Multicountry Project Arrangements
Report of a Thematic Review
Petri Ollila
Juha I. Uitto
Christophe Crepin
Alfred M. Duda
Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 3
September 2000
i

---

Authors
Petri Ollila, Consultant
Juha I. Uitto, GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Team
Christophe Crepin, The World Bank
Alfred M. Duda, GEF Secretariat, Land and Water Team
Published 2000
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 1-884122-85-X
ISSN 1020-0894
ii

---

Preface
The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) team is tasked with analyzing and documenting GEF results. Until
now, conclusions of these efforts have been in the form of evaluation and study reports, annual Project
Performance Reports, and GEF Lessons Notes. With the introduction of the M&E Working Papers series, we
are publishing reports that are not full-fledged evaluations, but nevertheless deserve attention.
Many of the issues and early results that these reports identify will be pursued later in broader evaluations to
arrive at more definite conclusions. We expect the M&E working papers to be a valuable catalyst for promoting
dialogue on issues and results of importance within GEF's operational areas and efforts. We therefore look
forward to your feedback and suggestions. Please contact us through the coordinates listed below and visit the
GEF Web site to find out more about the Monitoring and Evaluation program.
The Multicountry Project Arrangements study is the result of a thematic review carried out in 1999-2000.
Thematic reviews are not comprehensive evaluations ­ when many projects in a portfolio are relatively new,
such evaluations would be premature. Rather, such reviews are more modest attempts to take stock of progress
to date and identify lead indicators of achievements, if any. Additionally, reviewers may identify issues related
to project design and implementation, thereby enabling discussion and reexamination of strategic issues within
the GEF operational programs.
This review was carried out as a collaborative activity between the GEF Corporate Monitoring and Evaluation
Team and the World Bank. The review was based on data and information collected from a variety of sources:
(a) desk reviews of project documents, project completion reports, evaluation reports, and other relevant
documents; (b) annual project implementation reports; (c) interviews with project managers in the implement-
ing agencies; (d) a questionnaire sent to all projects; and, (e) visits to project offices and field sites around the
Danube River (Austria, Hungary and Slovak Republic), the Mediterranean Sea (Greece), Lake Malawi
(Malawi), Lake Victoria (Kenya, Tanzania), and the Baltic Sea (Finland).
Jarle Harstad
Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator
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/html/monitoring___evaluation.html
iii

---

Acknowledgements
This thematic review would not have been possible without the support and valuable contribution of several
individuals and organizations.
During the review, several colleagues in the GEF Secretariat and implementing agencies shared with us their
valuable experiences in project design and implementation, and facilitated country visits to review projects.
They include: Andrew Hudson, Bill Lane, Andrea Merla, John Pernetta, and Francisco Pichon. Maria C.J. Cruz
carried out the field visit to the East Asian Seas project.
We would like to thank the Governments of, in particular, Kenya, Malawi, Philippines and Tanzania for
facilitating country visits. We are particularly grateful to the following project managers who organized project
reviews during country visits:
·
Joachim Bendow, Executive Secretary, International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
·
Lucien Chabason, Mediterranean Action Plan Coordinator
·
Chua Thia-Eng, Project Director, Regional Program on Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in
the East Asian Seas
·
Kjell Grip, Environment Secretary, Helsinki Commission (Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission)
·
Christopher M. Nyirabu, Regional Executive Secretary, Lake Victoria Environment Management Project
We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of our colleagues at the GEF Secretariat, Elizabeth Mook
and William Faries, for assisting in the report's production.
Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to the Government of Finland, which provided a trust fund for
carrying out the review.
Juha I. Uitto
GEF Task Manager
Multicountry Project Arrangements Thematic Review
iv

---

Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1
Summary of Lessons and Considerations ................................................................................ 1
Background and Introduction .................................................................................................... 5
The Issue .................................................................................................................................. 5
The Approach of the Review ................................................................................................... 7
The Review ................................................................................................................................... 9
Site Visits ................................................................................................................................. 9
Danube River Basin Projects: Pilot Phase, Bridging Project, and Preparation
of the Regional Implementation Project ........................................................................ 9
Determination of the Priority Actions for the Further Elaboration and
Implementation of the Strategic Action Program for the Mediterranean Sea ............. 11
Lake Victoria Environmental Management Project ......................................................... 13
Lake Malawi/Nyasa Biodiversity Conservation Project .................................................. 16
Baltic Sea Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM) ........................................ 18
Program on Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas ... 20
Desk Studies .......................................................................................................................... 23
Rio de la Plata .................................................................................................................. 23
Rio Bermejo ..................................................................................................................... 24
Aral Sea Basin ................................................................................................................. 25
Red Sea and Gulf of Aden ............................................................................................... 25
Lake Tanganyika .............................................................................................................. 26
Portfolio Survey ..................................................................................................................... 27
Survey Design .................................................................................................................. 27
v

---

Inventory of Projects Subject to the Review .................................................................... 27
Summary of the Survey ................................................................................................... 30
Organizational Structures ...................................................................................................... 32
Lessons and Considerations ...................................................................................................... 35
Complex Multicountry Issues Require Facilitation ............................................................... 35
Need for Shared Vision for Addressing the Issues ................................................................ 35
Ecosystem Approach as Key to Transboundary Resource Management ............................... 36
Need for Broad-Based Participation ...................................................................................... 37
Involve Multiple Levels of Institutions .................................................................................. 38
Policy and Legislative Implications ....................................................................................... 38
Financial Issues ..................................................................................................................... 39
Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................................... 39
Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... 41
Annexes ....................................................................................................................................... 43
1. Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................ 43
2. Survey Questionnaire ......................................................................................................... 47
vi

---

Executive Summary
A sizable portion of the GEF portfolio--all but a hand-
preparation time and the resources required for
ful of international waters projects and about two
implementation without sacrificing project quality
dozen biodiversity projects--involves more than one
and sustainability. Answers to these questions will be
country. The 1998 Project Implementation Review
fed into the design of future GEF projects as well as
(PIR) identified several advantages that multicountry
help guide projects already under way.
approaches can offer. However, these projects are
frequently more complex than those carried out in a
The review focused on multicountry projects in the
single country and present a number of preparation
GEF portfolio that address transboundary issues
and implementation challenges to GEF and its imple-
within a common ecosystem or other geographical
menting agencies. One of these challenges, in fact, is
area requiring joint action by participating countries.
the greater importance for collaboration among
The focus of the review was on international waters
implementing agencies, both in activities carried out
projects, but selected biodiversity projects addressing
with GEF funding and in their own assistance programs.
transboundary issues were also included in the re-
view. It encompassed a total of 36 projects: 28 inter-
A thematic review was undertaken to explore experi-
national waters and 8 biodiversity projects. Basic data
ences with multicountry projects. The review's ob-
were collected through a desk study of project docu-
jective was to identify emerging lessons about what
ments, PIR reports, evaluation reports and other
kinds of multicountry approaches have worked, what
available materials, as well as a questionnaire sent to
have not, why, and under what circumstances. For
all projects included in the review. Unfortunately,
activities that require joint efforts and commitments
only 20 of the 36 questionnaires were returned and
by more than one country, what characteristics of
several had missing information. The desk study was
project design and inter-institutional collaboration
supplemented by a more in-depth study of selected
processes and structures facilitate effective decision
representative projects. The review team visited six
making and implementation on transboundary issues?
projects; a further five were covered in a more de-
tailed analysis of available documentation.
The review also looked into the issues pertaining to
preparation and administration from the point of view
Summary of Lessons and Considerations
of the implementing agencies and the GEF Secre-
tariat. Early GEF experience is showing that
The review highlighted several specific lessons and
multicountry projects may require more time and re-
areas of consideration for GEF pertaining to
sources to prepare and administer. In analyzing this
multicountry transboundary project design and
issue and its consequences, the review identified
implementation arrangements. It must be noted, how-
whether certain types of institutional and implemen-
ever, that GEF's history of multicountry projects is
tation arrangements can be used to reduce project
still short and few projects have been completed.
1

