test.
3. Complete three exercises analysing the approach used in several real case-
studies.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 4 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
2. General principles
2.1 Transboundary problems
The majority of GEF-funded IW projects are concerned with environmental problems
which are transboundary. A "transboundary problem" is any form of anthropogenic
degradation in the natural status of a water body that concerns more than one country.
Anthropogenic means caused by the activities of people rather than natural phenomena.
A transboundary problem can originate in, or be contributed by, one country and affect (or
impact) another. For example, the chemicals associated with eutrophication may be emitted
predominantly by one country in a region but the effects felt in several countries. The
transboundary impact may be damage to the natural environment (e.g. algal blooms) and/or
damage to human welfare (e.g. health problems).
In international waters management, transboundary problems can be classified under one
of the following headings:
Box 1 - Common transboundary problems
Major Concern I. Freshwater Flow Modifications
1
Excessive withdrawals of surface and/or groundwater for human uses
2
Changes in freshwater availability
3
Changes in flow regimes from structures
Major Concern II: Pollution
4
Pollution of existing drinking water supplies
5 Microbiological
pollution
6 Nutrient
overenrichment
7 Hydrocarbon
pollution
8
Heavy metal pollution
9 Radionuclide
pollution
10
Suspended solids/accelerated sedimentation
11 Excessive
salinity
12 Thermal
pollution
Major Concern III: Habitat and community modification
13
Loss of ecosystems or ecotones
14
Modification of ecosystems or ecotones
15 Invasive
Species
Major Concern IV: Exploitation of fisheries & other living resources
16 Over-exploitation
17
Excessive bycatch and discards
18
Destructive fishing practices
19
Decreased viability of stocks through contamination and disease
20
Impact on biological and genetic diversity
Major Concern V: Fluctuating Climate
21
Freshwater flow fluctuations such as drought and floods
22
Fluctuating ocean circulation patterns
23
Sea level change (including saltwater intrusion)
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 5 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
2.2 The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR)
Framework
A problem can have multiple causes and impacts. This is illustrated in the Driver-
Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework in Figure 2, below.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
DRIVERS
· Enhanced food production
via use of fertilisers in
crop production
· Intensification of animal
EXTERNAL VARIABILITY
production resulting in
· The immediate causes
increased animal waste
where these result from,
production
INSTITUTIONAL
or are coupled to natural
processes.
BARRIERS FOR
CHANGE
POLICY RESPONSE
· Inadequate
development
OPTIONS
and/or
ENVIRONMENTAL
· Current and future
enforcement of
PRESSURES
interventions
regulations
· Enhanced nutrient inputs
ENVIRONMENTAL STATE CHANGES
· Decrease in the transparency of water
· Development of anoxic conditions (low
oxygen levels)
· Increased algal blooms
· Loss of habitat (e.g. Sea grass beds)
· Change in dominant biota (e.g. Changes
in plankton and macrophyte community
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
structure or changes in fish composition)
CONSEQUENCES
· Decrease in species diversity
· Change in the aesthetic
value of the water body
· Loss of recreational use
· Changed employment
opportunities
Figure 2 - DPSIR framework for the transboundary problem of eutrophication
In this module we are concerned with two elements in the DPSIR framework, shown in the
diagram as "Environmental State Changes" and "Social and Economic Consequences".
We will call these "Environmental impacts" (or simply "impacts") and "Socio-economic
consequences" (or simply "consequences"), defining these terms as follows:
Environmental impacts
The effects of a transboundary problem on the integrity of an ecosystem.
Socio-economic consequences
Changes in the welfare of people attributable to the problem or its environmental
impacts.
In the eutrophication example, a high concentration of a chemical pollutant might be
detected in a lake, but the question then is: what are the impacts and consequences of this?
An environmental impact might be a reduced fish population. This could mean that the
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 6 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
nutrition of people living around the lake suffers, which is an indirect consequence of the
problem. However, there may also be direct consequences, in this case the impact on
health from polluted drinking water.
PROBLEM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Eutrophication
Reduced fish population
Health impacts from drinking water
Loss of source of food
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES
2.3 GEF indicators: How these relate to DPSIR
GEF does not use the DPSIR framework. However, GEF Monitoring and Evaluation
(M&E) indicators can be considered as analogous to this approach.
Three types of monitoring and evaluation indicators have been proposed by GEF:
· process indicators;
· stress reduction indicators; and,
· environmental status indicators.
Process indicators are used to measure progress in project activities. The complex nature
of many GEF international waters projects and the emphasis on collaborative processes in
a TDA followed by reforms and investments to address these priorities in a SAP, all call
for additional process indicators to reflect the extent, quality, and eventual on-the-ground
effectiveness of the multi-country, inter-ministerial, and cross-sectoral efforts that are at
the heart of the GEF international waters approach.
Whereas process indicators relate to needed reforms or programs, Stress Reduction
Indicators indicate the rate of success of specific on-the-ground actions implemented by
the collaborating countries. Often a combination of stress reduction indicators in several
nations may be needed to produce detectable changes in transboundary waters.
It can take a number of years before sufficient stress reduction measures are implemented
in a sufficient number of countries to detect a change in the transboundary water
environment. Environmental Status Indicators are measures of actual success in restoring
or protecting the targeted waterbody.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 7 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Although serving different purposes, there is a relationship between process indicators,
stress reduction indicators and environmental status indicators on the one hand, and the
components DPSIR. These are shown in Figure 3.
Process
Stress
Reduction
Response
Driver
Impact
Pressure
State
Status
Figure 3 Relationship between GEF M & E indicators and the DPSIR
framework
Although we are using the DPSIR framework to describe aspects of the TDA and SAP, all
GEF projects must adhere to the GEF M&E approach when developing, preparing and
implementing a project.
2.4 The Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)
The role of the TDA has been discussed in Module 1 (Overview of the TDA/SAP Process),
but it is worthwhile recalling that its purpose is to identify the relative importance of the
sources and causes of transboundary waters problems. The development of a TDA
followed by the formulation of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) is a requirement for
most projects proposed for financing in Operational Programmes 8 and 9 of the GEF
International Waters Focal Area.
The TDA is an objective assessment and not a negotiated document. It uses the best
available verified scientific and technical information to examine the state of the
environment and the root causes for its degradation. The analysis is carried out in a cross
sectoral manner, focusing on transboundary problems without ignoring national concerns
and priorities.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 8 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
The TDA is preceded by a full consultation with all stakeholders in the problem, and the
stakeholders are involved throughout the subsequent process (For more information on
stakeholder involvement please refer to Module 6). The key features of a TDA, according
to the GEF M & E Working paper (2002)1 are presented in Box 2, below.
Box 2 - Features of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)
The process of jointly developing a TDA is important for countries so that they learn to
exchange information and work together. Interministry committees are often
established in each country sharing a water body to provide that country's input of
factual information on the shared basin or marine ecosystem. This helps to determine
the transboundary nature, magnitude, and significance of the various problems
pertaining to water quality, quantity, biology, habitat degradation, or conflict.
After the threat is identified, the countries can determine which problem or problems
are priorities for action, relative to less significant problems and those of solely
national concern. In addition, the root causes of the conflicts or degradation, and
relevant social problems, are also included in the analysis so that actions to address
them may be determined later. The science community from each country is often
involved because the TDA is intended as a factual, technical document, and key
stakeholders are expected to participate. If a stakeholder identification or social
analysis was not done in preparation, it should be included in the TDA process.
This TDA process provides an opportunity for the countries to understand the linkages
among the problems and the root causes of environmental problems in economic
sectors. As a result, more holistic, comprehensive solutions may be identified to
enable responding to many different conventions in a cost-effective manner. The TDA
process allows complex transboundary situations to be broken up into smaller, more
manageable components for action as specific sub-areas of degradation or priority
"hotspots "are geographically identified (with their specific problem and root
cause)within the larger, complex system. Some of these may be deemed high priority;
others may not.
In the case of the large marine ecosystems (LME) component of OP8, it is essential to
examine linkages among coastal zones, LMEs, and their contributing freshwater
basins as part of the TDA process so that necessary linkages to root causes in
upstream basins can be included in the subsequent SAP. In this manner, different
transboundary problems existing in different portions of an LME and its basins or in
large river basins can be managed for the diagnosis of root causes and the
development of geographically specific actions.
This module is concerned with the identification and prioritisation of transboundary
problems and the subsequent analysis of their impacts and consequences but it is important
to be aware of how this fits in with the purpose and nature of the TDA as a whole.
1 Duda, A. (2002) Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators for GEF International Waters Projects, M & E
Working Paper 10, GEF, Washington, USA.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 9 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
The methodology for a TDA consists of the following steps (also outlined in Figure 1,
above):
· Identification and initial prioritisation of transboundary problems (often termed
Scaling Scoping Screening)
· Gathering and interpreting information on environmental impacts and socio-
economic consequences of each problem
· Final prioritisation of transboundary problems
· Causal chain analysis (including root causes)
· Completion of an analysis of institutions, laws, policies and projected investments
The development of the TDA is the job of the Technical Task Team (TTT), coordinated by
the Project Manager (PM). Remember that the TTT is formed of technical experts from
the stakeholder organizations, augmented with additional external specialists as necessary.
