Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators for
GEF International Waters Projects
Alfred Duda
Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 10
November 2002
i

---

GEF Corporate Monitoring and Evaluation Team
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433, USA
Telephone: (202) 458-2548
Fax: (202) 522-3240
E-mail: geflessons@gefweb.org
Web: http://www.gefweb.org
http://www.gefweb.org/ResultsandImpact/Monitoring_Evaluation/monitoring_evaluation.html
Published 2002
Global Environment Facility
This paper may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or nonprofit uses, without
special permission, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. The Global Environment Facility
secretariat would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this paper as a source. Copies
may be sent to GEF secretariat, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433.
No use of this paper may be made for resale or other commercial purpose without prior written consent
of the Global Environment Facility secretariat. The designations of geographic entities in this document,
and the presentation of materials, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of
the GEF concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of
the GEF or its associated agencies.
ISBN 1-884122-77-9
ISSN 1020-0894
ii
iii

---

Acknowledgements
The author would like to recognize the support and advice provided through the years as GEF developed
these project-level indicators for the international waters focal area. The implementing agencies were
represented by a number of staff involved with international waters projects: from the United Nations
Development Program, Andrew Hudson; from the United Nations Environment Program, John Pernetta and
Vladimir Mamaev; and from the World Bank, Richard Paton, Tony Garvey, and Marea Hatziolos. Andrea
Merla represented the GEF Secretariat, and Jarle Harstad, Juha Uitto, and Aaron Zazueta represented the GEF
Monitoring and Evaluation Unit.
ii
iii

---

iv
v

---

Table of Contents
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................... 1
International Waters Operational Strategy........................................................................................................... 1
The Primary Operational Programs in International Waters................................................................................ 2
The Philosophy for Catalyzing Joint Action........................................................................................................ 3
GEF Monitoring and Evaluation.......................................................................................................................... 5
International Waters M&E Framework................................................................................................................ 6
Process Indicators ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Examples of Process Indicators ........................................................................................................................... 7
Stress Reduction Indicators.................................................................................................................................. 7
Examples of Stress Reduction Indicators ............................................................................................................ 7
Environmental Status Indicators.......................................................................................................................... 8
Examples of Environment Status Indicators........................................................................................................ 8
Annex A: Examples of M&E Indicators in GEF International Waters Projects ................................................. 9
Water and Environmental Management in the Aral Sea Basin (World Bank) ................................................ 9
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand (UNEP)......... 9
Reducing Environmental Stress in the Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosystem (UNDP)................................ 10
Annex B: References......................................................................................................................................... 11
iv
v

---

vi

---

Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators for
GEF International Waters Projects
Effective monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is in- This paper describes the background and philosophy
creasingly recognized as an indispensable tool in for the three types of indicators, summarizes the
project and program management. If done well, an framework, and includes several examples from GEF
M&E plan and the indicators developed as part of it international waters projects. It updates earlier drafts
serve both as a corrective function during the project with the lessons of experience from GEF international
cycle, enabling timely adjustments, and as a guide to waters projects, particularly the ones examined in the
structuring future projects more effectively. All GEF Multicountry Project Arrangements Thematic Review
projects must include M&E provisions. The intent of carried out under the auspices of the GEF M&E Unit
this paper is to describe the role of M&E relative to in 1999-2000 (Ollila et al., 2000).
GEF's international waters focal area and to more
specifically identify an indicator framework for coun- International Waters Operational Strategy
tries to employ as part of the M&E process related to The Operational Strategy (GEF, 1996a) defines
international waters.
GEF's objective in the international waters focal
area as: to contribute primarily as a catalyst in the
The indicator framework presented in this report is implementation of a more comprehensive, ecosys-
based on work started in 1996 by the former GEF In- tem-based approach to managing international waters
ternational Waters Task Force (IWTF). The indicator and their drainage basins as a means to achieve global
framework pertains primarily to the two main opera- environmental benefits. According to the Operational
tional programs in the international waters focal area: Strategy, the overall strategic thrust of GEF-funded
the Waterbody-Based Operational Program (OP8) and international waters activities is to meet the agreed
the Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area incremental costs of:
Operational Program (OP9). The Contaminant-Based
Operational Program (OP10) represents a different · Assisting groups of countries to better understand
approach and consists of a collection of very unique
the environmental chal enges of their international
types of interventions. Therefore, this present frame-
waters and work collaboratively to address them
work does not cover it; indicators for Operational
Program 10 will be developed at a later stage.
· Building the capacity of existing institutions (or, if
appropriate, developing the capacity through new
The IWTF developed a series of three types of indica-
institutional arrangements)
tors based on their identification in GEF Operational
Programs (GEF, 1997) as important elements of OP8 · Implementing measures that address priority trans-
and OP9 projects. The three types of indicators are:
boundary environmental concerns.
1. Process indicators
The goal of GEF international waters projects is to
2. Stress reduction indicators
assist countries to use the full range of technical,
3. Environmental status indicators.
economic, financial, regulatory, and institutional
1