---

Therefore, these conclusions should be treated as pre-
nents of implementation projects that often follow the
liminary. Furthermore, they are applicable mostly to
strategic first project. The succession of interventions
international waters projects, as few biodiversity
constitutes a pragmatic way of incorporating an eco-
projects actively participated in the review.
system approach into management decision-making
through a logical series of steps that help to simplify
Facilitation in Complex Multicountry Issues. The re-
complex situations.
view demonstrates that GEF can play an important
role in facilitating multicountry approaches and help-
Importance of Broad-Based Participation. Politi-
ing countries deal with transboundary environmental
cal commitment at the highest level is essential for
problems. Complex multicountry and multi-imple-
ensuring efficient operation of multicountry institu-
menting agency structures require careful prepara-
tions and on-the-ground implementation of the ac-
tion, which often leads to longer preparation periods
tions identified in strategic projects. Where the only
and greater cost than single-country settings. The
demonstrated political commitment has been the
process of developing a shared vision and a frame-
agreement to proceed with a GEF-financed project,
work for action among countries sharing a
commitments for policy, institutional, and/or legal
transboundary resource requires political commit-
reforms and investments have been slow to emerge.
ment and public awareness. GEF could play a more
The presence of a regional agreement or convention
proactive role in promoting regional implementation
with progressively more specific commitments is
and leadership through programmatic approaches
highly beneficial. The involvement of relevant exist-
based on careful and scientifically solid analyses of
ing organizations has also clearly improved the com-
the causes of environmental problems and threats to
mitment of stakeholders and facilitated project
sustainability.
implementation. Because project actions often fall
within the jurisdiction of several ministries, the for-
Addressing Issues through Shared Vision. Achiev-
mation of country interministerial committees has
ing a shared vision and commitment among countries
helped induce dialogue and communication.
can be facilitated by initial strategic projects, compa-
rable to enabling activities, that can break down the
All relevant stakeholders in the countries--including
barriers among countries and enable them to focus
the public and private sectors, the scientific commu-
jointly on priority setting. This process allows com-
nity, and civil society--need to be involved in the
plex situations to be broken down into more manage-
project. The inclusion of relevant non-governmental
able, agreed-upon priority issues, which often have
organizations (NGOs) has been useful for involving
specific geographical implications. Joint fact finding
local stakeholders. NGOs can play an important role
and sharing of information in producing a
to ensure transparency and political support. They
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) can help
can also support subnational implementation of
the countries move toward producing a Strategic Ac-
project activities. The scientific community can en-
tion Program (SAP) of country-specific and regional
sure that sound science is used to improve manage-
actions needed to address the identified
ment and decisionmaking.
transboundary priorities.
The TDA-SAP approach may be most efficiently uti-
Utilizing the Ecosystem Approach. Harnessing the
lized if all implementing agencies are involved in the
scientific community as part of identifying the link-
processes. Collaboration among the implementing
ages in a TDA among components of transboundary
agencies according to their respective comparative
ecosystems is a necessary step toward incoporating
advantages is important in overcoming barriers to
an ecosystem approach into development of a SAP.
multicountry action, especially in the international
While these analysis and priority-setting processes
waters field.
take time in multicountry arrangements, it is often
useful to complement strategic work with on-the-
Coordination with other donors is similarly impor-
ground demonstration components that help create
tant. This coordination can best take place in a coun-
commitment at national and local levels. These com-
try-driven context that provides a framework for the
ponents also help underpin application of the ecosys-
different interventions. Such a framework may be
tem approach to practical situations that may be
based on a TDA-SAP process developed with GEF
replicated as part of more comprehensive compo-
support or may be part of an emerging programmatic
2

---

approach. Often GEF projects leverage funding and
Financial Issues. The implications for preparation
prompt complementary actions by other actors that
funding and administrative resources stemming from
operate in the same region.
the higher transaction costs associated with
multicountry projects must be addressed. Evidence
Involving Multiple Levels of Institutions. Action
shows that Block-B preparation grants can be effec-
involving multiple levels of institutions is essential in
tive in producing a TDA-SAP for preventive actions
addressing environmental problems facing
such as those in Operational Program 9. In some
transboundary water bodies and basins. A three-level
cases, however, the funding limit has been too low. In
strategy from regional to national and from national
those cases, a full project may need to be used to
to local has broad applicability in multicountry
prepare a TDA-SAP.
projects. A regional agreement or convention may
facilitate countries in reaching binding agreements to
The threat to the global and regional environment
harmonize their legislation. At the national level,
often stems from local actions caused by social and
country-specific interministerial committees are key
economic conditions. It is therefore important to di-
to ensuring coordination and desired implementation
agnose and address these root causes in order to im-
outputs. At the subnational level, local commitment
prove the transboundary environmental conditions.
can be strengthened through changed incentive struc-
Creating financing packages in which a GEF project
tures, national empowerment/support, and enforce-
is combined with projects by the implementing agen-
ment. Information dissemination and public
cies addressing development issues and national ben-
awareness building are essential in this process.
efits appears to be important to ensuring that a
spectrum of domestic and global benefits may accrue
When it is not possible to start the regional process
to the environment.
through a convention or another multicountry body, it
may be appropriate to channel projects through na-
Monitoring and Evaluation Sytems. Monitoring
tional entities. Even in these cases, however, a spe-
and evaluation (M&E) plays a central role in manag-
cific regional component that is clearly spelled out
ing complex multicountry projects. Effective M&E
and that has sufficient resources should be included.
systems ensure transparency regarding project
progress and results. They can also identify areas
The sustainability of regional bodies needs to be con-
where problems and delays are typically experienced.
sidered in project designs. Specifically, it is essential
Although GEF can help countries set up the M&E
to ensure their continued funding beyond the project
system, data collection and analysis ultimately should
period. This will require that the multicountry institu-
be handled by the countries themselves.
tion be integrated into the participating countries'
organizational structures.
All multicountry projects should include clear provi-
sions for indicators at three levels: (1) process indica-
Policy and Legislative Implications. The institu-
tors (focusing on the processes that are likely to lead
tional structures among participating countries vary
toward a desirable outcome), (2) stress reduction in-
considerably. Therefore, establishing a common in-
dicators (concrete actions that will reduce the envi-
centive and enforcement structure for the entire
ronmental stress on the shared ecosystem), and (3)
multicountry project is at times difficult. Due to po-
environmental status indicators (actual improvement
litical sensitivity, past GEF projects may not have had
of ecosystem quality). As the time scale for achieving
explicit components addressing policy and legislative
actual environmental benefits is long and usually be-
implications and reform. Multicountry coordination
yond the duration of the project, it is important to
of policy reforms requires mutual trust which often
ensure the sustainability of the M&E system; this is
can only be created over a long time span. A relatively
being done in several GEF international waters
powerful regional coordinating unit, perhaps backed by
projects. Experience demonstrates that the M&E sys-
a convention, has been helpful in supporting the process
tem can be integrated into the regular functions of the
of political and legislative harmonization.
participating countries or a regional mechanism.
3

---

4

---

Background and Introduction
The nature of global environmental issues often re-
and commitments by more than one country, what
quires a holistic approach across sectors and political
characteristics of project design and inter-institu-
boundaries. Sustainable management of trans-
tional collaboration processes and structures facilitate
boundary natural resources, to be effective, requires
effective decisionmaking and implementation of
that all parties sharing the resource address the issues.
transboundary issues? The review also looks into the
In the GEF portfolio, multicountry projects are still a
issues pertaining to the preparation and administra-
minority. Yet a sizable portion of that portfolio--
tion of multicountry projects from the point of view
notably most of the international waters projects, but
of the implementing agencies and the GEF Secre-
also several biodiversity projects--consists of
tariat.2
projects involving two or more countries working
together to managea transboundary resource. There
The Issues
are numerous advantages to multicountry ap-
proaches, but these projects also tend to be more
Countries often have varying, sometimes even con-
complex than single-country projects.
flicting, interests regarding a shared resource. For
instance, an international water body may be used as
The GEF 1998 Project Implementation Review (PIR)
a freshwater source by one country and for sewage
recommended a more systematic in-depth examina-
disposal by another. Sometimes the development of
tion of multicountry implementation arrangements in
fisheries or agriculture may be in conflict with
GEF projects, including their requirements for col-
biodiversity conservation, water quality, or tourism.
laboration among implementing agencies and with
These varying uses of a particular environmental re-
other organizations.1 This thematic review is intended
source can cause complex problems between coun-
to address this recommendation. The review focuses
tries, as well as between community groups within
on project arrangements for multicountry projects
countries.
that focus on a water body shared between several
countries.
Experience in the North in addressing these
transboundary water and environmental problems has
The review's objective is to identify emerging les-
demonstrated that their solution takes a great deal of
sons about what kinds of multicountry approaches
time. The North American Great Lakes and the Rhine
have worked, what have not, why, and under what
River Basin countries each used multicountry com-
circumstances. For activities that require joint efforts
missions in the 1950s to study the shared environ-
1
GEF, Project Performance Report (Washington, DC, 1998), pp. 35-37.
2
See Annex 1, Terms of Reference.
5