The three steps that you will study in this module are briefly described below.
2.4.1 Identification and initial prioritisation of transboundary problems
The main analytical and diagnostic work has often been called Scaling Scoping
Screening. This means that the scale (or timescale and geographical area) of each problem,
and its scope (magnitude) must be determined, and then the problems must be screened to
sort out those of high priority from the low.
The initial stakeholder consultation will have already highlighted the main problems, but it
is important for the TTT to revisit them, agree on whether or not the list is complete,
examine their transboundary relevance, determine preliminary priorities and examine the
scope of each.
The initial prioritisation does not need to be a complex one. To prioritise, ranking criteria
have to be established. Criteria will generally include some assessment of the severity of
the problem in terms of its impacts. In addition, criteria may be included to reflect:
a. the level and nature of uncertainties
b. likely future developments.
The significance of future developments is that currently or historically observed impacts
of the problem may not be a useful guide to the future position.
The ranking of problems may be conducted simply by discussion among stakeholders
and/or technical experts, at both national and regional levels. Alternatively, a uniform
scoring system may be involved.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 10 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
An advantage of using a scoring system is that it is more formal, and can be used
consistently at both national and regional level. The national scores can be aggregated to
reveal national priorities at one level, and regional priorities at the other.
2.4.2 Analysis of environmental impacts and socio-economic consequences
The environmental impacts and socio-economic consequences of the relevant
transboundary problems should also be identified. Much of this information should arise
from the stakeholder consultation process since stakeholders may identify impacts or
consequences and it is on this basis that problems are identified. However, the TTT must
ensure that the entire range of impacts and consequences are identified, and this may
require additional research.
2.4.3 Final prioritisation of transboundary problems
After the completion of the analysis of impacts/consequences, a final prioritisation should
be carried out. Final prioritisation is vital since it ensures that the causal chain analysis
concentrates on those problems that are the most significant to stakeholders and represent
the best investment of their resources.
2.5 Risk of Confusion
It is important not to confuse the problem identified with the causes or the impacts of the
problem. This can cause difficulty when carrying out the impact and causal chain analysis.
For example, a cause of eutrophication could be inadequate infrastructure capacity.
Eutrophication can result in harmful algal blooms (an environmental impact) and
diminished amenity (a socio-economic consequence).
If you examine the Case Studies in Boxes 4 to 9 below, you will see that there are
examples of where the confusion between problem, causes and impacts has occurred.
Another common difficulty is the interchangeability of terms. For example, we use the
term transboundary `problem'. However, you will see the use of other terms including
transboundary problem, environmental concern, perceived major problem, and major
threat, amongst others. These are also highlighted in Boxes 4 to 9.
Whatever terminology is used, it must be fully explained and understood by the TTT from
the start and be satisfactorily described in the TDA.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 11 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Self-assessment Test 3.1
1. Who carries out the TDA fact-finding?
2. Who are the people that are consulted?
3. Match the three words on the left with the three four definitions on the right (one of
these is false), by drawing lines connecting them.
A. Screening
1. Determining the magnitude of a problem.
2. Determining the time-scale and
geographical area of an problem
B.
Scaling
3. Examining the resources needed to
resolve an problem
C. Scoping
4. Sorting out the priority of problems.
4. State in one sentence what is the TDA step before the prioritization of problems?
5. State in one sentence what is the TDA step after prioritisation of problems?
Correct answers are given in the pink pages
at the end of this module.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 12 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
3. Initial TDA preparation, and identification and
prioritisation of transboundary problems
3.1 Information and data stock taking exercise
There is often a wealth of information and data available. However, it generally comes
from multiple sources, its generation and use is often uncoordinated, and it is frequently
neither accessible nor entirely appropriate. Therefore, prior to developing the TDA, a
simple information and data `stock taking' exercise should be initiated (often termed a
meta data study). This will ascertain the sources of information/data, its availability and
gaps in knowledge.
The TDA should employ information that is already available within the region.
It is not the intention of the TDA to repeat the valuable
studies already conducted on environmental impacts and
socio-economic consequences merely to assemble them
in a more holistic manner.
Often it will be necessary to rely on measurement data which will have already been
collected at a national rather than a regional level. As consequence of this, aggregation
and disaggregation of information and data will be required. Full recognition should be
given to all sources of information employed.
The members of the TTT and Interministry Committees (IMCs) will generally be aware of
the sources of information that are available in their respective countries, but you will need
to confirm that all the following sources have been checked for relevant data:
National and Provincial Government departments and agencies
· departments of the environment, health , employment
· departments of trade or economic affairs responsible for monitoring and/or
forecasting economic activity;
· environmental protection agencies;
· marine organisations, water authorities and fisheries organisations.
International Organisations
· UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO programmes and projects (GIWA);
· EU INTAS programmes and projects.
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO's) concerned with, for example
· general environmental preservation, protection of endangered species;
· human health and welfare
· security of freshwater supplies, poverty alleviation.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 13 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Commercial Consultancies, Companies and Trade Bodies, including Trade Unions that
have a commercial interest in the area under study (this information may not be freely
available if it is considered commercially sensitive).
Academic Institutions
· university research, local, national and foreign
· publications that can be searched for with a standard bibliographic database;
· regional research institutes.
In some instances it may be prudent to prepare Country
Reports prior to the development of the TDA. This material
can then be used as the backbone of the final TDA document.
3.2 Identification of Transboundary Problems
The first stage in the TDA process is to agree on the transboundary problems. The initial
stakeholder consultation will have already highlighted the main problems but the TTT
must revisit them, agree on whether the list is complete, and for each problem reach a view
on:
·
What is the transboundary relevance?
·
What are preliminary priorities?
·
What is the geographical scope?
·
What is the temporal scope?
·
What are the impacts/consequences of the problem?
The experts should brainstorm the list of problems with particular regard to their
transboundary status, and assign priorities (high-medium-low) from an environmental and
social/economic standpoint. The geographical extent of the problems associated with each
problem can then be stated and described on a map.
The initial meeting of the TTT also serves as an agenda-setting exercise. The expertise
needed for the subsequent stages can be discussed, as well as the availability of
information.
Agreement on a preliminary contents page for a TDA is a useful means of ensuring that
the entire process has been thoroughly discussed.
The identification of problems is a crucial part of the TDA process since those that are not
brought to light at this stage may not be captured at a later stage. The difficulty and effort
involved in this initial stage will vary widely depending on the particular circumstances of
the region. Generally, the key determinants are likely to be the extent to which:
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 14 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
· potential transboundary problems have been the subject of scientific research:
- at the national level
- at the level of the water body
· environmental problems have already been recognised as essentially
transboundary in nature (particularly where supra-national/regional bodies have
been involved in investigating such problems).
For example, the identification of problems in the Mediterranean TDA was based on a
review of some 20 year's work under the auspices of the Mediterranean Action Plan
(MAP). In other cases, such as the Volta River Basin, international meetings were
conducted in order to discuss the problems identified at the national level and establish
those of common concern. Some further key points to consider when identifying and
prioritising transboundary problems are highlighted in Box 3, below.
Box 3 - Some Key Points:
· In the absence of some pre-existing body of research or a relevant
supra-national body, a structured TDA/SAP process is necessary to
identify potentially relevant problems and then subject these to review
by an international panel of experts.
· The initial identification of potential problems is commonly undertaken
at the national level by stakeholder consultation including convening
meetings of relevant experts. The reports of these bodies are then
discussed at international gatherings to decide on which problems
should be treated as transboundary in nature.
· Identification of a transboundary problem entails more than simply
defining the problem its geographic extent and possible causes
should be specified at this stage. The latter information is significant
because there must be agreement that there is a traceable human
cause that is susceptible to intervention. Further, this initial information
will be important when carrying out causal chain analysis (Module 4).
3.2.1 Examples of transboundary problems
Transboundary problems will vary from region to region. As a possible starting point for
your TDA, you may be interested to look at the generic list of transboundary problems
shown in Box 1, above.