---

measures needed to operationalize sustainable devel- practical lessons from experience in the multicoun-
opment strategies for international waters.
try water bodies previously named and experiences
in the transboundary basins of Africa prompted the
The Operational Strategy and operational programs adoption of the three levels of international waters
recognize the very different nature of international indicators depending on the type of international
waters projects compared to other GEF focal areas. waters project being proposed. The intent was that
Following discussions in 1994 and 1995, the GEF progress in achieving these M&E indicators would be
Council adopted an Operational Strategy that recog- reported during GEF's annual project implementation
nizes that the reversal of environmental degradation review (PIR) in order to monitor project progress.
in complex transboundary freshwater or marine situ- The ultimate achievement of the indicators would en-
ations may take decades. It was acknowledged that a able GEF interventions' effectiveness to be evaluated
series of projects with progressive GEF involvement objectively.
may be needed in a specific basin or marine ecosystem
to leverage the needed country reforms and invest- Primary Operational Programs in
ments for adequately addressing transboundary water International Waters
issues. Collaborating countries often must address a
whole host of scientific, social, political, institutional, The GEF international waters focal area is organized
cross-sectoral, and sovereignty issues through struc- around three complementary operational programs
tured processes before they may commit to undertak- (GEF, 1997). The goal of the Waterbody-Based Op-
ing the required regional and country-based reforms erational Program (OP8) is to assist countries in modi-
and priority investments.
fying the ways that human activities are conducted in
a number of sectors so that a particular water body
Experience from longstanding waterbody manage- and its international drainage basin can sustainably
ment initiatives outside the GEF--such as in the support human activities. Projects in this operational
North Sea, the Rhine Basin, Lake Geneva, the Medi- program focus mainly on seriously threatened, dam-
terranean Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Mekong River, and aged water bodies and the most imminent trans-
North America's Great Lakes--shows that these boundary threats to their ecosystems. The program's
processes often take 15-20 years before meaningful long-term objective is to undertake a series of projects
commitments to joint management improvements can that help groups of countries to work collaboratively
be secured. Additional time is needed before the trans- with the support of GEF implementing agencies in
boundary water bodies actually respond to reductions achieving changes in sectoral policies and activities
in stress from pollution, over-fishing, sedimentation, so that transboundary environmental degradation to
eutrophication, and habitat alterations. Even multi- specific water bodies can be addressed. GEF projects
jurisdictional but single country efforts, such as those in OP8 target both freshwater systems, ranging from
involving the Chesapeake Bay in the United States or transboundary river and lake basins to transboundary
the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia, may take 20 or groundwater systems, and marine ecosystems, with
30 years to develop. By that time, the GEF interven- focused, remedial actions.
tions will often have ceased before actual waterbody
improvements can be detected.
The Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area
Operational Program (OP9) is broader in scope than
Consequently, experience up to 1994 illustrated that the Waterbody-Based Operational Program. Its long-
different types of M&E indicators were needed for term objective is to achieve global environmental ben-
international waters interventions to show actual efits through projects that integrate the use of sound
step-by-step progress toward the adoption of the joint land and water resource management strategies as a
management regimes, country-based reforms, and result of changes in sectoral policies and activities
priority investments that are necessary precursors of that promote sustainable development. Projects fo-
improvements in water quality, quantity, or biologi- cus on area-wide interventions that typically involve
cal factors detectable in transboundary systems. The integrated land and water resources management as
2
3