---

mental problems; these studies and subsequent imple-
try levels is generally needed to facilitate the de-
mentation of significant actions took some 20 to 25
sired change.
years to facilitate--and, in fact, continues to this day.
For the North Sea, Baltic, and Mediterranean, about
·
What are the difficulties in a multicountry setting?
25 years have elapsed since regional conventions
Multicountry arrangements require joint action
were signed to promote improved environmental
that, if not wanted or considered a priority by a
management of the shared waters; significant imple-
given country, may lead to unwillingness to ad-
mentation actions have still to be undertaken. It re-
dress the problem by one or more countries. Even
mains to be seen whether application of the lessons
under the most favorable circumstances,
from establishment of these early multicountry ar-
multicountry arrangements need organizational
rangements can deliver similar results in developing
solutions specially designed for multicountry pur-
countries and those in economic transition in a similar
poses. Most international organizations histori-
time frame.
cally have not been well equipped to address re-
gional activities. GEF is fostering the development
As a result of these early lessons, GEF has formulated
of such capabilities.
its international waters strategy as follows:
Ultimately, these issues relate to the following
The overall strategic thrust of GEF-funded inter-
questions:
national waters activities is to meet the agreed
incremental costs of: (a) assisting groups of
·
Will action by several countries be needed to solve
countries to better understand the environmental
the transboundary question, or will action be
concerns of their international waters and work
needed in a country other than that experiencing
collaboratively to address them; (b) building the
the problem?
capacity of existing institutions (or, if appropri-
ate, developing the capacity through new institu-
·
Will countries working individually have enough
tional arrangements) to utilize a more
commitment to necessary actions to solve the
comprehensive approach for addressing
problem, or will joint multicountry collaboration
transboundary water-related environmental con-
be needed?
cerns; and (c) implementing measures that ad-
dress the priority transboundary environmental
·
Are the transaction costs to facilitate multicountry
concerns.3
cooperation reasonable?
The specific issues that form the starting point of this
The utility of the multicountry approach essentially
review include the following:
boils down to the question: Is it possible to achieve
project objectives at a lower cost and in a shorter time
·
Why do we need multicountry projects? Environ-
by facilitating multicountry arrangements compared
mental problems addressed under the GEF port-
to the overall cost of countries acting individually?
folio often include externalities that require a
Furthermore, it may be difficult to analyze the root
larger perspective than that of a single country. A
causes of transboundary environmental problems and
shared vision or joint agreement regarding the
identify the best course of action through a single-
priority of various issues and common strategies
country approach. Advantages and disadvantages of
on how to address them at the regional and coun-
single- and multicountry settings are presented in the
following table.
3
GEF, Operational Strategy (Washington, DC, 1996), p. 48.
6

---

Single-Country Setting
Multicountry Setting
Low transaction costs if countries agree;
Possibly shorter time to on-the-ground
higher transaction costs if not
results
Easier to implement
Helps to foster multicountry dialogue and
Advantages
prevent free-riding externalities
Allows countries with different economic
Serves to feed problems into legal
conditions and pace of implementation to find
processes in a neutral way
their preferred way of implementation
Difficulty in streamlining activities in various
Higher preparation cost
countries; streamlining absorbs more time
Possible impediments to new multicountry
Varying priority settingin various countries
Disadvantages
agreements
Difficulty in getting comparable data
Difficulty in streamlining local, national, and
international activities
Despite higher transaction costs, a multicountry set-
multicountry approaches than on making a final judg-
ting may lead to shared--and thus lower--costs for
ment about "what has worked, what has not, why, and
project implementation activities. A shared vision
under what circumstances," as stated in the Terms of
expressed in an action program and interaction
Reference (Annex 1).
among countries may lead to improved results. How-
ever, regional organizations sometimes need a sub-
A total of 36 GEF projects was included in the re-
stantial amount of strengthening in order to be
view. All 28 relevant projects in the international
sustainable, especially if donors do not take a re-
waters portfolio, Operational Programs (OPs) 8 and
gional approach into account in their financing
9, were included. In addition, eight projects from the
schemes.
biodiversity portfolio were included, as they focused
on biodiversity protection in the context of
Review Approach
transboundary water bodies.
This thematic review has analyzed experience in
It was decided during the discussions to extend the
greater depth than is possible during PIRs, but is not
review with an in-depth study of 10 projects. The in-
intended to be a full, field-level program evaluation.
depth study included the review of available project
It is based on document and literature reviews, inter-
documentation (i.e., project briefs, project docu-
views, and limited field visits.
ments, supervision reports, evaluation reports, and
completion reports). It was further decided to make
The review began with a series of discussions with
on-site visits to selected project sites. Visits to the
the GEF secretariat and representatives of the imple-
Danube Basin and Mediterranean area were made in
menting agencies. In these discussions, mutual under-
November 1999. In January 2000, missions to Lake
standing about the scope of this review was reached.
Malawi and Lake Victoria were conducted. In Febru-
A key point made was that most of the projects in the
ary-March 2000, the Baltic Sea Environment Protec-
GEF portfolio are still just beginning or are in the
tion Commission (HELCOM) was visited. Finally, in
preparation stage. Thus, it will be difficult to make
April 2000, the East Asian Seas project was visited by
judgments about the final performance of each
a GEF Secretariat staff member who was not part of
multicountry approach because it is not yet known
the core review team.
whether in fact the project will succeed. The review
consequently concentrated more on assessing organi-
Some limitations were observed during the review's
zational and implementation arrangements in
conduct. The present status of the GEF portfolio pro-
7

---

vided only a limited opportunity to analyze projects at
tion was the relative scarcity of material for the analy-
various stages of implementation and make conclu-
sis. It was possible to get sufficient materials from
sions about their multicountry implementation ar-
only half of the projects chosen for the survey. Only
rangements. Most projects under implementation
20 of the 36 projects returned the questionnaires, and
were developed during the pilot phase; many newer
only a few were complete (see Volume II of this
projects are still at very early stages. Another limita-
report).
8

---

The Review
Site Visits
·
The quality of water: pollutants (hot spots), waste-
water, agricultural practices, toxic substances
This section presents the main lessons learned and
future considerations with respect to the projects that
·
The quantity of water: dams, flood control
were visited during the review. Detailed reports of the
project visits are included in Volume II of this report,
·
River navigation: dams, regulation
available from GEF's Monitoring and Evaluation
Team.
·
Fisheries.
Danube River Basin Projects: Pilot Phase,
Even though the problems of the Danube River have
Bridging Project, and Preparation of the
been recognized for decades, it was not certain as of
Regional Implementation Project
the beginning of the 1990s that there would be a
Danube program. In September 1991, however, a
Project Background
planning meeting was held in Sofia. The Environ-
mental Program for the Danube River Basin
The Danube River Basin is in the heartland of South
(EPDRB), Phase I, was launched in 1992. A Strategic
Central and Southeastern Europe. The river flows for
Action Plan (SAP) was prepared during 1994. The
a distance of 2,857 kilometers and drains an area of
second phase of the EPDRB started with the SAP
817,000 square kilometers. The area includes all of
Implementation Program (SIP) in 1996. The SIP
Hungary and Romania, most of Austria, Croatia and
switched the program's emphasis from planning to
Slovenia, nearly half of Czech Republic and
doing. In this, it was a forward-looking program of
Slovakia, a third of Bulgaria, and significant areas of
projects designed to take the EPDRB to the year
Germany and Ukraine. Land use in this large basin is
2000. Since 1996, the SIP has intensified technical
highly diversified, including a wide range of agricul-
assistance to continue and introduce new demonstra-
tural practices, forestry, mining, natural areas, settle-
tion projects and activities for transboundary issues.
ments and industries. The critical interdependence of
At a 1994 meeting in Bucharest, participants agreed
upstream and downstream neighbors for managing
upon a progress review after three years (1997); this
the environmental quality of the Danube can be seen
review resulted in a revised SAP in 1999.
at all levels of the basin. In addition, there are impor-
tant linkages with the Danube River, its delta, and the
In summary, then, the EPDRB Phase I came to an end
environmental quality of the Black Sea.
by 1996. A bridging project was implemented during
1996-99, culminating in a revised SAP. The EPDRB
Among the transboundary issues of the Danube River
was initiated by GEF/United Nations Development
Basin are the following:
Programme (UNDP).
9

---

Organizational Structure
sensus on their shared environmental problems. It
demonstrated that donor funding and donor collabo-
The Convention on Cooperation for the Protection
ration were essential to begin such work and that a
and Sustainable Use of the Danube River serves as
project coordination unit was critical in facilitating
the legal base for the Danube River Program. The
country involvement from the beginning. The pilot
convention has its own permanent secretariat in
phase project was begun before the GEF Operational
Vienna to support the International Water Commis-
Strategy was adopted by the GEF Council; because
sion and other bodies established within its frame-
other unscheduled outputs were needed for GEF pur-
work. The convention also has established permanent
poses, a second modest GEF project--known as the
expert groups for specific tasks.
bridging project and conducted with additional EU
funding--was implemented.
The EPDRB Project Coordination Unit (PCU) was
initially established by the EU PHARE program in
During these interventions, the multicountry pro-
Brussels in 1991. GEF thus came, in a way, to partici-
cesses grew more in line with the GEF Operational
pate in an ongoing project. In 1994, the PCU moved
Strategy as the countries undertook processes to
to Vienna; it dealt with the daily coordination of
jointly agree on a few transboundary priorities
program activities and financial matters, arranged
through the production of a TDA based on existing
meetings, and acted as a technical advisory body. The
information; identified hotspots contributing to the
PCU's main task was to assist the Project Manage-
priority issues; and formulated an SAP delineating
ment Task Force (PMTF), a body of about 30 mem-
what policy, institutional, and legal reforms and in-
bers including representatives from the Danube
vestments they intended to implement to address the
countries, various donors, experts, and non-govern-
priority issues. Experience dictated that if all environ-
mental organizations (NGOs). The PCU became the
mental issues were to be addressed, very little
convention secretariat in 1999. The transformation of
progress would result in a defined time. By focusing
the PCU to a secretariat supported by the countries is
on selected transboundary issues, there was a better
a key element for ensuring verification and transpar-
chance of success.
ency among all stakeholders and for information dis-
semination through a website for the public.
Interministerial committees were formed by neces-
sity in each country to provide input to the
There are three principal actors in the EPDRB: the
multicountry deliberations in producing the TDA and
European Union (EU), GEF, and the Danube River
SAP. This was evident when the mission visited Hun-
Protection Convention. EU implements its activities
gary where such an interministerial system was criti-
through the PHARE program and GEF through
cal to the country's input. The Danube projects also
UNDP. The convention joins the other stakeholders
demonstrated the importance of working at multiple
in the project though the PMTF. The UNDP-PHARE
institutional levels to address complex transboundary
PCU helps the PMTF work with the expert groups,
water issues. Country capacity for joint work at the
which are sometimes divided into subgroups. The
multicountry level was facilitated by the PCU, and
other GEF implementing agencies, the World Bank
decisions were made at this level in the PMTF. All
and United Nations Environment Programme
three GEF implementing agencies participated in the
(UNEP), are assisting in the development of the final
PMTF, along with major donors and NGOs. Dialogue
GEF-funded regional project and in the implementa-
occurred at the national level through the
tion of investments.
interministerial coordinating arrangements in each
country; this enhanced both information flow and
Observations
collaboration among sectors that might not otherwise
have typically interacted. Such committees are essen-
The succession of regional projects in the Danube
tial to (1) provide input to the multicountry activities;
Basin and similar ones in the six Black Sea countries
(2) lead the national planning workshops and pro-
represent the most mature of GEF's strategic inter-
cesses of reforming national policy/legal arrange-
ventions in this focal area. With EU and GEF support,
ments and promoting needed investments; and (3)
the pilot phase project aimed to facilitate the Danube
dialogue with subnational units of government and
Basin countries' learning to work together and begin-
stakeholders for on-the-ground implementation, es-
ning to develop a common understanding of and con-
pecially in hotspot cleanup. The interministerial com-
10