There have been a number of different approaches used to determine transboundary water
problems. A summary of those developed for the Case Studies are presented in the
following boxes.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 15 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Box 4 - The Dnipro Basin TDA
Major Transboundary problems
· Modification of hydrological regime
· Changes in the water table
· Flooding and elevated ground and surface waters and elevated groundwater
levels in various parts of the Basin
· Chemical
pollution
· Microbiological
pollution
· Pollution by radionuclides
· Suspended
solids
· Eutrophication
· Solid
waste
· Accidental spills and releases
· Loss/modification of ecosystems or ecotones and decreased viability of
stocks due to contamination and diseases
· Impact on biological and genetic diversity
Box 5 - The Mediterranean Sea TDA
Existing problems/problems
·
Degradation of coastal and marine ecosystems
·
Unsustainable exploitation of coastal and marine resources
·
Loss of habitats supporting living resources
·
Decline in biodiversity, loss of endangered species and introduction of
non-indigenous species
·
Inadequate protection of the coastal zone and marine environment and
increased hazards and risks
·
Worsened human related conditions
·
Inadequate implementation of existing regional and national legislation
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 16 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Box 6 - The Benguela Current TDA
Perceived Major Problems:
· Decline in Benguela Current LME commercial fish stocks and non-optimal
harvesting of living resources
· Uncertainty regarding ecosystem status and yields in a highly variable
environment
· Deterioration in water quality - chronic and catastrophic
· Habitat destruction and alteration, including inter alia modification of seabed
and coastal zone and degradation of coastscapes
· Loss of biotic integrity (changes in community composition, species and
diversity, introduction of alien species, etc.) and threat to
biodiversity/endangered and vulnerable species
· Inadequate human and infrastructure capacity to assess the health of the
ecosystem as a whole (resources and environment, and variability thereof)
· Harmful algal blooms (HABs)
Box 7 - The Caspian Sea major perceived problems and problems
(MPPI)
Existing problems/problems
· Decline in certain commercial fish stocks, including sturgeon
· Degradation of coastal landscapes and damage to coastal habitats
· Threats to Biodiversity
· Overall decline in environmental quality
· Decline in human health
· Damage to coastal infrastructure and amenities
Emerging problems/problems
· Contamination from oil and gas activities
· Introduced
species
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 17 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Box 8 - The Bermejo River TDA
Environmental problems:
· Soil
degradation
· Water scarcity and use Restrictions
· Water
Resource
Degradation
· Loss of Biodiversity And Biotic Resources
· Floods and Other Natural Hazard Events
· Diminished Quality of Life and Endangered Cultural Re-sources
Box 9 - Lake Tanganyika TDA
Main threats:
· Unsustainable
Fisheries
· Increasing
Pollution
· Excessive
Sedimentation
· Habitat
Destruction
You should next carry out the tasks in Case-study
Exercise 3.1.
The case-studies are contained on the Course CD-
ROM
You should set aside a substantial amount of time for
these tasks, and you may want to discuss your
conclusions with your colleagues and the tutor.
Short answers only are given in the Correct Answer
section on the pink pages.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 18 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Exercise 3.1 Case Study Questions on Identification of
Transboundary Problems
A.
The Caspian Sea, Benguela Current, and Bermejo River
Please examine these Case Studies and consider how systematic you find each,
as regards the distinction between problems, causes and impacts.
B.
The Mediterranean Sea
The aim of this 1997 TDA was to identify the perceived problems and problems
associated with land-based activities affecting the Mediterranean Sea.
On Page 7 of the TDA, the major perceived problems were:
1. Degradation of coastal and marine ecosystems
2. Unsustainable exploitation of coastal and marine resources
3. Loss of habitats supporting living resources
4. Decline in biodiversity, loss of endangered species and introduction of non-
indigenous species
5. Inadequate protection of the coastal zone and marine environment and
increased hazards and risks
6. Worsened human related conditions
7. Inadequate implementation of existing regional and national legislation
Questions
1. Is there consistency in the terminology used? Is there consistency between the
perceived major problems in Table 1.1 and the Tables identifying the Problems
and Root Causes (pp 13-33)?
2. Regarding the identification of transboundary problems, do you feel the 2003
Mediterranean TDA is an improvement on the 1997 TDA? Why?
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 19 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
C.
The Caspian Sea
In the Caspian Sea TDA, problems were initially prioritised by the expert TTT and
subsequently re-analysed by a more inclusive stakeholder group who ranked the
concerns as low, medium or high priority (pp. 52-58 and Table 2.2).
The following are a list of the major perceived problems and problems in the Caspian
Sea. It includes six existing problems/problems, and two emerging
problems/problems:
Existing problems/problems
1. Decline in certain commercial fish stocks, including sturgeon
2. Degradation of coastal landscapes and damage to coastal habitats
3. Threats to Biodiversity
4. Overall decline in environmental quality
5. Decline in human health
6. Damage to coastal infrastructure and amenities
Emerging problems/problems
1. Contamination from oil and gas activities
2. Introduced species
Questions
1. Do you feel that the prioritised problems are problems or the immediate causes of
specific problems? Does this matter?
2. In your opinion, was the initial prioritisation by the TTT and the subsequent ranking
by the stakeholder group an effective approach?
After you have checked your answers and discussed
them with the tutor, you might like to take a break before
moving on to the next section the Criteria for
Prioritisation.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 20 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
3.3 Initial prioritisation of transboundary problems
You will recall that the objective of prioritising transboundary problems is to rank them
according to their "importance" - broadly meaning those problems most worthy of
attention. This ensures that limited resources are applied to yield the greatest benefits.
Resources (time, expertise and finance) are limited in two senses:
· the resources that can be devoted to the TDA process and the subsequent
preparation of the SAP
· those that can be applied in implementing the SAP.
The second constraint is the more important, because even if there were resources available
to conduct the TDA/SAP process, it would still be necessary to decide which of the
proposals in the SAP should be implemented first.
It will not always be possible to produce a strict ordering of the problems. There may be
problems considered of equal importance, or there may be so much uncertainty that the
ordering is unreliable. It is not essential to aim for a "perfect" strict ordering. The
important thing is to distinguish those problems that should be considered further in the
TDA from those that need not.
For the purpose of the initial prioritisation, the problems need to be assessed by reference
to criteria - features of a problem that contribute to its relative importance.
For example, one criterion might be the severity of environmental impacts, in terms of the
extent of disturbance from the "natural" level and its geographical spread. In this case,
each problem would need to be assessed against this criterion. If this were the only
criterion, the problems could be ranked according to the depth and geographical extent of
their environmental impacts.
There is no single set of criteria that should be employed in every TDA. Each TDA will be
different. Similarly, the importance given to each criterion will vary, depending on the
views of those doing the prioritisation. For example, how one type of environmental
impact should be judged against another, or how environmental impacts should be judged
against their socio-economic consequences.
The remainder of this section describes criteria that would generally be considered relevant
and how they might be balanced off against each other in assessing the importance of a
problem.
Figure 4 illustrates how prioritisation can be carried out at several alternative levels:
- Using a simple set of general criteria for all problems (indicated by the dotted red
line). This approach is described in 3.3.1 below.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 21 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
- Based on criteria which assess the severity of the environmental impacts and the
socio-economic consequences of a particular problem (the black line). See 3.3.2 and
3.3.3 below.
- In addition, considering other prioritisation criteria future severity, uncertainty and
feasibility (the blue line). See 3.3.4 below.
Prioritisation
criteria
Environmental
impacts
Current
severity
of issue
Socio-economic
consequences
Assessment of
issue
Importance
of issue
Future severity of issue
Uncertainties related to the
issue
Feasibility of solutions
Overall
Figure 4 Illustration of the different levels of prioritisation
The use of simple transboundary problem based
prioritisation criteria is ideal for the initial prioritisation
process. However, the TTT experts must have substantial
knowledge and experience in all the problems. It also
requires a very experienced chairperson.
Criteria which assess the severity of the environmental
impacts and the socio-economic consequences of a
particular problem can be used to initially prioritise
transboundary problems. However, it is likely that these
approaches are more applicable to the final prioritisation
step once the impacts for each problem have been
ascertained.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 22 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
3.3.1 Prioritisation criteria: problem-based
Assessment of the severity of a problem does not have to be detailed or exhaustive; the
level of detail required is only such as to enable distinctions to be drawn between
problems. But the breadth of impacts and consequences of each problem must be
recognised and considered in each country.
Prioritisation carried out at the problem level is the simplest approach but it requires that
the experts have substantial knowledge and experience in all the problems. It also requires
a very experienced chairperson.
A simple set of criteria for determining priority problems are:
1. Transboundary nature of a problem.
2. Scale of impacts of a problem on economic terms, the environment and human
health.
3. Relevance of a problem from the perspective of national priorities reflected in
existing national policies and action plans, and international conventions.
4. Scope of the systemic relationship with other environmental problems and
economic sectors.
5. Expected multiple benefits that might be achieved by addressing a problem.
6. Lack of perceived progress in addressing/solving a problem at the national level.
7. Recognised multi-country water conflicts.
8. Reversibility/irreversibility of the problem
9. Relationship of problem to Millennium Goals and World Summit on
Sustainability Development (WSSD) Targets.
Each transboundary problem can then be assigned a score (e.g. between 0 and 3) on the
basis of its severity
3.3.2 Prioritisation criteria: Environmental impacts
This approach uses pre-defined, culturally unbiased, uniform criteria which assess whether
a specific problem causes: no known impact, slight impact, moderate impact or severe
impact.