---

well as preventive measures to address threats rather is expected that each GEF international waters project
than remedial, highly capital-intensive measures. will have its own discrete set of indicators and that
OP9 may also provide global benefits in multiple fo-
these indicators will be cooperatively developed by
cal areas at one time as a result of the interventions. the participating countries, the project executing and
For example, the adoption of improved catchment implementing agencies, and the broad range of stake-
management may protect the biodiversity of a down-
holders within each project area.
stream wetland, or the adoption of integrated coastal
management strategies may assist in mitigating the GEF international waters projects often begin with
effects of climate change. With components devoted the implementing agencies assisting the cooperating
to the cross-cutting issue of land degradation and nations in undertaking strategic work that focuses on
the specific conditions of Small Island Developing joint fact-finding. Consistent with the Operational
States (SIDS), projects in this operational program Strategy, collaborating nations can each institute in-
often involve determining what sectoral changes are terministerial technical teams to assemble information
needed to achieve a basin's sustainable development that assesses the water-related environmental prob-
goals as well as what type of measures are needed lems and conflicts in their part of the basin or marine
to ensure that the ecological carrying capacity of the ecosystem and share this information with colleagues
water body is not exceeded.
from other nations in a multinational committee set-
ting. In this way, countries can produce a transbound-
The Philosophy for Catalyzing Joint Action
ary analysis, often referred to as a transboundary
diagnostic analysis (TDA), that contains the facts of
Given the number of countries and regions of the the actual or likely future dispute, conflict, or prob-
world participating in GEF projects, it is neither lem and its root causes and that can be shared with
possible nor desirable to describe a single, static key stakeholders for their views. This collaborative,
set of indicators that could be employed in all cir-
factual analysis is an essential starting point for de-
cumstances. It is not possible because a single set of termining priorities for action and for diagnosing root
indicators cannot capture effectively the breadth and causes that produce the stress on the transboundary
depth of the type of site-specific transboundary is-
system. Thus, the TDA can be thought of as the first
sues countries face. The appropriate indicators would step in producing a strategic action program (SAP) to
vary according to the waterbody type, ecosystem set-
address the priorities.
ting, nature of interventions utilized, scientific and
governance capacity, and specific stresses produced The TDA concept is more ful y described in Box 1.
by sectoral activities that result in the transboundary This joint fact-finding activity helps bring countries
degradation.
together and facilitates their capacity to cooperate by
initial y requiring them to produce something together.
The GEF international waters operational strategy Jointly producing such an analysis represents a lesson
aims at assisting countries to jointly undertake a of experience learned in the early 1990s as a result of
series of processes with progressive commitments to decades of talk rather than action in addressing multi-
action and instilling a philosophy of adaptive man-
country basins or marine ecosystems around the world.
agement. Further, it seeks to simplify complex situa-
In addition, the World Bank Board adopted a Water Re-
tions into manageable components for action. Where sources Management Policy Paper in 1993 that recom-
transboundary basins are involved, it is necessary to mended as one of the first steps to address water issues
work at three institutional levels: multicountry, na-
that countries undertake an assessment (basin-by-basin
tional interministerial, and subnational/community assessments in guidance documents created to imple-
levels. M&E considerations are an essential element ment the new World Bank policy) and then produce
to this adaptive management strategy. Different types a strategy for addressing the priorities identified. The
of M&E indicators are then appropriate based on GEF Council's adoption of the use of a TDA in OP8
what stage countries are at in these joint processes. It and OP9 incorporated these lessons of experience.
2
3

---

Box 1. 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. Interministerial 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 issues pertaining to water quality, quantity, biology, habitat degradation, or conflict. After
the threat is identified, the countries can determine which issue or issues are priorities for action, rela-
tive to less significant issues and those of solely national concern. In addition, the root causes of the
conflicts or degradation, and relevant social issues, 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 issues 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 prior-
ity "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 issues 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 geographi-
cally specific actions.
Once one or several priority transboundary con- ticountry and national levels. The central elements
cerns--along with their root causes in the sectoral of an SAP are described in Box 2. In essence, these
activities of each country--are identified in a TDA, multicountry processes in international waters are the
the countries would collaborate in determining equivalent of "enabling activities" in the other GEF
the actions they will take to address those prior- focal areas that are undertaken in response to the
ity concerns. Their responses will be expressed in conventions. Successful adoption of SAPs serve as
an SAP for the basin, aquifer system, or LME and a means of identifying country-driven commitments
adjacent basins. As noted in the Operational Strat- to actions that may improve the effectiveness of sub-
egy, the actions may consist of policy, legal, and/or sequent GEF interventions to assist in implementing
institutional reforms and investments on both mul- those country-driven actions.
4
5