---

mittee then becomes the key element in implementa-
processes and EU directives in accelerating imple-
tion. It can also help provide visibility and empower-
mentation. The Danube SAP implementation project
ment to newly established environment ministries
currently under preparation includes all three GEF
when they chair the interministerial committee.
implementing agencies according to their compara-
tive advantages in assisting the Danube client coun-
The existence of the Danube convention and its po-
tries. This collaborative approach has resulted from
litical mandate was critical in sustaining positive
eight years of GEF support as countries focus on
country participation. During the course of the first
implementing the necessary policy, legal, and institu-
two projects, the use of international consultants was
tional reforms; demonstration activities; and priority
gradually reduced and more local consultants were
investments in the SAP. Flexible EU support was
used. Over time, theconflicting priorities of various
essential during the gaps in GEF funding.
donors that had been experienced initially were
sorted out through production of the SAP, so that
Through the implementing agencies' support for an
some donors might help with certain priorities and
array of projects in the 17-country Black Sea-Danube
others would assist with different interventions.
Basin region--support that is provided by three basin
Along with this evolution, the PCU gradually was
projects and embodied in a draft GEF Programmatic
transformed into the Danube convention secretariat in
Approach for the area--the downstream needs for
1999 under direct control of the countries rather than the
Black Sea restoration were incorporated into the up-
donors. This is a model for other multicountry arrange-
stream Danube and Dnieper Basin GEF projects.
ments to ensure sustainability in finances and political
Around the globe, pollution of coastal seas can only
commitment following the end of GEF support.
be reversed by measures in the basins draining to
them, and they remain virtually unaddressed.
NGO program involvement and support was also
Completion of the needed strategic work and initia-
very important and was encouraged by GEF through
tion of implementation was able to encompass prior-
support for a Danube Environmental Forum. At each
ity Black Sea environmental needs in the six years
PMTF meeting as well as through a small grants
since the convention (eight years since the first GEF
program, NGO participation in subnational activities
intervention)--a relatively rapid pace compared to
was stimulated. This harnessing of stakeholders to
the other transboundary water programs in developed
participate in implementation is being expanded as
countries mentioned earlier. The EU accession pro-
part of current preparation of the SAP implementa-
cess and availability of grant funding have stimulated
tion project.
this progress. If implementation proceeds as noted in
the programmatic approach, the time to implementation
The Danube database that has been established can
from first political commitment would have been re-
provide an important M&E function at the end of
duced to perhaps one-half that of some of the earlier
GEF support. Each country can then report to the
transboundary programs of North America and Europe.
convention the status of interventions it is to imple-
ment under the SAP. Each country will then report
Determination of Priority Actions for Further
progress through performance indicators in undertak-
Elaboration and Implementation of the
ing necessary reforms (process indicators), pollution
Mediterranean Sea SAP
reduction measures (stress reduction indicators), and
subsequent improvement in environmental status of
Project Background
the river. The last element is based on the jointly
agreed, harmonized, and executed monitoring pro-
The semi-enclosed Mediterranean Sea occupies a
gram to confirm ecosystem improvements. Perhaps
major portion of the total basin area, with large rivers
the most significant lessons relate to collaboration
such as the Ebro, Rhone, Po, and Nile draining into it.
among GEF implementing agencies and donors ac-
The 20 Mediterranean countries have a history of
cording to their comparative advantages, the use of
thousands of years of working together. Despite this
GEF implementing agencies to facilitate the coordi-
long history, the variety of countries and their mutual
nated grouping of related projects in a geographic
tensions characterize the region: rich North versus
area to address downstream environmental problems
poorer South; EU countries versus non-EU; Arab
of the coastal seas (which have been unaddressed
countries against Israel; Greece against Turkey; a
across the world), and the influence of EU accession
divided Cyprus, Libya, Algeria, and so on.
11

---

On the other hand, the driving force in making the
points). These focal points consist of representatives
Mediterranean countries work together is tourism. As
of the countries' appropriate ministries (environment,
early as the 1960s, countries around the Mediterra-
foreign affairs, etc.) and exist in areas such as
nean felt they had to do something to protect the sea.
biodiversity and emerging protocols. The focal points
The Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) was adopted
meet before the Meeting of the Contracting Parties to
by 16 countries and the European Commission meet-
the Convention to discuss upcoming issues. Such
ing under the auspices of UNEP in 1975. MAP en-
meetings are held every two years.
tered into force in 1978. Its objective is the protection
of the Mediterranean environment, particularly the
MEDU is housed in a UN office; MED POL is lo-
marine environment, against various forms of pollu-
cated in the same building, which has proven to be a
tion. Another program, the Program for Pollution
good arrangement since it provides a good basis for
Monitoring and Research in the Mediterranean Sea
coordinating activities. NGOs have also participated
(MED POL), was also approved in 1975.
in MEDU meetings almost from the very beginning.
They are invited to the focal point meetings, technical
In 1976, the Convention for the Protection of the
meetings, and action plan meetings.
Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution (the Barcelona
Convention) was signed by 20 countries; this conven-
Through protocols and legal agreements on such is-
tion became the legal basis for MAP, previously an ad
sues as dumping at sea, MAP pioneered the idea that
hoc program. In the same year, the convention's first
the basin's pollution and degradation was a regional
two protocols were signed, those regarding hazardous
problem that should be tackled regionally. METAP
wastes and marine pollution). On behalf of the con-
was funded by the Commission of the European
tracting parties of the Barcelona Convention (includ-
Communities, the European Investment Bank,
ing the EU), UNEP made an application to GEF for a
UNDP, and the World Bank. METAP helps the Medi-
Block-B grant in order to complete the formulation of
terranean countries--individually and collectively--
a Strategic Action Program for the Mediterranean Sea
design and implement environmental projects and
(SAP MED). The preparation process was imple-
strengthen or build environmental institutions by de-
mented during 1997 and 1998. SAP MED is derived
veloping appropriate policy options and mobilizing
from the earlier MAP.
resources. METAP is also a vehicle to raise public
awareness about the environment.
During the SAP MED process, transboundary issues
were addressed. Past experience, together with the
Observations
findings of the draft TDA prepared with a GEF
project development facility grant, suggested that a
The Mediterranean Program was found to have a
major constraint to the protection of the Mediterra-
quite complex institutional structure that reflects its
nean marine and coastal environment results from
long history and the complexities of the relationships
inappropriate management of the coastal zone.
among the 20 participating nations. An outsider
would have difficulty comprehending the myriad
The Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assis-
agreements and arrangements ranging from MAP,
tance Program (METAP), which is a partnership be-
created 25 years ago, to MED POL, MAP MEDU, the
tween donors and the 18 Mediterranean countries
Blue Plan, METAP, the Barcelona Convention, the
with a coastline, is part of a wider and older process
coordinating unit, the many protocols including the
of collaboration and cooperation which began with
series of land-based pollution protocols, and now the
MAP in 1975.
two GEF-supported SAPs--one of which has already
been completed and another that is being formulated
Organizational Structure
under the recently initiated GEF international waters
project.
The MAP Coordinating Unit (MEDU) was estab-
lished in Athens in 1982 in order to act as a facilitator,
The MAP-sponsored monitoring, assessments, and
i.e., a secretariat, to overcome the unavoidable
research have been the focus of activities for the last
discontinuities in program implementation. Specifi-
quarter century, perhaps as a means of finding ways
cally, MEDU enables daily contact with the national
to work cooperatively and build capacity to share
ministries and project units (i.e., the project focal
common knowledge about the shared resource. The
12