Each problem can then be assigned a score between 0 and 3. Scoring is dealt with in the
next section.
An example of environmental impact criteria for chemical pollution is shown on the next
page. A full set of problem-specific criteria developed for the GIWA can be found in the
supporting materials for this module. However, it should be noted that these criteria are
not definitive, because the particular circumstances of each TDA will dictate the type of
criteria that are relevant.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 23 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Score
No observed impact
0
Slight 1
Moderate 2
Severe 3
Definition: Chemical pollution refers to the adverse effects of chemical contaminants
released to standing or marine water bodies as a result of human activities. Chemical
contaminants are here defined as compounds that are toxic and/or persistent and/or
bioaccumulating
Score 2 = Moderate Impact when one or more of the following criteria are met or exceeded
Chemical contaminants are above the threshold limits defined for
LEVELS
the country or region (e.g. by a regional or national Commission).
Large area advisories by public health authorities concerning
PROXIES
fisheries product contamination but without associated catch
restrictions or closures, OR
EFFECTS
High mortalities of aquatic species near outfalls.
If there is no available data use the following criteria:
PRESSURES
- Large-scale use of pesticides in agriculture and forestry; or
- Presence of major sources of PCDD/PCDF such as large
municipal or industrial incinerators or large Bleached Kraft Pulp
Mills using chlorine as a bleaching agent; or
- Considerable quantities of other contaminants described in the
UNEP GPA.
Figure 5 - Example of criteria used for assigning scores: Chemical Pollution
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 24 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
3.3.3 Prioritisation criteria: Socio-economic consequences
There is a vast range of possible socio-economic consequences, all of which must be
recognised if the analysis is to be complete. A useful framework is based on the idea that
the individual's welfare is built on three types of values for the natural environment:
·
Use value
·
Non-use value
·
Bequest value
These are described in Table 1, below. Generally, most socio-economic consequences will
fall into the use value category, although they may not necessarily be the most important.
Table 1 - Types of value for the natural environment
Use value
The environment provides resources and services that people use to
support their welfare. For example, water bodies might provide:
· freshwater for human consumption or for use in agriculture or
industry,
· sources of food for local consumption or trade,
· recreational activities etc.
Degradation of the environment can therefore impair these uses.
In assessing the impact, many indirect consequences may need to be
taken into account. For example, there may be profound effects on social
structures because of changes in employment patterns and population
distributions.
In extreme cases, communities may disappear because of large scale
movements of human population.
Non-use value
Whether or not the water body currently has direct human uses, it may
(sometimes
have non-use value. This might stem from preserving the option of future
called passive
use, or simply because people want to feel that the environment is as
use or
undisturbed or as near-natural as possible (so-called existence value).
existence)
Existence value may also arise from a cultural significance attached to the
water body and its ecosystems or particular species. While loss of
biodiversity can have effects on use value in the long-term, its impact in
the shorter term may be a loss of existence value for people.
Bequest value
Bequest value stems from the concept of stewardship: leaving the
environment intact for future generations. Bequest value can have use
and non-use components, but for convenience here it is dealt with as part
of non-use value.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 25 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
The procedure for assessing the severity of each transboundary problems socio-economic
consequences is the same as that for environmental effects.
Again, the consequences of each problem have to be recognised and considered in each
country. It is generally worthwhile for country teams to agree at the outset a list of
potential consequences for each problem. Some consequences may be irrelevant in a given
country but at least this ensures that they have been considered.
Table 2 - Types of criteria for assessing severity of problems
Value
Types of Use
Types of Criteria for Assessing Severity of problems
Use
Direct consumption Extent of health impacts.
by local people
Freshwater availability for human consumption.
Food availability for human consumption.
Loss of recreation opportunities.
Loss of aesthetic value (if sight or smell of water or the water
body itself become unpleasant).
Production
Freshwater availability for use in agriculture or industry.
activities
Loss of tradable commodities (e.g. fish) that can be
sustainably harvested.
Loss of tourism activity.
Indirect uses
Negative social changes associated with the impairment or
loss of above direct uses, e.g. unemployment, collapse of
local economy, enforced migrations, loss of local self-
sufficiency.
Loss of educational and scientific values.
Nonuse/
Loss of potential uses, e.g. future development of commercial
Bequest
fishery or exploitation of pharmaceutical resources.
Loss of symbolic or cultural value associated with ecosystem
integrity or particular species.
Each of the above types of criteria can be broken down into specific criteria. For example:
Health impacts:
- Increases in the prevalence of illnesses
- The extent to which the specified problem contributes to deaths over a
particular period
- The costs of treatment
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 26 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Freshwater availability
- In literal terms (how often and for how many people is supply impaired or
lost)
- Costs that have to be incurred in countering the problem, e.g. additional
water treatment costs.
When assessing the problems against the criteria, several dimensions of socio-economic
consequences have to be taken into account
Depth of impact How major is the impact of the problem for individuals? For
example, in terms of health impacts, does the problem cause a mild/treatable
infection that passes quickly, or are its effects generally associated with death?
Affected population How many people suffer the consequences connected with
the problem? For example, are the consequences concentrated in a small areas with
a relatively small total population, or are they felt over a wide area by the majority
of the population dwelling near the water body?
Timing How often and for how long are the consequences felt? For example, do
the health impacts of a problem occur rarely and last a short time, or do they occur
frequently and persist
3.3.4 Other prioritisation criteria
The criteria for environmental impacts and socio-economic consequences focus on the
observed position, and thus address the current severity of the problem. Other criteria
should also be considered since they contribute to the overall objective of prioritisation
ensuring resources are focused where they can do most good.
Three considered below are:
-
Likely Future Severity
-
Uncertainty
-
Feasibility
Likely Future Severity
Problems that are currently having little impact may become very important in the future,
or vice versa. This should be taken into account; otherwise resources could be devoted to
resolving a problem that is not of the highest priority, particularly during the lengthy
period over which the SAP may be implemented.
Assessing "likely future severity" relies on judgement, but the following approach
described in Box 10 can make the outcome more rational and reliable.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 27 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Box 10 Approach for assessing "likely future severity"
1. Time horizon
A date in the future, at which the forecast is to apply, should be specified. This should be far
enough into the future that there is time for the current position to radically change, but not
so far that it becomes infeasible to have any realistic idea what conditions might be at that
time. 20 years into the future might generally be considered reasonable. But there is no
hard and fast rule.
2. Definition of "most likely" scenario
a. Often many different scenarios can be envisaged. It would be very complex to
assign probabilities to each possible scenario and calculate an expected value for
the prioritisation criteria, and this would not necessarily yield more reliable results.
Therefore, the "most likely" scenario should be selected as the context for
assessing future severity. This is the scenario which stakeholders feel is the most
probable to apply at the specified time horizon.
b. Characterization of scenarios: The range of features that could be used to
characterize a future scenario is vast. To make the assessment task more
manageable, it should be restricted to those features that are likely to be the most
salient. Generally, these will include:
·
the size of the population living in proximity to the water body and its physical
distribution (note, concentrated centres of population may put more pressure
on the environment than a more even distribution)
·
utilization of the water body resources in production activities both as a
"source" (e.g. of freshwater, food, minerals etc.) and as a "sink" (i.e. as a
means of disposing of waste)
·
technological changes from the present day that will reduce (or perhaps
increase) environmental degradation attributable to direct usage by the
population and production activities
·
policy changes that would arise regardless of the TDA/SAP process (e.g.
there may already be a commitment by countries concerned with the water
body to cooperate in reducing pressures on fisheries through a long-term
quota system).
3. Standard Criteria
To simplify the process as far as possible, the same criteria are used for assessing severity
at the time horizon as are used in assessing current severity.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 28 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
When assessing future severity the fundamental question that should be addressed to the
TTT is:
"If we were undertaking the assessment of severity:
·
at the specified time in the future, and
·
assuming the most likely scenario existed at that time,
·
what would our assessment of severity be, using the
criteria we have used to assess current severity? "
Once this exercise has been undertaken, it is possible to arrive at a ranking of problems for
the future that can be compared to the current ranking. Where the ranking is radically
different then some method has to be agreed for deciding how the two types of information
should be weighted in arriving at the final assessment. This is discussed further in the next
sub-section on prioritisation methods.
If the TTT find it impossible to reach any consensus on "likely future severity", then an
alternative approach is to consider "likely changes in severity" over the period specified.
Again the concepts of the "most likely scenario" should be applied, but now it is only
necessary to consider whether the current severity will increase or diminish.
Uncertainty
With a reasonable level of data and experience, the TTT should be able to arrive at an
adequate preliminary judgement. But in some cases an additional criterion of uncertainty
may need to be introduced to reflect some shortfall in information available. For example,
it may be suspected that some form of pollution is connected with a health impact but data
may not have been collected for long enough to assess current severity with any
confidence.