---

Box 2. Role of the Strategic Action Program (SAP)
Once one or several priority transboundary concerns--along with their root causes in the sectoral activities
of each country--are identified in a TDA, the countries would collaborate in determining the actions they
will take collectively and nationally to address those priority concerns. Their responses will be expressed in
a SAP for the basin, aquifer system, or LME and adjacent basins. As noted in the Operational Strategy, the
actions may consist of policy, legal, and/or institutional reforms and investments on both multicountry and
national levels. They are developed by each country, often through national interministerial committees
with participation by stakeholders at the national and subnational levels, and are compiled and agreed upon
at the multicountry level. In some cases, the development of individual national action plans (NAP), which
may incorporate the reforms and investments into national economic development plans, describe the com-
mitments by individual collaborating countries in response to the regional SAPs they have produced. If the
countries wish to implement expected national ("baseline") actions defined in the SAPs, GEF may assist
them in implementing additional or "incremental" actions pertaining to the transboundary environment
that are beyond the direct responsibility of any single country in the basin. The negotiation of funding for
measures to address these agreed incremental costs and their packaging with baseline actions may serve as
the basis for GEF international waters projects.
Summaries of SAPs from individual projects are included with project briefs on the GEF website
(www.gefweb.org), and full SAPs are included on the IW:LEARN website (www.iwlearn.net). The SAPs
serve to identify the country-driven reforms and investments that countries pledge to seek in order to rem-
edy damaged transboundary water systems or prevent further degradation. Stress reduction indicators are
to be established to track whether implementation of the reforms and investments are proceeding. Envi-
ronmental quality objectives or targets set as part of this process may be utilized to track implementation
progress over time.
The UNEP-implemented South China Sea project serves as a good example of the production of an initial
or framework SAP that includes a program of action establishing targets for implementation and that is
accompanied by cost estimates. By certain milestone dates, the collaborating nations expect to achieve
various targets related to the four components. The UNDP-implemented Benguela Current project serves
as a good practice example of completing the SAP during project preparation and then implementing its
agreed incremental costs through a GEF project.
GEF Monitoring and Evaluation
can also help improve objectivity in the annual PIR
process. In extreme cases, it can also help to deter-
GEF's monitoring and evaluation policies and pro-
mine whether a project or program continues to be
cedures were laid down in general terms in a recent relevant. Effective monitoring requires baseline data;
policy document (GEF, 2002). In the GEF context, indicators of performance and related measurements;
monitoring is the continuous or periodic process of activities such as field visits, stakeholder consulta-
collecting and analyzing data to measure the perfor-
tions, and regular reporting; and a feedback mecha-
mance of a program, project, or activity. As an integral nism for management decision-making. Monitoring
and continuing part of project/program management, is an essential part of the entire life cycle of a GEF
it provides managers and stakeholders with regular project or program.
feedback on implementation and progress towards
the attainment of global environmental objectives. Evaluations are systematic and independent assess-
Monitoring enables management to take appropriate ments of ongoing or completed projects or programs,
corrective action in project design or implementation, along with their design, implementation, and results,
as the case may be, to achieve desired results. Report-
that aim to determine the relevance of objectives,
ing to GEF on the achievement of certain indicators development efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and
4
5