---

MAP publications list contains 126 monitoring- and
well as 54 sensitive areas (areas of concern) that may
assessment-related reports produced over the years.
relate to habitat and living resources. The MAP coor-
Needless to say, involving 20 such diverse countries
dinating unit in Athens, which is also the Barcelona
in building a common vision of the Mediterranean
Convention secretariat, has facilitated this process
environment has been an enormously difficult task.
with national consultants, funding to countries, and
One impediment has certainly been the marine nature
involvement of NGOs. Thus, the Mediterranean
of the Barcelona Convention, which did not specifi-
countries have moved forward rapidly with political
cally involve the river basin drainage area to the
commitment and priorities for action with GEF sup-
Mediterranean; this has hindered political commit-
port. One other itemrelates to the extension of MAP
ment to address pollution sources from these river
activities up to the river basins as part of the GEF-
basins. The process of building support for reversing
supported SAP. Countries will now focus not only on
the degradation of the Mediterranean dates back to
the marine water but also on the river basins and
the 1960s. During the intervening years and with the
upstream pollution sources that were not covered in
intervening studies, the realization dawned that a new
the original convention.
approachbased on implementation of policy, institu-
tional, and legal reforms and investments was needed
Another catalytic role for GEF relates to consolidat-
to accelerate progress. Consequently, when GEF as-
ing divergent activities under the rubric of the
sistance was requested in 1997, the climate was ripe
Barcelona Convention. The example is METAP,
for governments to commit to a cleanup. The key
which was a separate program and had separate pri-
factor was the revised Protocol to the Convention on
orities. Now, through the joint GEF international wa-
Land-Based Sources of Marine Pollution adopted in
ters project with UNEP and the World Bank, the
Syracuse in 1996 in response to the 1995 Washington
Bank's support for METAP is institutionally being
Program for Action on the subject. This political
coordinated through the convention for prefeasibility
commitment seems to have been essential in the drive
studies of priority investments. Working with
for quick results in 1997 and 1998 utilizing GEF
METAP, UNEP is using its comparative advantage
preparation funding to adopt a SAP for reducing land-
under GEF-and the Bank is doing likewise in the
based pollution sources. The SAP is the best example
investment process. This coordination and coopera-
of a GEF catalytic action involving political commit-
tion fosters a more productive and logical approach
ment. As a way of operationalizing their revised con-
that may be taken by the countries under the conven-
vention protocol, all countries, both developing and
tion to address convention-priority investments.
developed, that share the Mediterranean are commit-
ted through the SAP to reduce the releases of a large
Lake Victoria Environmental Management
number of pollutants by specific amounts and spe-
Project
cific deadlines.This is an excellent example of a best
practice in the international waters focal area.
Project Background
The GEF project currently under implementation in-
Lake Victoria and its basin contain five countries:
cludes development of a SAP to operationalize the
Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, and Kenya.
biodiversity-related protocol to the Barcelona Con-
Each country has access to the basin's natural re-
vention to include human' impacts (pollution, loss of
sources, and each country has an impact on the lake's
habitat, overexploitation) on the living resources of
environmental condition. The Lake Victoria Environ-
the Mediterranean. It will also support the production
mental Management Project (LVEMP) is a compre-
of national action programs that identify the country-
hensive program aimed at rehabilitation of the lake
driven priorities for investments and policy/institu-
ecosystem for the benefit of the people who live in the
tional/legal reforms addressing land-based sources
catchment, the national economies of which they are
and human-induced degradation of the sea's living
a part, and the global community. The project objec-
resources. This also seemsto be an example of a best
tives are to (1) maximize the sustainable benefits to
practice in utilizing national interministerial commit-
riparian communities using resources within the ba-
tees to translate political imperatives on the
sin to generate food, employment, and income; sup-
multicountry level into national reforms. These may
ply safe water; and sustain a disease-free
then be implemented on the subnational level--with
environment and (2) conserve biodiversity and ge-
priorities already set in the TDA for 111 hotspots as
netic resources for the benefit of riparian communi-
13

---

ties and the global community. The project was de-
sewage contribute to the lake's eutrophication. The
signed for and by the three participating countries--
dense population concentrations, urbanization, and
Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda--with help from GEF.
industrialization in Kenya and Uganda are major con-
Given the political situation, Rwanda and Burundi
tributors to the lake's environmental problems of the
have not been able to participate in the project.
lake. In Kenya, Kisumu and other major towns re-
lease virtually untreated sewage into the lake. A pa-
The LVEMP Tripartite Agreement was signed in
per mill, breweries, and industrial-level production of
1994 by all three countries. The agreement served as
sugar in multiple mills are major sources of nutrient
the basis for further preparation of the project. A
inflows into the lake as is the application of subsi-
regional task force was created, and each of the three
dized fertilizer on sugar and tea estates. Other con-
countries formed national working groups. In each
tributors to pollution include government-sponsored
country, national reports were prepared through
drainage of critical wetlands, such as the Yala
workshops and discussions at the grassroots level
Swamp, which reduce their nutrient-trapping ability.
involving relevant stakeholders as well as the scien-
tific community. The preparation lasted about two
Organizational Structure
years at the national level; the end product was a
report from each country. The reports identified very
The project started at the regional level. However, the
similar priorities and formed the basis for the applica-
project design reflects country-driven activities in
tion for World Bank funding submitted in 1996. The
three different national programs. The World Bank
application was handed over to GEF and approved in
has made one individual credit agreement (IDA) and
1997.
one grant agreement (to GEF) for each of the three
countries, and a regional contract also exists. Each
The project was designed to last 5.5 years. At present,
country implements project components on a national
project implementation is in its third year. Mid-term
basis, with regional meetings held at several levels.
reviews in each country were conducted in the first
For example, attempts have been made to harmonize
half of 1999. The preparation used two Block-B
the fisheries legislation and water quality standards,
preparation grants as part of the preparation phase,
which differ considerably among the countries.
totaling US$1.8 million.
It was mutually agreed to locate the regional secre-
Lake Victoria is relatively shallow. The Nile perch
tariat in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, where the develop-
fishery, which was introduced in the 1960s, has
ment of an environmental project had been going on
evolved into the largest freshwater fishery in the
with help from FAO since 1988. Each country also
world with an approximate value of $200 million per
has a national secretariat. The Regional Policy and
year. The introduction of the Nile perch into the lake
Steering Committee, consisting of three members
had a significant impact on biodiversity as the new
from each country at a high political level, acts as the
species largely replaced those previously found in the
project's coordinating body. The committee is sup-
lake. The basis of this fishery is in a changed environ-
posed to meet two to three times a year.
ment that has resulted from the increased level of
nutrients and sediment in the lake. Later develop-
A Convention for the Establishment of the Lake
ments have demonstrated the negative effects of ex-
Victoria Fisheries Organization (LVFO), drafted with
cessive eutrophication, however. An infestation with
FAO assistance, was discussed in the three countries
water hyacinth and other weeds (e.g., hippo grass,
in late 1993 and early 1994, and signed by all three on
papyrus) could threaten not only the fishery, but also
June 30, 1994. LVFO was to be presided over by a
the economic viability of all lacustrine communities,
Council of Ministers responsible for fisheries. It was
and toxic algal blooms are now being recorded.
to have an Executive Committee made up of Direc-
tors of Fisheries Research, a Fisheries Management
The root causes of the changes in the lake environ-
Committee, a Scientific Committee, such other sub-
ment are in the surrounding land areas, but these vary
committees and working groups as might be needed
from country to country. In Tanzania, population
from time to time, and a Permanent Secretariat lo-
densities and urbanization levels are not as high as in
cated in Entebbe, Uganda.
the other countries, but livestock and one urban area's
14