What effect uncertainty has on the prioritisation process will depend on the nature of the
impacts. This can work both ways. For example, if the health impact is of relatively minor
severity (e.g. the symptoms are not incapacitating and the illness is of short duration) then a
high level of uncertainty may be argued to diminish the importance that should be attached
to the relevant problem. Conversely, if the health impact is death, then a high level of
uncertainty arguably increases the importance of the problem.
This sort of complication means that a criterion of uncertainty should be introduced at this
stage only where it is essential because of shortage of information. It will also be
necessary to establish how uncertainty is interpreted in the prioritisation process.
Feasibility
Finally, the feasibility of a solution to a problem (in other words the tractability of the
problem) may be used as a criterion.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 29 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Strictly, this factor is not relevant until later stages in the TDA/SAP process, when the
feasibility of the options for addressing a problem are considered. However, in certain
circumstances, the TTT may feel a problem (or problems) will be so difficult to tackle that
further consideration is not worthwhile.
When this happens, then the ranking both with and without this criterion should be
reported. This enables users of the TDA to make their own judgement as to whether the
question of feasibility should be pursued further, depending on the relative importance of
the problems.
3.3.5 Approaches Used to Prioritise Problems
Conducting a Simple `Delphi' Exercise
As has already been mentioned, the process of determining preliminary priorities does not
need to be complex. A powerful, iterative and structured survey approach that can be
employed to aid in this process is the `Delphi' exercise. This is described in more detail in
Box 11 below.
Scoring approaches
There are a number of different approaches that can be used to score the relative
importance or priority of transboundary problems. Whatever approach is used, it must be
applied in a systematic manner.
A simple approach that has been applied in a number of IW projects (e.g. Dnipro Basin
TDA and GIWA) uses a 4 point scoring system. The scoring could relate to impact (e.g. 0
= no observed impact; 3 = severe impact) or priority (e.g. 0 = little or no priority; 3 = high
priority). This will depend on the criteria system used (see Sections 3.3.1 to 3.3.4, above).
Prioritisation of Problems in the Case Studies
You may now want to look at the case-studies to see what approaches they used.
In the Dnipro Basin TDA an approach was used that was similar to the Delphi exercise
described above.
You do not need to study the Dnipro Basin TDA at this point,
because it is used in the Case-Study Exercise 3.2 soon.
An alternative approach was used by the Caspian Sea TDA. In this, problems were
initially prioritised by the expert TTT and subsequently re-analysed by a more inclusive
stakeholder group who ranked the concerns as low, medium or high priority.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 30 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Box 11 What is a Delphi Exercise?
Description
The objective is the creative exploration of ideas to produce suitable information for decision making. The
Delphi Method is based on a structured process for collecting and distilling knowledge from a group of
experts by means of a series of questionnaires interspersed with controlled opinion feedback. The main
advantage of the Delphi method is that it overcomes the problems of conventional committee action. The
group interaction in Delphi is anonymous: comments, forecasts, and the like are not identified as to their
originator, but are presented to the group in such a way as to suppress any identification. An excellent tool
for gaining input from recognised sources of expertise, without the need for face to face meetings. It
provides a highly disciplined way of addressing or solving a problem. It can be time consuming and the
information gained is only as good as the selection of the experts.
Method
1. Pick a facilitation leader
2. Select a panel of experts (the TTT)
3.
Identify a "straw man" problem list from the panel
In a brainstorming session, draft a list of problems that all think appropriate to the region. Include in this
the inputs from the stakeholder analysis. At this point, there is no "correct" criteria.
4.
The panel ranks the problems
For each problem, the panel ranks it as 3 (high priority), 2 (medium priority), or 1 (low priority) according
to criteria defined prior to the meeting. Each panellist ranks the list individually and anonymously if the
environment is charged politically or emotionally.
5. Calculate the median values and standard deviations
For each problem, find the median value and standard deviations. Place the problems in rank order and
show the (anonymous) results to the panel. Discuss reasons for problems with high standard
deviations. The panel may insert removed problems back into the list after discussion.
6. Re-rank the problems
Repeat the ranking process among the panellists until the results stabilize. The ranking results do not
have to have complete agreement, but a consensus such that the all can live with the outcome. Two
passes are often enough, but four are frequently performed for maximum benefit. In one variation,
general input is allowed after the second ranking in hopes that more information from outsiders will
introduce new ideas or new criteria, or improve the list.
Outcomes
The outcome of a Delphi sequence is nothing but opinion. The results of the sequence are only as valid as
the opinions of the experts who made up the panel. The panel viewpoint is summarized statistically rather
than in terms of a majority vote.
Difficulties faced
On the surface, Delphi seems like a very simple concept that can easily be employed. Because of this, it is
tempting to use the procedure without carefully considering the problems involved in carrying out such an
exercise.
Some of the common reasons for the failure of a Delphi are:
· Imposing view's and preconceptions of a problem upon the respondent group by overspecifying
the structure of the Delphi and not allowing for the contribution of other perspectives related to the
problem
· Assuming that Delphi can be a surrogate for all other human communications in a given situation
· Poor techniques of summarising and presenting the group response and ensuring common
interpretations of the evaluation scales utilized in the exercise
· Ignoring and not exploring disagreements, so that discouraged dissenters drop out and an artificial
consensus is generated
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 31 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Prioritisation of problems was not carried out in the Benguela Current LME TDA (or the
Black Sea TDA from which the methodology was developed). The principal problems
were highlighted at the first regional workshop, backed up through a suite of Thematic
Reports subsequently prepared by regional/international experts and finally synthesised
and condensed into a series of analytical tables which were ultimately presented in the
TDA document. This TDA presented 3 main over-arching problems and 7 sub-problems.
Lake Tanganyika TDA was also based closely on the analysis used in the Black Sea
TDA, although the specific problems were ranked (low, medium or high) according to the
severity of problem, the feasibility of the potential solutions and any additional benefits
gained.
The 1997 Mediterranean TDA lists 7 main problems but does not prioritise them. In
contrast, the 2003 Mediterranean TDA examines a range of environmental, human health
and socio-economic problems that relate specifically to transboundary pollution from land
based sources. The impacts of each problem were scored between 0 and 3 (not known,
slight, moderate and severe impact). In addition, transboundary impacts were highlighted.
In the South China Sea TDA 4 major concerns and 15 principle problems were defined
prior to the development of the national reports However, after submission and evaluation
of the national reports the concerns and problems were prioritised and weighted at a second
meeting of the national coordinators at which leading scientists from the region were also
invited. The prioritisation and weighting exercise was based on the data, information and
evidence assembled during the preparation of the national reports (including causal chain
analysis).
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 32 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Exercise 3.2 - Case Study on Prioritisation Criteria
The Dnipro Basin TDA
Background
The Dnipro Basin TDA was based on a modified version of the GIWA methodology. It
used information already gathered and drafted by the TDA authors/expert groups drawn
from the Thematic Centres.
A simple prioritisation exercise was carried out in order to determine the severity of
the environmental and socio-economic effects of the 12 Dnipro Basin problems, and also
to determine the relevance and transboundary nature of each problem. Each
transboundary problem was scored by the TTT on a scale of 0 (no impact) to 3 (severe
impact) for both environmental impacts and socio-economic effects. The level of
prioritisation was assessed based on the median response. Although not strictly using
the Delphi approach, voting was done using a `secret ballot' and discussed in an open
plenary session.
The outcome of this exercise was a prioritised list of 6 transboundary problems that
required more detailed impact and causal chain analysis. A suite of criteria, listed on p.
52, were used to prioritise 6 major transboundary problems in the Basin:
1.
Chemical pollution (Priority A)
2.
Loss/modification of ecosystems or ecotones and decreased viability of stocks
due to contamination and diseases (Priority A)
3.
Eutrophication (Priority A)
4.
Radionuclide pollution (Priority A)
5.
Modification of the hydrological regime (Priority B)
6.
Flooding events and elevated groundwater levels (Priority B)
Priority A problems are those with an environmental and/or socio-economic impact score
of 3. Priority B problems are those that scored less than 3 for either environmental
and/or socio-economic impacts.
Your task is to review the priority transboundary problems in Chapter 4 (pp. 52-53 and
p. 110) and the text describing the environmental impacts of each problem (e.g. chemical
pollution p. 73) and then consider the questions on the next page.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 33 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Exercise 3.2 (continued)
Questions
Please make short notes in answer to each of the following questions, then discuss your
answers with your CTA and colleagues as appropriate.
1. Is the method of prioritisation adequately explained?
2. Is there consistency in the terminology used?
3. How effective is the scoring system? Are the criteria well defined?
4. Was the initial prioritisation of the transboundary problems consistent with the
outcomes of the causal chain analysis (p.110)?
5. Are the environmental impacts adequately described and quantified in the
text?
6. Do you feel that the socio-economic consequences of each priority problem
are adequately reflected in the TDA?