---

sustainability. The implementing agencies undertake Process Indicators
interim evaluations during implementation as a first
review of progress, a projection of likely impact, The establishment of process indicators is essential to
and a means to identify necessary adjustments to ac-
characterize the completion of institutional processes
complish the indicators established for success. Mid-
on the multicountry level or the single-country nation-
term reviews (MTR) constitute such an evaluation al level that will result in joint action on needed policy,
and adjustment tool. If conducted at the end of the legal, and institutional reforms and investments that
project/program cycle, they may be called terminal aim to reduce environmental stress on transboundary
evaluations and determine project/program impacts, water bodies. Traditionally, process indicators have
sustainability of the impacts, and, in the GEF context, been a measure of progress in project activities involv-
contributions to global environmental benefits and the ing procurement and production (inputs and outputs)
transboundary water improvements in this focal area. of goods, physical structures, and services. Capacity
and human resource development and stakeholder in-
The Logical Framework Approach (LFA) is the tool volvement have also been recognized as important to
for developing and monitoring the logical relation-
achieving sustainable project outcomes (GEF, 1996b).
ship between inputs, outputs, and objectives/goals The complex nature of many GEF international waters
that determines the implementation of a project via projects requires that there be additional process indi-
identification, formulation, appraisal, implementa-
cators adopted to reflect the extent, quality, and even-
tion, monitoring, and evaluation. Indicators are quan-
tual on-the-ground effectiveness of the multicountry,
titative or qualitative statements that can be used to interministerial, and cross-sectoral efforts that are at
describe existing situations and measure changes or the heart of the GEF international waters approach.
trends over time. In the context of the LFA, an in-
GEF's reliance on collaborative processes that result
dicator defines the performance standard that, when in identifying priorities in a TDA, and seeking reforms
reached, represents achievement of an objective. and investments to address those priorities in an SAP,
GEF international waters projects should include the demonstrates the need for a broad array of process
identification of the appropriate process, stress reduc-
indicators that may capture the successful completion
tion, and/or environmental status indicators as part of of those processes.
developing logical frameworks to help assess project
achievements.
A particular characteristic of international waters
projects is the length of time that is generally re-
International Waters M&E Framework
quired before actual changes can be detected in the
transboundary water environment, especially for the
In the recent past, most international waters projects complex restoration of damaged waters under OP8.
have included a paragraph in the project brief indicat-
Process indicators demonstrate actual, on-the-ground
ing that GEF international waters indicators will be institutional and political progress in the often time-
developed for the project. The framework presented consuming, step-by-step journey to solving these
in OP8 and OP9 that the IWTF has discussed exten-
complex problems. These process indicators assist in
sively is based upon a series of process indicators, tracking the domestic and regional institutional, policy,
stress reduction indicators, and environmental status legislative, and regulatory reforms necessary to bring
indicators. These indicators are employed over the about change. Seen in this light, identifying effective
full life of the project, from project preparation during process indicators is likely to be the most important
the project development (PDF-B) process to the end indicator of success in an initial GEF international
of the project cycle. The indicators, particularly the waters intervention. While these projects can conduct
environmental status indicators that are agreed on by demonstration actions to help treat the symptoms of
collaborating nations, would stay in use beyond GEF-
the problems, their root causes in policies, institutions,
funded interventions, as GEF provided a catalytic and/or laws also have to be monitored.
intervention toward joint action to determine the en-
vironmental status indicators appropriate for nations' Process indicators may be appropriate at various
shared basins and marine ecosystems.
stages of maturity in multicountry cooperation for
6
7

---

addressing transboundary water issues. In the initial, The following are examples of national process
strategic stages of multicountry projects, regional indicators:
process indicators, such as establishing country inter-
ministerial committees or formulating an SAP, may · Country adoption of specific water, environment,
be the only types of appropriate indicators. Further
or sector-related legal reforms, policies, institu-
into implementation, national process indicators, such
tions, standards, and programs necessary to ad-
as a country ratifying the regional convention, enacting
dress the transboundary priority issues, including
legal reforms, instituting regulatory programs, or seek-
stakeholder participation programs
ing investment financing, become more important.
· Country ratification of the regional or global con-
Examples of Process Indicators
ventions and protocols pertinent to the project
The following are examples of regional process · Country commitments to report progress in
indicators:
achieving stress reduction indicators as well as
environmental status data to the regional or joint
· Establishment of country-specific interministerial
institution
committees to engage key ministries that may be
involved with reducing sectoral stresses on the · Incorporation of country assistance strategies
water body
(CAS) in the World Bank or regional develop-
ment bank or UNDP country-level strategic results
· Formation and documentation of high-level steer-
framework (SRF).
ing commit ee meetings for project preparation and
implementation
Stress Reduction Indicators
· Completion of a country-endorsed TDA that Stress reduction indicators relate to the specific on-
establishes priorities, identifies root causes of the-ground measures implemented by the collaborat-
the transboundary priorities, and is endorsed by ing countries. Often a combination of stress reduction
countries
indicators in several nations may be needed to produce
detectable changes in transboundary waters. Whereas
· Documentation of stakeholder involvement in process indicators relate to the needed reforms or pro-
preparation and creation of a stakeholder involve-
grams, stress reduction indicators represent documen-
ment plan (including information dissemination, tation that an on-the-ground action occurred. Such
consultation, and participation) for the project
actions include, for example, an enforcement action
on an industrial pollution discharge that resulted in
· Completion of a country-endorsed SAP containing less pollution loading, an investment that helped a
both regional and country-specific policy, legal, municipal sewage treatment plant reduce nitrogen
and institutional reforms and priority investments loading, or larger-sized mesh net regulations being
that address the top transboundary priorities
enforced for a fishery.
· High-level political commitment to follow up Examples of Stress Reduction Indicators
joint action as signified by, among other things,
ministerial-level declarations or adoption of a joint · Point source pollution reduction investment com-
legal/institutional framework
pleted (kg pollutants)
· Adoption of a science advisory panel in the joint · Non-point source pol ution programs implemented
institutional framework to bring sound science
(area treated with best management practices; kg
advice into the joint transboundary work
reduced)
· Adoption of an M&E plan during project prepara-
· Amount of underwater or wetland area placed into
tion that includes establishment of process indica-
protected management, including the establishment
tors, stress reduction indicators, and environmental
of no fishing zones
status indicators.
6
7