---

Observations
Benefits of a Comprehensive Funding Package. In
a region such as the Lake Victoria Basin where real
Involvement of Basin Countries and Regional Co-
development and natural resource management prob-
ordination. LVEMP is very much three separate
lems affect people's day-to-day life, it is important
country projects located under a common umbrella.
that global environmental benefits accruing from a
These projects have advanced at very different paces.
project be coupled with national and local benefits. In
Although a detailed tripartite agreement was signed
the case of LVEMP, the GEF grant is matched by
at the time of the launching of the preparation process
concessional IDA loan financing in each country for
in August 1994, an integrated approach to project
productive activities with direct local and national
implementation has not been pursued. In this regard,
benefits. This combination has had beneficial impacts
an emphasis was originally placed upon working
on the project's perception in the region. For other
through LVFO. Currently, however, LVFO's role is
international waters projects that must address land
mainly focused on fisheries.
management issues, this experience is quite impor-
tant in illustrating the need to produce financing
The multicountry activities of the project are the re-
packages so basin development needs may be met
sponsibility of the Regional Executive Coordinator's
along with global considerations.
office located in Dar es Salaam. The same office acts
as the national secretariat for Tanzania, which is an
In the LVEMP umbrella multicountry setting,
arrangement that has been found to be a source of
microprojects have proven to be a flexible approach
concern. It is felt, especially in the other participating
in decreasing the startup transaction costs of joint
countries, that this arrangement results in certain con-
activities. They have had a demonstration effect
flicts of interest and lack of attention to multicountry
whereby microprojects in a basin country or area
issues. With this in mind, it is advisable to separate
have enabled the implementation of LVEMP to move
these two functions and to provide a secretariat that
into concrete, field-level activities with local ben-
has only one responsibility to enhance harmonization
efits. The success of community-based rearing of
and coordination among the countries. This separa-
weevils for water hyacinth control is a good example.
tion of functions has already been agreed upon by the
project participants.
Execution of Project Components Nationally and
Regionally. Regional cooperation among the project
A unique achievement has been the establishment of
components is vital in ensuring development of
a regional Tender Board to service the entire project.
shared understanding, shared commitments, and har-
This feature is intended to provide economies of scale
monized actions that do not place countries at eco-
and to smooth purchasing under the project; in prac-
nomic disadvantage. This cooperation will require
tice, however, it has been somewhat hampered by
sufficient funding for regional activities. The national
increased bureaucracy. Nevertheless, the concept is
secretariats have an important role in coordinating the
perceived as highly beneficial.
domestic components' cooperation and for providing
their country's input to the regional dialogue. The
It has proven to be important to have an effective
importance of unhindered flow of information, coop-
system for coordinating the activities between not
eration in component design, and sometimes even
only the sectoral authorities involved in the project
joint implementation is apparent. In addition to com-
but also between the countries. A key element of the
prehensive problem solving, close cooperation may
project is the control of water hyacinth infestation. To
lead to economizing in data collection, monitoring,
this end, the project is testing various methods for
and sampling; avoidance of duplication of effort; and
water hyacinth control, including biological and me-
improved utilization of experiences.
chanical means, and the utilization of harvesters. One
of the major drawbacks in this and other respects in
It appears to be essential that the national project
the project is that not all basin countries are party to it.
executing authorities be located close to where the
For example, much of the water hyacinth reaches the
activities need to be executed. In Tanzania, the 1999
lake through the Kagera River, meaning that it would
move of the project office from Dar es Salaam to
be essential to engage Rwanda and Burundi in the
Mwanza resulted in accelerated project progress. In
project as soon as this is politically possible.
Kenya, while the project offices are now located in
Kisumu and other basin towns, the slow release of
15

---

funds from the treasury continues to hamper project
forms they identify. This strategic work still needs to
implementation. Most of the heads of the project
be accomplished.
components are also still based in Nairobi. These
implementation differences contribute to the dispari-
Similarly, for complex and politically sensitive
ties among the countries and are likely to slow down
multicountry projects dealing with transboundary re-
overall project progress.
sources, such as LVEMP, the implementing agencies
must provide appropriate incentives and sufficient
One aspect of the project is its large number of com-
administrative resources for project supervision. In
ponents and the fact that their implementation status
the LVEMP case, the World Bank is already on its
vis-à-vis each other and the different participating
third task manager during the project life time. The
countries varies significantly. Each of the compo-
supervision resources only allow one supervision
nents is encouraged to have regular meetings with
mission to each country annually. More emphasis
their counterparts in the other participating countries.
should be given to continuity and effectiveness of
These efforts at harmonization have not been evalu-
project supervision to ensure results on the ground.
ated, but ad hoc meetings cannot substitute for an
independent, dedicated facilitating organization that
Lake Malawi/Nyasa Biodiversity Conservation
can establish a sense of trust and joint equivalent
Project
action among all countries.
Project Background
Need for M&E and Indicators. The lack of process
indicators as well as comprehensive M&E at the re-
The emphasis of this GEF pilot phase project has
gional level make it difficult to assess progress. It will
been on establishing the scientific, educational, and
be important to better coordinate the activities of the
policy basis for the sustainable conservation and
sectoral or thematic components within each country
management of the lake's globally important
as well as among the three. A joint, shared manage-
biodiversity. A major objective is strengthening ca-
ment information system for the entire project might
pacity among the participating countries--Malawi,
help so countries could report progress in reduced
Mozambique and Tanzania--in freshwater manage-
stress on Lake Victoria, but this has yet to be put in
ment, research, and environmental education. The
place.
project has provided baseline biological and water
quality information for future scientific monitoring
Institutional and Legal Harmonization. There is
and lake resource management. These outputs to-
also a need to make a stronger link to policy formula-
gether with the initiatives to harmonize policy and
tion, legal and institutional reforms, and harmoniza-
legislation are expected to strengthen trinational lake
tion at both the national and regional levels. Only
research and management and provide the capacity
such linkages could result in the required institutional
and information necessary for maintaining
developments that would guarantee the project's
biodiversity in the lake.
sustainability.
Although the Lake Malawi/Nyasa project encom-
Resources for Supervision and Donor Coordina-
passes all three countries sharing the lake, its activi-
tion. It seems evident that there will be a second
ties are heavily concentrated in Malawi. This fact is
phase to LVEMP, which has had a slow start. There is
largely due to the original driving force for the project
significant donor interest in the region. It is therefore
being the Malawi government. The physiography of
important that other donors, including bilaterals,
the lake is such that only its southern part in Malawi
working in the same geographical area need to be
provides a shallow shelf which allows for small-scale
coopted to a broader programmatic context. The GEF
coastal fisheries. In other parts of the lake, this shelf is
Operational Strategy recommends a process for coun-
missing and the shores are steeper. Furthermore,
tries jointly producing a SAP through country-spe-
Mozambique and Tanzania both have a long coast to
cific interministerial committees as an instrument for
the Indian Ocean, which has resulted in more empha-
ensuring country ownership of reforms needed; this
sis on oceanic fisheries. For these reasons, the pres-
can then produce a logical framework for donors that
sures on the lake fishery in Mozambique and
wish to help countries make the country-driven re-
Tanzania are significantly less severe than in Malawi,
16

---

where intensive small-scale fisheriesin the southern
mental management of Lake Malawi/Nyasa thus re-
part of the lake has caused a noticeable decrease in
quires an integrated approach to land and water man-
fish yields and stocks in response to the rapid popula-
agement. Developing such an approach requires a
tion growth in the country. Lake Malawi is not as
longer term perspective in which coordination be-
important a resource for the other tow countries, nor
tween the various components, sectoral ministries,
do they pose the main threats to the lake. This situa-
and activities in the different countries is essential. A
tion, however, is beginning to change as more people
focus should also be on harmonization among project
move to the shores of the lake in Tanzania and, espe-
components where there is potential overlap or where
cially, Mozambique where the extended civil war is
cooperation could lead to economies of scale and
now over and displaced people are being resettled on
complementarities.
a large scale.
There is a risk that projects of this type become too
Organizational Structure
complex, with the result that the overall goal may be
lost. It is also harder to monitor and evaluate the
The project is supervised by a tripartite Steering
overall success of a project when the different com-
Committee involving all three countries in the basin.
ponents and different countries involved progress at
The Steering Committee is chaired by the principal
varying paces.
secretary of the Malawi Ministry of Natural Re-
sources and Environmental Affairs. The funds for
Developing a Shared Vision and Establishing
project activities are channeled through Malawi; this
Long-Term Monitoring. Analysis of the Lake
country also dominates most project decisions. There
Malawi/Nyasa and the Lake Victoria projects demon-
was only one GEF legal grant agreement with the
strates how differences in physical environment and
government of Malawi. The legal framework is being
socioeconomic conditions and development set the
implemented through an agreement of technical co-
challenges for achieving sustainable development in
operation that the three countries signed with FAO in
a specific context. Consequently, proposed actions in
1997.
a basin need to be based on a scientific analysis of the
transboundary problems facing the lake in question.
Observations
Similarly, long-term scientific M&E is needed that
should continue beyond the project's lifetime in order
Political Commitment and Shared Long-Term
to ensure its impacts. This may require searching for
Vision to Support Integrated Approach. The Lake
alternative and innovative funding mechanisms that
Malawi/Nyasa Basin case demonstrates the need to
would guarantee the sustainability of M&E efforts.
develop political commitment among sectoral minis-
Furthermore, M&E should focus on outcomes rather
tries in each country and among countries, as well as
than outputs, and process indicators should be
a shared vision of action to reverse land degradation
identified.
and reduce fishing pressures where it is adversely
affecting biodiversity. This commitment must incor-
Need to Incorporate All Participating Countries.
porate environmental management with the require-
The present project focused almost exclusively on
ment of improving the livelihood of the stakeholder
fisheries and on one of the countries--Malawi--
communities in which poverty is still prevalent. As
which also reaped most of the benefits. Although the
many threats to the lake's biodiversity and environ-
implementation of all project components was guided
ment as a whole are related to management of land-
by a tripartite Steering Committee, the participation
based resources and the growing population that
of the Mozambique and Tanzanian governments has
intensively farms the land or extracts fish from near-
been very limited. Tanzania and Mozambique have
shore areas, it is important to assume an approach that
throughout the project expressed their desire for a
integrates land and water management and engages
more formal agreement that would guarantee a more
all relevant agencies and stakeholders in the three
equal sharing of project resources among the three
countries. Apart from overfishing, the lake environ-
countries for future monitoring and management
ment is threatened by sedimentation. Intensive small-
activities.
holder agriculture, deforestation, and erosion in the
watersheds surrounding the lake create strains on the
One of the main lessons of the project is that, in order
lake environment that need to be addressed. Environ-
to engage countries effectively in a multicountry
17