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 34 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
4. Analysis of the Impacts/Consequences of
Transboundary problems
So far we have discussed how to identify and prioritise the transboundary problems.
Detailed information must next be gathered on each of the priority problems in the region.
The TTT and selected additional experts (including joint government and local groups)
should work together to help gather information, further define the key transboundary
problems and analyse their impacts and consequences. This will involve putting objective
and quantitative information in final reports.
The process should:
· Describe the problem itself (using available survey data showing changes over
time, etc.).
· Examine the impact of the problem on the environment.
· Examine social and Economic consequences of the problem.
In describing the impact of the problem from an environmental perspective, a distinction
will be made between problems and impacts (e.g. high concentrations of chemical
pollutants may be the problem but what is the evidence of impact on the natural
environment?).
When examining the social and economic consequences, figures will need to be put on
such parameters as: How many people have their health impaired by chemical pollution?
What is the economic cost of the damage to health?
The information gathered should concentrate on the transboundary impacts. However,
national or localised impacts can also be described if they are relevant.
Even at this early stage it is useful to agree on a set of indicators and present the data in the
form of these indicators. This will later give important monitoring and evaluation tools for
the SAP.
The work will normally be conducted by selected individual specialists, who should
produce final reports that are fairly brief (typically some 5 pages per problem). From
these, the TTT must write a summary text to explain the overall significance of the
problems in the region. A good example of reporting for this stage of the process is the
South China Sea TDA, which you may like to study if you are especially interested.
4.1 Analysis of environmental impacts
The purpose of this step is to examine the impact of each priority problem on the
environment. This should not be confused with an environmental impact assessment (EIA)
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 35 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
which is an instrument to identify and assess the potential environmental impacts of a
proposed project.
The analysis of environmental impacts is simpler and more straightforward than the
analysis of the socio-economic consequences. However, the process can be easily derailed
if the TTT fails to identify, select and interpret the appropriate data and information.
A logical approach to facilitate this process is the development of robust, relevant
environmental status, impact and pressure indicators for which data is available.
These indicators will have several uses:
- Status indicators: will be used in the TDA to describe physical and
geographical characteristics, socio-economic status and the environmental
status.
- Impact indicators: will describe and quantify the impacts of the each
transboundary problem.
- Pressure indicators will substantiate the causal chains developed for the
priority transboundary problems (Module 4).
In addition, some of the indicators developed (particularly environmental status) may
ultimately be used in the SAP for Monitoring & Evaluation purposes (Module 5).
Remember - One good indicator that describes the impact and its
relevance is worth 20 indicators that don't.
For example, changes in long term monthly averages of stream
flow say very little in isolation, whereas the loss of habitat due to
erosion does.
4.1.1 Baselines
Impact indicators show change over time. Therefore it is important to determine the
`baseline'.
1. The baseline will normally be chosen assuming that the most recent information is
generally the most complete.
2. It is recommended to gather information in at least 10 year horizons where possible
(i.e. 1990s, 1980s etc).
3. Further it will be necessary to determine the baseline for which information was
last available (i.e. 1990 to 2000; 1994 to 2004 etc).
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 36 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
4.1.2 Environmental Indicator Assessment Tool (EIAT)
A method that can help this process is the Environmental Indicator Assessment Tool
(EIAT), currently being developed by IW:LEARN. A Microsoft Word version of the EIAT
can be found in the supporting materials for this module.
This web-based toolbox describes 160 pressure, state and impact indicators and quotes
units of measure. Inevitably, many of the indicators listed are specific to a particular
feature of a biogeographical region (e.g. coral reefs, mangroves, boreal wetlands) and are
not applicable generally.
An example of Using the IW:LEARN Environmental Indicator Analysis Tool is given on
the next page.
Box 12 - Example of the indicator selection process using the IW:LEARN
Environmental Indicator Analysis Tool
Problem 13: Modification of ecosystems or ecotones
Habitat 4. Wetlands related to running water
= View Profile
ID
Title
1
HYD1: Peak stream flow
3
HYD6: Stream flow- Long Term Monthly Averages
5
HYD8: Delta front movements
6
HYD9: Changes in sediment flux
7
HYD10: Land subsidence
8
HYD12: Precipitation
9
HYD13: Loss of habitat due to erosion
10
HYD14: Disappearance of perennial springs
13
SAT1: Change in the extent of each land cover class- Satellite derived vegetation index
14
SAT2: Changes in the extent of habitat/community types compared with historic and current baselines
17
SAT5: Changes in gross habitat fragmentation compared with historic and current baselines
18
BIO1: Changes in macrophyte community structure
21
BIO4: Changes in the area of wetland macrophyte communities
24
BIO7: Change in the Number/proportion of taxa
25
BIO8: Changes in native species or higher taxa
26
BIO9: Changes in endemic species or higher taxa
27
BIO10: Invasive alien species
28
BIO13: Species arrivals
29
BIO14: Nesting population densities
30
BIO15: Confirmed breeding population densities
31
BIO17: Number and abundance of species wintering at a given habitat
91
FW2: Loss of habitat due to rate of growth of urban areas
92
FW3: Loss of river floodplains due to artificial banking of river margins
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 37 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
4.2 Assessment of socio-economic consequences
The purpose of this step is to identify the socio-economic consequences of each priority
transboundary problem. It is likely that the TTT will need to hire particular expertise to
undertake this process, unless it can identify a good environmental economist from the
region. However, the following sections will give you an indication of the general
approach that will need to be undertaken.
4.2.1 Measures of socio-economic consequences
How the extent of socio-economic consequences can be presented in the TDA calls for
some explanation of the types of measure that are available. The socio-economic
consequences for impact analysis are the same as those used in prioritisation, described in
Section 3.3.3 but the detail with which consequences are assessed and reported is higher.
More detail means the use of measurements wherever possible. As the examples in Table 3
suggest, there are many ways of assessing the extent of socio-economic consequences, and
the information that can be provided in the TDA will depend largely on the availability of
data. In turn this will depend mainly on the amount of research that has been done and
over what period. There may also be considerations of accessibility (for example, where
research has been conducted for private, commercial purposes).
4.2.2 Levels of assessment
Measures of socio-economic consequences may be broadly classified according to the
level of detail that they go into:
1. Statement The range of socio-economic consequences associated with a
problem is identified by simply stating that the consequence exists.
2. Quantification Numbers are attached to the consequence to indicate its scale.
These numbers may refer to the magnitude or frequency of some event.
3. Indicative valuation The ability to report monetary values has some important
advantages, as discussed further below. At this level of valuation, indicative
values are given of the costs that are associated with the consequence. For
example, for human illness, although the cost of treatment is only one of many
costs associated with illness, it is indicative of the whole.
4. Total valuation This higher level of valuation takes account of all the economic
costs associated with a consequence.
An illustration of this classification is given in Table 4, below.
Total valuation measures are an ideal, but in practice only
indicative measures may be available.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 38 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Table 3 - Measures of Socio-economic Consequences
Value
Types of Use
Measures of Socio-economic Consequences: Examples
Use
Direct consumption
Extent of Health impacts working days lost through illness,
by local people
cost of treatment, rate of deaths in which a contributory factor.
Freshwater availability for human consumption frequency
and duration of outages, accessibility of alternative supplies,
costs of accessing alternative sources.
Food availability for human consumption dependence on
food sourced from water body, availability of alternative
sources, costs of accessing alternative sources.
Loss of recreation opportunities size of area unsuitable for
swimming and other water-based activities, frequency of
occurrence.
Loss of aesthetic value average quantity of solid waste
deposited per square metre of shore per day.
Production activities
Freshwater availability for use in agriculture or industry see
above, volume of water imported for irrigation, value of crops
(or other production) lost through water shortage.
Loss of tradable commodities (e.g. fish) that can be
sustainably harvested reduction in annual catch of specified
commercial species.
Loss of tourism activity reductions in number of visitors (or
tourism revenues) each year.
Indirect uses
Negative social changes associated with the impairment or
loss of above direct uses number of jobs lost, reduction in
local GDP, number of individuals migrated in last year.
Loss of educational and scientific values number of school
visits having to be cancelled in last year.
Non-use/
Option to use in
Loss of potential uses estimated future value of commercial
bequest
future
fishery.
Loss of symbolic or cultural value decrease in population of
Pure non-use
symbolic species during past five years.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 39 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Table 4 - Example of Levels of Assessment
Detail of
Level of
Illustration
information
Assessment
"This form of pollution is associated with ..."
Statement
... incidences of infection in areas proximal to
Low
the lake
Quantification
... 150,000 cases of infection each month in
areas proximal to the lake
Valuation
... 150,000 cases of infection each month with
- indicative
an average treatment cost of $3 per case (i.e.