---

· Amount of eroded land stabilized by tree planting indicators may also be appropriate here to measure
(estimated sedimentation reduction)
whether communities and stakeholders benefit from
the changes in environmental conditions brought
· Amount of fishing fleet removed (through alterna-
about by the project.
tive livelihoods)
Examples of Environment Status Indicators
· Larger mesh fishnet policy enforced, fishing re-
strictions, marine protected area established
· Measurable improvements in trophic status
· Reduced releases of pollution to groundwater · Improved (measurable) ecological or biological
recharge zones
indices
· Additional releases of water from dams for envi-
· Improved (measurable) chemical, physical (includ-
ronmental purposes
ing flow regimes), or biological parameters
Environmental Status Indicators
· Improved recruitment classes of targeted fish spe-
cies, diversity, or keystone species
For projects in damaged transboundary systems, years
may go by before a sufficient number of countries · Demonstrable reduction of persistent organic pol-
have implemented sufficient stress reduction mea-
lutants (POPs) in the food chain
sures to enable a change to be detected in the trans-
boundary water environment. For the projects in OP9 · Changes in local community income and social
that mainly address protection measures, as well as
conditions (stable or not worsened by the GEF
land degradation, maintenance of good quality indica-
intervention and, in some cases, improved) as a
tors rather than improvements may be the objective.
result of improvements in environmental condi-
In both cases, collaborating countries must harmonize
tions
their sampling, laboratory, and analysis methods so
that they all agree on what water quality, quantity, or · Demonstrable recovery of key flagship species
ecosystem parameters (living resources) should be
or values as a result of changed rule (operating)
sampled to track progress toward a goal.
curves for dams or vegetative response from wet-
land re-inundation
These agreed environmental status indicators are
measures of actual performance or success in restor-
· Improved hydrologic balance as increases occur
ing and protecting the targeted water body. They
in the number of hectares of trees as a result of
should be established jointly by countries in GEF
reforestation programs
projects so that they can be monitored by countries
undertaking harmonized monitoring programs and re-
· Increased stakeholder awareness and documented
ported to the relevant parties and stakeholders. Social
stakeholder involvement
8
9

---

Annex A: Examples of M&E Indicators in GEF
International Waters Projects
Water and Environmental Management in the
Environmental status indicators include:
Aral Sea Basin (World Bank)
· River salinity in line with targets
The water and salt management component and the
wetlands management component of the Aral Sea · Decreased salinity levels of delta lake
basin project in OP9 include performance monitoring
indicators that are consistent with the international · Increased dissolved oxygen levels in delta lake
waters indicators (World Bank, 1998).
· Increased flows to delta lake
For example, process indicators include:
· Increased number of migratory birds
· Adoption of a regional water and salt management
policy
· Environment of the delta Lake Sudoche is stable
and sustainable from a biodiversity standpoint
· Agreement among the five participating nations
on interstate water use and environmental sustain-
· Income of local population rises.
ability
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends
· Adoption by the governments of each nation of in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand
national policy, strategy, and action programs to (UNEP)
reduce salinity and reduce irrigation water use by
15 percent.
The seven-country, strategic, South China Sea project
in OP8 effectively uses the project logical framework
Stress reduction indicators include:
to express the objectively verifiable M&E indicators,
most of them process indicators. As a recent project,
· Reduction of irrigation water use by 15 percent, it also illustrates the accelerated approach adopted by
which increases effective water flow to delta wet-
the IWTF in which completion of necessary strategic
lands by some 15 percent
work is combined along with on-the-ground demon-
stration activities so that all three institutional levels
· Reductions in soil salinity in line with targets
of activity can be harnessed (intergovernmental, na-
tional interministerial, and subnational/community).
· Achievement of sustainable levels of investment in Of great significance is the adoption during project
the effective management of water resources and preparation of stress reduction indicators and environ-
salinity from private and public sources.
ment status indicators--proposed numerical targets
8
9