---

project around a shared resource, all participating
and principles of the Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive
countries must be fully incorporated as equal partners
Environmental Action Program (JCP). As a result of
in the management of the shared resource. A regional
these meetings, a new Convention on the Protection
cooperation mechanism with sufficient resources is
of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area--
needed. Regional coordination should be the respon-
the 1992 Helsinki Convention--was signed by all
sibility of an entity that is seen as independent from
nine countries involved as well as by the European
national mechanisms in any participating country.
Economic Community. The new convention came
Regional activities should be identified as specific
into force in January 2000.
outputs and outcomes of multicountry projects, and
should be monitored and evaluated as such. In re-
Two other international conventions have jurisdiction
gions such as the present one where the history of
over the Baltic Sea large marine ecosystem. The In-
cooperation around the shared resource is short and
ternational Council for the Exploration of the Sea has
where the countries have differing levels of interest in
been involved since 1901 in developing international
the lake, a phased approach could be adopted
cooperation and advice for the North Atlantic and
whereby the level of cooperation is increased as more
adjacent seas such as the Baltic. Governments have
experiences are gained.
used the council's scientific advice for management
purposes. In addition, the International Baltic Sea
Need for Continuity in Project Management. Suf-
Fisheries Commission manages the fisheries of the
ficient administrative resources and appropriate in-
cooperating Baltic nations.
centives for the management of complex
multicountry projects are needed both in countries as
Observations
well as in the implementing agencies. In the case of
the Lake Malawi/Nyasa project, the World Bank is
Political Commitment and Public Support. The
already on its fourth task manager--a situation that is
success achieved to date in implementation of the
not ideal for continuity in managing a project. Simi-
JCP is directly related to sustained political commit-
larly, sufficient resources are needed for adequate
ment and broad-based public support. This success
supervision.
can be attributed to the exceptionally effective devel-
opment of a strong series of partnerships between
In the countries concerned, frontline supervisors re-
HELCOM, the European Union, regional organiza-
sponsible for the important work may have much
tions, cooperating countries, local governments, in-
lower pay than the middle managers to whom they
ternational financing institutions, bilateral donors,
report. Consequently, the GEF project may lose key
academic and applied research institutions, NGOs,
country frontline supervisors to other higher paying
and a large number of individual citizens. Further-
jobs, often after sending them for advanced degrees
more, the relatively favorable economic situation
and training with little long-term benefit to the
around the Baltic also contributes to the success of
project. This disruptive element should be addressed
cooperative activities.
by the implementing agencies in fees through the
adoption of premiums, and by countries in proper
The successful incorporation of legal, policy, and
remuneration for frontline supervisors.
regulatory reforms into the HELCOM project has
been exceptional. Thus a major lesson learned from
Baltic Sea Environment Protection
HELCOM is the necessity of emphasizing institu-
Commission (HELCOM)
tional development as well as biological and techni-
cal activities. Another key element of the project has
Project Background
been public awareness, which has helped create the
needed commitment at the individual as well as
Baltic Sea environmental protection has a rather long
policymaking levels. Note, however, that HELCOM
tradition, stretching at least as far back as the 1974
has addressed pollution issues, while the other two
Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environ-
commissions address mainly living resources. The
ment of the Baltic Sea. The diplomatic conference on
three commissions have traditionally worked sepa-
the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Bal-
rately. The GEF project currently under development
tic Sea adopted the Baltic Sea Environmental Decla-
will contribute to implementation of the JCP through
ration in 1992, which endorsed the strategic approach
support for high-priority complementary activities to
18

---

be defined in detail under the GEF Project Develop-
Dealing with Transboundary Pollution. An impor-
ment Facility (PDF)-supported process, including In-
tant share of Baltic Sea pollution is of transboundary
terrelationship of Living Marine Resources to the
origin. The major guideline for most Western coun-
Baltic Sea Environment and Ecosystem and Reduc-
tries in such matters is the "polluter pays" principle. It
tion of Non-Point Source Pollution for Agriculture. It
is understood, however, that this cannot be the sole
will also support Strengthening Monitoring and As-
regulator in the Baltic Sea. First, the countries with
sessment of the Ecosystem and Development of Eco-
reforming economies within the region do not yet
system Indicators. These activities have been selected
have the necessary capital or human resources to
for support by GEF based on their importance to
provide the required pollution control investments
transboundary environmental management of the
during their period of restructuring. Second, the
Baltic Sea ecosystem and high potential for develop-
higher income countries in the region are experienc-
ment of model activities whose experience could be
ing steeply rising unit costs of pollution control.
transferred by GEF to other locations that share simi-
Third, all the countries are subject to transboundary
lar challenges. The project is intended to provide an
pollution. Therefore, a case can be made for comple-
important mechanism for fuller integration of the
menting this principle with a transboundary approach
ecological dimension through increasing emphasis on
to environmental investments for domestic pollution
the sustainability of living marine resources. It also
reduction and by providing support for cost-effective
aims to accelerate the rate at which actions will be
action in other countries to reduce transboundary
undertaken at the farm level to reduce non-point
pollution.4
source pollution from agriculture in a cost-effective
manner. Through GEF catalytic action, all three com-
Organizational Issues. GEF funds are ordinarily di-
missions with jurisdiction will work together for inte-
rected to projects; HELCOM is a commission. GEF
grated management of the Baltic Sea large marine
was able, however, to fund HELCOM, as it and its
ecosystem.
secretariat are intergovernmental bodies. GEF's role
is financing incremental environmental costs, while
Links to Economic Development. Baltic Sea envi-
the World Bank finances economic activities. In a
ronmental protection has gone hand in hand with
situation like this, there is a danger that the commis-
economic development programs that have also been
sion consisting of countries will be bypassed by the
beneficial to the JCP. The alteration of pricing struc-
implementing agencies dealing directly with the
tures and attempts to better define property rights
HELCOM Project Implementation Task Force.
have contributed to the results. However, domestic
priorities--especially in countries with economies in
A major question with respect to HELCOM is its
transition--have often hindered those countries from
active role in relation to other donors that work di-
reaching the best possible results. Another lesson
rectly with the countries.5 A commission such as
learned from HELCOM is the necessity of transpar-
HELCOM can only do what the member countries
ency both with regard to the activities and among
want, yet HELCOM is currently at a stage where the
countries.
political commitment of many member countries is in
question. To maintain political commitment, public
The Time Dimension. In order to achieve sustain-
awareness about JCP implementation needs improve-
able results, projects such as HELCOM need to be
ment.. In the near future, HELCOM is hiring a full-
planned for 15 to 20 years rather than 3 to 5 years.
time information officer to do publicity work, collect
However, HELCOM has found that there is an in-
information, maintain contactswith the media, and
creasing demand on the part of countries for quicker
keep the commission's website updated.
reaction time than previously. This has led to a re-
structuring of HELCOM, with committees and work-
A challenge to a commission of this nature is to
ing groups being replaced by task-oriented groups
define its role and obtain the requisite political and
capable of responding quickly to needed activities.
public support based on this definition. Closer coop-
4
HELCOM, "The Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Program," Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings
No. 48 (Helsinki, 1993).
5
This question also concerns other commissions such as the Danube and Black Sea Commissions.
19

---

eration with other similar arrangements, such as
three levels of coordination. The first level is project
HELCOM and those for the Danube, Black Sea and
execution by an international organization, IMO. To
Mediterranean Sea, may play a beneficial role.
facilitate day-to-day operations, the project estab-
lished its own regional office, the PDMO, based in
Program on Prevention and Management of
one of the participating countries (Manila, Philippines).
Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas
The second level of coordination is at the subregional
Project Background
level, specifically a demonstration project in the
Straits of Malacca. The project focused on pollution
The East Asian Seas project was approved by the
prevention and management in asubregional sea area
GEF Council in July 1993, under the GEF's pilot
bounded by three countries. The coordinating mecha-
phase, with an allocation of $8.0 million. UNDP is
nism involved a steering group, comprised of senior
the GEF implementing agency, and the International
government representatives from Indonesia, Malay-
Maritime Organization (IMO) serves as the project's
sia, and Singapore, and a technical and scientific
executing agency. A regional program office, the
group comprised of more than 30 experts and scien-
Program Development and Management Office
tists from universities in each of the littoral states.
(PDMO), was set up in the Department of Environ-
The mechanism served to develop consensus on the
ment and Natural Resources of the Philippines and
goals, methodologies, and expected outputs among
began operations in January 1994. By December
the three countries, as well as scientific and technical
1998, the pilot project had completed all its major
support to deliver and achieve concurrence on the
activities and submitted its terminal report and evalu-
outputs themselves. A subregional environmental
ation to UNDP and GEF in October 1999. A follow-
risk assessment was completed, highlighting areas of
on international waters project building on the pilot
concern common to the three countries related to the
project was approved in July of that year.
ecosystem within the Straits, human health of coastal
communities along the Straits, and society as a whole
The project covers a regional water body shared by 11
in the three countries. The approach will serve as a
countries (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China,
model in other subregional sea areas of the region.
DPR Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines,
Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and Viet-
In addition to the PDMO and demonstration sites, at
nam). It represents a unique approach to multicountry
the third level, the project introduced the following
coordination by an international organization, utiliz-
institutional mechanisms to ensure multicountry
ing demonstration projects at both the subregional
coordination:
and local levels to develop and test management
mechanisms that may then be replicated elsewhere in
·
Program Steering Committee (PSC) composed of
the region. The project has five objectives: (1) devel-
representatives of participating countries, UNDP,
opment and implementation of integrated coastal
and IMO, with observers from international and
management (ICM) demonstration sites, (2) develop-
regional organizations, donors, and NGOs--The
ment and demonstration of environmental manage-
PSC met annually to provide policy guidance and
ment of a subregional sea area using risk assessment/
assess progress of activities, especially with re-
risk management processes, (3) enhancement of par-
gard to meeting the needs of countries in the re-
ticipating countries' ratification to and implementa-
gion. The project workplan and budget were also
tion of international conventions related to the
approved by the PSC, which signified endorse-
prevention and management of marine pollution, (4)
ment of the project's objectives and operations by
development and promotion of sustainable financing
the countries.
mechanisms for marine pollution prevention and
management programs, and (5) establishment of an
·
Regional Network of Legal Advisors and Regional
environmental monitoring and information manage-
Network on Environmental Monitoring, comprised
ment network.
of in-country professionals and institutions--The
networks provide materials and inputs to develop
Organizational Structure
project training materials and related technical/
legal documentation. Workshops and training ac-
The project's institutional structure makes use of
tivities were designed for specialized manage-
20