$450,000 per month in aggregate)
... 150,000 cases of infection each month with
- total
average total economic costs, including
High
treatment, lost work time and other costs of
illness, of $40 per case (i.e. $6m per month in
aggregate)
Where there is a choice among measures a general guiding principle is to use a measure
that maximises information content. Other considerations in selecting measures are that:
·
whatever measures are used they should, when taken together across a problem,
adequately convey the scale of that problem, and
·
wherever possible the same measure of a particular consequence should be used for
each problem associated with that consequence.
To illustrate this latter point:
Say that both chemical pollution and freshwater shortage contribute to
human illness in a given area.
This consequence could be measured by the number of working days
lost due to the relevant illness or the costs of treatment.
However, the comparison of the pollution and shortage problems is
clearer if the same measure of illness is used in both cases.
A final consideration in this context is that of time. Reporting on consequences over a
period of time, rather than at a single point in time, makes it much easier to understand the
scale of an problem. This will usually require quantitative assessment data to be available
for several years.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 40 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
(1) Statement of the range of consequences
This is the minimum amount of information that the user of the TDA requires. It entails a
simple statement of the range of consequences that are associated with a problem.
Consequently, even if no measures of the consequences of a problem are available, the
TDA should report on the consequences that have been identified.
Low levels of available information may be due to uncertainty. There may be uncertainty
about:
· whether an observed event or phenomenon is connected with an problem at all, or
· the extent to which a consequence can be associated with a given problem.
Here is an illustration of these forms of uncertainty:
Say that a particular form of chemical pollution can cause an illness with
symptoms very similar to those of an unrelated illness.
If the symptoms are observed in a part of the relevant population, the
question then is whether these are caused by the water-related or the other
form of illness. In short, what is their cause?
To answer this question requires further information at two levels
corresponding to the above forms of uncertainty:
First, are any of the observed cases attributable to the pollution?
If so, what proportion of all the observed cases can be so attributed?
The degree of uncertainty, where it exists, should be reported. For example, if it is not
known whether an event is associated with the problem but it could be, then it should be
made clear that this is the case, i.e. the consequence should not be ignored but it should be
stated that it is uncertain whether it is associated with the problem because of a lack of
information.
Similarly, if a relationship has been established but the extent of impact is uncertain then
this also should be reported.
(2) Quantitative assessment of consequences
At this level of assessment the extent of the consequence is represented by a measure, i.e. a
numerical representation. This has clear advantages because the user of the TDA can more
readily grasp the impact of a problem and make comparisons among problems.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 41 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
The selection of an appropriate measure depends on the nature of the consequence and the
availability of information. However, the general principle should be to select measures
that adequately convey:
·
the magnitude of impact, e.g. number of people affected,
·
the frequency with which it occurs (or whether it is continuing), and
·
the duration (if it is not continuing).
Consider the illustration in Table 4, above. This refers to magnitude ("150,000 cases") and
frequency ("each month") but does not refer to duration, suggesting that this is a
continuing event. If, by contrast, the consequence is observed to last, say, 6 months each
time it occurs then this information on duration of the event would need to be reported as
well to complete the picture.
(3) Valuation of consequences
(a) Principles
The advantage of using monetary values for socio-economic consequences has the obvious
advantage of being able to aggregate them and make comparisons between problems.
A further advantage is that the monetary costs of a problem measure the benefit that could
be achieved by dealing with that problem. This in turn indicates the maximum amount that
should be spent on the problem, or whether the benefits outweigh the cost of a programme
of action.
The use of monetary measures in assessing the viability of programmes to deal with
problems is discussed in Module 5, but for the purposes of this module the ability to
aggregate and compare is sufficient justification for considering the valuation of socio-
economic consequences.
The concept of valuing many types of socio-economic consequence may appear
incongruous at first sight for example, how can we attach a monetary value to illness?
This is because we are generally used to monetary values only being attached to things that
are bought and sold in markets. As discussed below, there are indeed many types of socio-
economic consequence that can be valued at least indicatively by identifying a relevant
market and looking for a price that relates to the consequence continuing the example,
we could consider the costs of treatment and the cost to the ill person of losing work
through illness.
However, there are other types of cost that cannot be valued through markets but are
nonetheless real costs arising from the problem. These are considered in more detail under
the heading "Non-market Valuation of Consequences" below.
Whatever approach is used to valuing costs associated with socio-economic consequences,
the cost must be attributable to the relevant problem and not be something that would
have arisen anyway.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 42 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
(b) Market valuation of consequences
The distinguishing characteristic of market based valuation is that the relevant prices can
be observed from actual economic transactions that occur, or have been changed, because
of the problem.
An example of the former is the cost of treating an illness that arises solely because of the
problem. An example of the latter is where economic activity has been restricted because
of the problem say the lost profits from a reduction in the available catch of fish. In this
case, it is worth noting that there will also be an effect on the welfare of the customers who
bought the fish in economic terms there is a loss of "consumer surplus" (the difference
between what consumers were willing to pay for the fish and the market price).
Certain types of value that fall in this category are not directly observable but are
embedded in or part of another value, and can be separated out. The principal techniques
for separating such values are:
1. The travel cost method this involves calculating the economic cost of a trip to a
site, both in terms of money expenditure and time. This total cost is taken as a
measure of the value that the individual places on the site. A cost then arises if this
value is diminished or destroyed by environmental change. The method has been
used extensively in connection with recreational values, e.g. for fishing.
2. The hedonic pricing method In this case the environmental value is embedded
in the price paid for some good or service. The most common example is property
prices, which reflect a number of attributes of the property's location including
environmental characteristics. For example, beachfront property prices, both for
residents and visitors, may reflect the value of clean beaches and water. By
examining how prices vary according to the various characteristics of properties,
including environmental characteristics, investigators can isolate the value
attributed of those characteristics. Thus, the value of environmental quality can be
identified and used to value changes.
3. Replacement costs Alternatively, we might consider what it would cost to
restore or replace natural services in terms of human labour and technology.
By their nature, the costs that can be valued in this way generally relate to human use
values. Table 5 gives some examples of monetary valuation of the uses described in Table
3, above.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 43 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Table 5 - Examples of Monetary Valuation of Socio-Economic Consequences
Types of Use
Measures of monetary valuation of socio-economic consequences:
Examples
Direct
Health impacts Amount that would have been earned from working
consumption
days lost through illness. Cost of treatment, e.g. antibiotics.
by local people Freshwater availability for human consumption Costs of accessing
alternative sources, e.g. importing, drilling.
Food availability for human consumption Costs of purchasing substitute
foods.
Loss of recreation opportunities Costs associated with alternative
sources of recreation, e.g. travel costs to alternative site(s).
Loss of aesthetic value Loss in property values, to the extent these
reflect aesthetic value.
Production
Freshwater availability for use in agriculture or industry Producer and
activities
consumer surplus from crops lost through water shortage.
Loss of tradable commodities (e.g. fish) that can be sustainably
harvested Producer and consumer surplus from trade in commodity.
Loss of tourism activity Loss of tourism revenues each year.
Indirect uses
Negative social changes associated with the impairment or loss of above
direct uses Reduction in local GDP. Welfare support payments.
Loss of educational and scientific values Additional travel costs for
alternative site(s).
Option
Loss of potential uses Estimated future value of commercial fishery.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 44 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
(c) Non-market valuation of consequences
Certain values associated with environmental change cannot be measured by reference to
any market. These may relate to human use, for example people may hold a value for
avoiding illness over and above lost earnings and the costs of treatment. However, this
type of value is most commonly associated with values that people hold independent of
their use of the environment or its natural resources. Consequently, these are often called
non-use or passive use values. An example was given in a previous table in terms of the
loss of symbolic or cultural value resulting from a decline in the population of symbolic
species.
To base monetary amounts on these values requires direct questioning of the individuals
who are likely to hold the relevant values. The technique that is employed is known as
contingent valuation. It involves setting up a hypothetical market for the good in
question and asking individuals how much they would be willing to pay for environmental
improvement or how much they would be willing to accept in compensation for a
deterioration, depending on the circumstances.
An example of contingent valuation
A species may be locally endangered by pressures from development
that are reducing water quality. To determine what is the value of
protecting the species in the area, investigators can ask a sample of
people what they would be willing to pay for a hypothetical, but
realistic, scheme to preserve the species, e.g. through protective
measures for an area of habitat, running a hatcheries programme.
The benefits to the population as a whole can then be estimated from
this sample.
Contingent valuation is a very powerful technique since it is the only way known at present
to capture these non-use values. Consequently, it is vital to assessing the Total Value of a
socio-economic consequence referred to earlier.
The difficulty with contingent valuation is that the technique can only yield reliable results
if the survey is designed and implemented by trained people. The above illustration is very
limited, there are many other considerations in any given investigation; e.g. in the
hypothetical situation, how are people told they would pay so as to avoid some people
"free riding" on the payments of others? Similarly there are substantial technicalities
associated with how values are elicited, e.g. should a value simply be asked for or should
the person be asked whether or not they would pay certain values?
