GEF Fourth Biennial International Waters Conference
Cape Town, South Africa- July 31 – August 3, 2007
PARTICIPANT LED WORKSHOP, 3 AUGUST 2007
Topic: Assessment & Monitoring of Transboundary Water Systems: a Tool for Tracking Project Impacts.
Coordinator- Joana Akrofi
Facilitator: Professor Eberhard Braune, UNESCO Chair, University of the Western Cape, South Africa.
No of participants: 13
The objective that had been set for the discussion was:
To exchange, lessons learnt and best practices in assessment and monitoring of
the status of transboundary water systems {transboundary river basins, transboundary aquifer systems, Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) and the open ocean areas} in order to use them for tracking impacts of the projects on the status of transboundary water systems.
The question for discussion was:
Need for regular assessment of the status of transboundary water systems as tracking tool for monitoring of impacts of interventions
The discussion received inputs from the Global International Waters Assessments Project (GIWA) and the Danube Regional Project-Peter Whalley.
Highlights of discussions and lessons learned :
1. Methodology
It is important to spend time on methodology development before applying it in a project, otherwise this could use up valuable project time. Major projects could miss the achievement of significant outcomes if the methodology is not appropriate.
2. Massive investments need monitoring support
Major investments are often made, based on project results, e.g. water treatment in the Danube Basin; therefore the importance of good monitoring over long periods to detect the full impact of interventions.
3. Benefit of modelling plus remote sensing
Even data-rich projects can fail because of not enough attention to analysis. Modelling supported by remote sensing data to cover large areas can significantly enhance information for decision-making.
4. Need for agreed assessment tools
There is the need for countries to agree on the assessment tool, because of the large financial implications of decisions based on the information gathered. The big challenge is to establish the baseline conditions to which all countries can agree.
5. Use of indicators
Use of indicators is becoming standard practice e.g. the European environmental indicators. They do not have to be complex, e.g. the monitoring of benthos. This provides the opportunity for developing countries to be more cost effective in monitoring. Indicators also need to be agreed between countries and therefore need to be very specific. Indicators can be grouped into three main categories, namely: process indicators, stress reduction indicators and environmental indicators.
6. Application of TDA methodology
The initial TDA output will usually be very broad, because of an initial lack of information about major parts of the system. Under these circumstances it will be essential to prioritize the proposed monitoring to be cost-effective.. There are significant benefits in a follow-up TDA, once some learning and better understanding of systems has taken place.
7. Institutionalization of monitoring and assessment programme
More effort needs to be made to transfer outcomes and ongoing monitoring and assessment programmes to respective governments. Part of the success of the Danube programme was due to the fact that it was built on existing monitoring as well as assessment networks and methodologies. The project could therefore focus on a more holistic approach for the basin and its Black Sea outlet and on capacity building in all member countries. The whole process was reinforced by the European Water Framework Directive in which countries agreed to comply with certain management measures including monitoring.