---

included in the draft SAP--that will be finalized by · Determining and meeting regional catch levels of
the full project. These numerical indicators address
fisheries that preserve the resource base
the priority issues identified by the countries in their
draft TDA at 35 pollution hotspots and 26 sensitive · Adopting water quality objectives, ambient
areas and in the Gulfs of Thailand and Tonkin. The
standards, and effluent standards for land-based
issues identified as transboundary priorities in the
sources that can be enforced to achieve the ap-
draft TDA, which also was produced during project
propriate quality of water to sustain the marine
preparation, can be summarized, in priority order, as:
ecosystem.
(1) habitat degradation and loss of mangroves, coral
reefs, seagrasses, and wetlands, (2) over-exploita-
The regional task forces will develop these indicators
tion of fisheries, (3) land-based sources of pollution as part of this strategic project.
consistent with the Global Plan of Action (GPA), and
(4) the critical absence of regional agreements for Reducing Environmental Stress in the Yellow
cooperation for the protection and sustainable man-
Sea Large Marine Ecosystem (UNDP)
agement of the marine and coastal ecosystem (UNEP,
2000).
Various international waters M&E indicators are ex-
pressed in the logical framework of this OP8 project.
Process indicators include:
Process indicators vary from the TDA being prepared
and agreed to by the countries by year 2 to the SAP
· Country interministerial committees formed
formulated and endorsed by the countries at the min-
isterial level by year 4. Furthermore, country-specific
· TDA finalized and endorsed
Yellow Sea NAPs will be adopted by nations to list
the national process indicators (like enactment of
· SAP finalized and endorsed at the intergovernmen-
legal reforms) and stress reduction actions (like pol-
tal level
lution discharge reductions as part of an investment
strategy) that will be undertaken. A stakeholder par-
· Development and country adoption of national ac-
ticipation strategy, actions by country interministerial
tion plans (NAPs) or the reforms and investments committees, and a regional agreement for sustainable
each country will need to undertake
utilization of fisheries by year 3 are other important
indicators of key processes to be achieved in the
· Regional adoption of water quality objectives and project.
standards for the marine systems
Various stress reduction indicators will be developed
· Adoption of management plans for individual during the project to characterize regional and coun-
demonstration sites
try actions to reduce overexploitation, improve water
quality, establish marine protected areas, and slow
· Development and adoption of a mechanism for biodiversity loss. These indicators will be included in
regional management of the environment of the the Yellow Sea NAPs by year 3.
South China Sea.
Environmental status indicators are to be developed
Stress reduction indicators will be established in the and agreed to by year 3. As noted in the logical
project and incorporated into each country's NAP.
framework matrix, they would define improvements
in catch-per-unit effort by year 5, improved water
Environmental status indicators relate to achieving quality for target contaminants by year 5, reversal of
targets that involve:
proliferation of harmful algal blooms, and reductions
in biodiversity loss (UNDP, 2000).
· Maintaining mangroves, non-oceanic coral reefs,
sea grasses, and wetlands
10
11

---

Annex B: References
GEF, 1996a. Operational Strategy. Washington, DC: Global Environment Facility.
---, 1996b. Public Involvement in GEF-Financed Projects. Washington, DC: Global Environment Facility.
---, 1997. GEF Operational Programs. Washington, DC: Global Environment Facility.
---, 2002. Monitoring and Evaluation Policies and Procedures. Washington, DC: Global Environment
Facility.
Ollila, P., J.I. Uitto, C. Crepin, and A.M. Duda, 2000. Multicountry Project Arrangements: Report of a Thematic
Review. M&E Working Paper 3. Washington, DC: Global Environment Facility.
UNDP, 2000. Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosystem Project Brief. Annex B: Logical Framework. New York:
United Nations Development Programme.
UNEP, 2000. South China Sea Project Brief. Annex B and Table 2. Nairobi: United Nations Environment
Programme.
World Bank, 1998. Aral Sea Basin Program ­ Water and Environmental Management Project. Project Document,
Volume II. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

10
11

---