For these reasons, reliable contingent valuation studies are relatively rare. However, where
such a study has been conducted its results can provide a very straightforward means of
conveying a wide range the costs associated with a particular loss of environmental quality.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 45 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
4.3 Impact Analysis in the Case Studies
As you may recall, the principles that you have studied in this Module are those that have
been developed for this course, through a period of international consultation and debate,
as a GEF recommended approach for TDA/SAP development. We can now look at the
case studies to see how far they followed the approach to impact analysis that you have
studied.
In the Dnipro Basin TDA a similar approach to that described above was attempted. The
starting point for the development of relevant indicators was the GIWA environmental
impact methodology. The GIWA methodology being generic and not designed as a tool
for TDA development, the Dnipro Basin TTT concentrated on screening the GIWA
indicators according to their relevance and to the availability of supporting data. The
indicators selected from this process were then categorised as pressure, state, impact or
response indicators. Although an excellent set of indicators were developed for the
environmental impact analysis, the environmental impact data presented was limited.
Furthermore, no information reflecting the socio-economic consequences of an problem
was presented.
The Benguela Current TDA described the environmental impacts and socio-economic
consequences of each problem in a series of tables and explanatory notes. Although these
were brief, they were supported by six detailed `Thematic Reports' prepared by
consultants. A weakness of this approach is the need for the reader to have to filter
through many supporting documents to substantiate the text in the primary TDA document.
The Caspian Sea TDA presents a short statement on the environmental impacts and socio-
economic consequences of each problem, but the information is limited. Again, a series of
Annexes present supplementary information but little of the material relates to impact
assessment.
In the South China Sea TDA the analysis of environmental impacts for problems relating
to the modification of habitats and the overexploitation of living aquatic resources is well
presented although, confusingly, it is presented in the `state of the environment' section.
This section examines the status of each problem, followed by a detailed assessment of
impacts. However, for problems linked to the pollution of aquatic environments, little
impact information is presented.
No impact analysis was carried out in the 1997 Mediterranean Sea TDA although the
impacts of identified "problems", (essentially the underlying causes of the major problems)
were categorized as local, national or transboundary, and insignificant, medium or high. In
contrast, a detailed assessment of environmental impacts has been presented in the 2003
Mediterranean TDA, although it refers only to the impact of transboundary substances.
No impact analysis is presented in the Lake Tanganyika or Black Sea TDAs.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 46 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
4.4 Detailed final prioritisation of transboundary problems
4.4.1 Approach
After the impact analysis has been completed the transboundary problems should be re-
prioritised to `ground truth' the initial prioritisation (Section 3.3). This step will result in a
final prioritisation which will identify the highest priority problems to be analysed further
during the causal chain analysis phase.
Prioritisation can be carried out using a simple Delphi exercise, conducted as above
(Section 3.3.5), in which each problem, together with its impacts is assessed and
prioritised. A possible approach is listed below:
1. In advance of the detailed prioritisation meeting, provide each TTT member with:
- The impact analysis for each transboundary problem
- The criteria for assessment
2. Convene the TTT meeting
3. Explain the criteria for assessment and the detailed impact analysis
4. Carry out a Delphi exercise similar to that described in Section 3.3.5
5. Prioritise the transboundary problems.
The criteria used to determine the priority transboundary problems can be based on the
environmental impact and socio-economic criteria described in Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3.
4.4.2 Mapping the problems
Whatever method is used to arrive at the priorities, it will be essential to describe the
geographical extent of the problem, hotspots associated with the problem, and the
geographical scale of environmental impacts and socio-economic consequences. An
example of a map is presented in Figure 6 below.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 47 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
GIS MAP SHOWING EXTENT OF PROBLEM (CHEMICAL POLLUTION), ITS
HOTSPOTS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND (POSSIBLY) SOCIO-ECONOMIC
CONSEQUENCES
To be compiled by Asha Singh
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 48 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Exercise 3.3 - Case Study Questions on Impact Analysis
Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME)
The TDA for the BCLME identifies three action areas, summarised on p.17 as:
A.
Sustainable management and utilisation of resources.
B.
Assessment of environmental variability, ecosystem impacts and improvement
of predictability.
C.
Improvement off ecosystem health and management of pollution.
Within these action areas, seven perceived major transboundary problems (or sub
problems) were identified together with the transboundary characteristics of each
problem.
These are summarised on p. 14 as:
1. Decline in Benguela Current LME commercial fish stocks and non-optimal
harvesting of living resources
2. Uncertainty regarding ecosystem status and yields in a highly variable environment
3. Deterioration in water quality - chronic and catastrophic
4. Habitat destruction and alteration, including inter alia modification of seabed and
coastal zone and degradation of coastscapes
5. Loss of biotic integrity (changes in community composition, species and diversity,
introduction of alien species, etc.) and threat to biodiversity/endangered and
vulnerable species
6. Inadequate human and infrastructure capacity to assess the health of the
ecosystem as a whole (resources and environment, and variability thereof)
7. Harmful algal blooms (HABs)
Subsequently, the TDA uses a series of tables to report on the impacts and socio-
economic consequences, among other things, associated with problems in each of
these action areas. For example, Table A1 on pp. 21 & 22 deals with "Non-optimal
harvesting of living resources".
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 49 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Exercise 3.3 (continued)
Now, please review the Benguela TDA/SAP further. Study the perceived
major transboundary problems and the series of tables on pages 18 to 60,
in each case focusing on the impacts and socio-economic consequences.
Questions
1. Is there consistency in the terminology used? Is there consistency between
the synthesis matrix (p. 14) and the analysis tables (pp 21-60)?
2. Do you feel that the tables clearly distinguish between the environmental
impacts and socio-economic consequences?
3.
Are the impacts adequately explained in the tables and explanatory notes?
4. Are the environmental impacts quantified in the analysis tables and
explanatory notes? Where else are they described?
5.
What form of reporting is used for the socio-economic consequences?
6. What types of data could be used to increase the information content of the
reporting on socio-economic consequences?
The tables also give details of the estimated incremental costs (in US$)
associated with the proposed actions.
Question
7. What does the form of presentation imply about the relationship between
these costs and those arising from the socio-economic consequences?
When you have discussed these questions with the Project
Manager and your colleagues, this completes Module 3.
You might now like to have a substantial break before starting
the study of Module 4.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 50 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
Correct Answers
Self-Assessment Test 3.1
1. The Technical Task Team (TTT) coordinated by the project Chief Technical Adviser
(CTA).
2. Technical experts from the stakeholder organizations that compose the TTT,
augmented with additional external specialists as necessary.
3. A. Screening
1. Determining the magnitude of an problem.
2. Determining the time-scale and
geographical area of an problem
B.
Scaling
3. Examining the resources needed to resolve
an problem
C. Scoping
4. Sorting out the priority of problems.
4. Identify the environmental effects and socio-economic consequences of the relevant
transboundary problems.
5. Gather detailed information on each of the medium and high priority problems.
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 51 of 52
Trainee Manual
Module 3
MODULE 3 Contents List
1. This Module
1.1 Stepwise approach to joint fact-finding
1.2
Module
Objectives
1.3
Module
Activities
2.
General
principles
2.1
Transboundary
problems
2.2 The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) Framework
2.3 GEF indicators: How these relate to DPSIR
2.4 The Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)
2.4.1 Identification and initial prioritisation of transboundary problems
2.4.2 Analysis of environmental impacts
and
socio-economic
consequences
2.4.3 Final prioritisation of transboundary problems
2.5
Risk
of
Confusion
Self-assessment
Test
3.1
3. Initial TDA preparation, and identification and prioritisation of
transboundary
problems
3.1 Information and data stock taking exercise
3.2 Identification of Transboundary Problems
3.2.1 Examples of transboundary problems
Exercise 3.1 Case Study Questions on Identification
of
Transboundary
Problems
3.3 Initial prioritisation of transboundary problems
3.3.1
Prioritisation
criteria:
problem-based
3.3.2 Prioritisation criteria: Environmental impacts
3.3.3 Prioritisation criteria: Socio-economic consequences
3.3.4
Other
prioritisation
criteria
3.3.5 Approaches Used to Prioritise Problems
Exercise 3.2 - Case Study on Prioritisation Criteria
4. Analysis of the Impacts/Consequences of Transboundary
problems
4.1 Analysis of environmental impacts
4.1.1
Baselines
4.1.1 Environmental Indicator Assessment Tool (EIAT)
4.2 Assessment of socio-economic consequences
4.2.1 Measures of socio-economic
consequences
4.2.2
Levels
of
assessment
4.3 Impact Analysis in the Case Studies
4.4 Detailed final prioritisation of transboundary problems
4.4.1
Approach
4.4.2
Mapping
the
problems
Exercise 3.3 - Case Study Questions on Impact Analysis
Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF
International Waters Programme
Page 52 of 52