---

ment-oriented programs, including environmen-
life of the project, 29 training courses and workshops
tal monitoring, strategies and techniques for imple-
were attended by over 1,270 participants from the 11
menting international conventions, model legis-
countries in the region.
lation, etc.
Similarly, such an umbrella project can induce col-
·
National Network of Marine Experts, comprised
laborative activities with international partners. The
largely of in-country professionals--The network
project was successful in sponsoring and facilitating
provided the materials and resource persons for
the conduct of more than 30 collaborative activities
capacity-building workshops designed for special-
with international and regional agencies and organi-
ized management-oriented programs and marine
zations, such as regional training courses, publica-
pollution modules, including training in ICM, oil
tions, international workshops, and information
pollution preparedness and response, and environ-
exchange with international partners, including the
mental impact assessment. The network also pro-
Canadian International Development Agency, Swed-
duced a good practices guide that was translated
ish International Development Cooperation Agency,
into nine regional languages.
City University of Hong Kong, Japan International
Cooperation Agency, Japan Association of Marine
·
Local Interagency Project Committee in the two
Safety, the Norwegian government, and the British
demonstration sites (Philippines and China) to pro-
Council.
vide a pilot model for multisectoral consultation
that also involved the private sector--Although
Important project-initiated activities have supported
the institutional setup was at the site and commu-
country ratification of international and regional con-
nity levels, there are significant impacts regard-
ventions through the development of, e.g., Guidelines
ing its operation and structure that may be appli-
on National Legislation on Marine Pollution Preven-
cable to multicountry arrangements. The local
tion and Management for East Asian Countries and a
committees were effective in building stakeholder
Model Framework of National Marine Pollution Leg-
consensus on priority activities and dispute reso-
islation for East Asian Countries. These products are
lution. An important contribution of the local com-
supplemented by a legal information database con-
mittee setup was facilitation of the formulation
taining over 600 materials and references, an aggres-
and passage of key local legislation and regula-
sive awareness and dissemination campaign, and
tions on access and use of coastal and marine re-
reviews of existing national marine pollution legisla-
sources.
tion. There have been at least 36 country-specific
ratifications of conventions and protocols during the
Observations
project's lifetime. However, several countries still
have not ratified some of the most critical interna-
Utilizing an Umbrella Multicountry Approach.
tional and regional marine pollution conventions.
The East Asian Seas project has been based on an
umbrella approach developed during the pilot phase
Defining the Geographical Scope of Management
which has allowed activities to be undertaken nation-
and Project Boundaries. An umbrella project such
ally. This approach has been used to improve man-
as the present one can define the overall framework
agement of identified hotspots through
for managing the ecosystem within which more geo-
government-sponsored demonstration sites. China
graphically distinct actions can take place. An ex-
and the Philippines provided significant counterpart
ample of this would be Malacca Straits, where
support to the Xiamen and Batangas Bay sites, re-
collaboration was organized within a multicountry
spectively; and the governments of Indonesia, Malay-
subunit of the ecosystem covered by the project. GEF
sia, and Singapore jointly produced an assessment of
approved the follow-up project with the understand-
environmental risks in the Malacca Straits. The um-
ing that individual ecosystem-based projects, such as
brella approach can facilitate multicountry collabora-
the South China Sea and Yellow Sea, would comple-
tion and information sharing on nationally
ment the existing project.
implemented actions.
Maximizing Advantages of Local-Level Imple-
National capacity was developed cost effectively by
mentation. The GEF international waters OPs recog-
coordinated multicountry training programs. Over the
nize the need to focus actions on three institutional
21

---

levels: multicountry, national interministerial, and
Strengthening National Participation. A common,
subnational. This project focused on implementation
yet critical, issue in any multicountry project is
at the subnational level where project impacts matter
strengthening national participation beyond the
most. Although it can be argued that the weak link
government's initial cash and in-kind counterpart
may lie in scaling up the gains from localized in-
contributions. Several reasons are cited for the dwin-
volvement to multicountry levels, the project has
dling interest of governments. One is the changing
demonstrated that there are replicable aspects. Per-
government agency administration and representa-
haps it is in the area of expanding the improvements
tion on the PSC. This lack of consistency makes
in the pilot sites to national programs and regionwide
coordination difficult, especially if the transition
impacts where the challenge may be greatest.
from one administration to another is not as smooth
as desired. One way of strengthening national partici-
The institutional mechanisms established in the pilot
pation is by offering concrete, tested approaches to
sites offer significant lessons for similar projects. For
coastal and marine resource management. In fact, the
example, in Xiamen, the municipality established an
project has improved awareness of the lessons
interagency coordinating committee and special ma-
learned in ICM through its extensive publication and
rine office that facilitated the passage of legislation
information exchange programs. However, there is a
by the Chinese Congress. The lesson in this experi-
need to incorporate these more systematically into
ence indicates that pressures from communities may
national plans and strategies. This link to national
be more effective than focusing at the top, as the
plans is one of the most challenging tasks facing the
project has shown in its difficulties in securing
second phase of the project since most of the coun-
ratification of MARPOL 73/78 by the Philippine
tries in the region do not have updated or comprehen-
government.
sive countrywide coastal and marine resources
development strategies. In other projects (e.g., the
Single-country demonstrations as part of
Danube), development of a SAP has helped facilitate
multicountry projects may be irreplaceable in break-
government commitment, and SAP implementation
ing down barriers for other countries to adopt similar
can lead to the incorporation of identified priorities
approaches. The countries may feel more comfort-
into national planning processes.
able with new approaches based on the experiences of
other countries in their region.
Another area where improvements may be introduced
is maximizing the comparative advantages of IMO as
In the Batangas Bay site, the provincial government
a global mechanism for the conventions and proto-
set up a new office to handle environmental assess-
cols. So far, the project has not shown how an interna-
ments and encouraged the private sector to set up its
tional organization, compared to a regional
own foundation, the Batangas Bay Resources Man-
mechanism like ASEAN, can offer better results for
agement Foundation. The foundation, which is com-
multicountry coordination so that the objective of
posed of 23 local industries, serves as the counterpart
reducing marine pollution and creating more effec-
monitoring mechanism to the provincial government.
tive coastal and marine management can be achieved.
However, while the private industries surrounding
The advantages may lie in the services that IMO may
the bay are important stakeholders in controlling ma-
offer to facilitate interregional exchange of experi-
rine pollution, the project realized that fishermen's
ences, especially in the areas of intercountry dispute
associations and local communities had to be en-
resolution. In general, existing regional mechanisms
gaged proactively. Clearly, the lesson was to expand
should provide an overall framework and linkages to
stakeholder participation so that those who are di-
other activities within which the project operates.
rectly affected by the quality of the waters in the bay,
and those who have the most to lose if marine pollu-
At the level of national implementation, there may be
tion continues unchecked, need to be involved much
additional support needed to coordinate local-level
earlier in the project cycle. This highlights the impor-
activities with national programs of related agencies,
tance of implementation at the subnational level, in
such as agriculture and fisheries, infrastructure, fi-
line with GEF's Operational Strategy and Public In-
nance, and social services. Because most of the popu-
volvement Policy.
lations in affected coastal communities belong to the
bottom 30 percent income bracket of countries, there
22

---

is the additional challenge of integrating poverty alle-
national water projects is currently under discussion
viation programs. The interagency setups of the
within the GEF International Waters Task Force.
Xiamen and Batangas Bay sites provide good ex-
amples of how such coordination can be done at the
Desk Studies
local level.
This section presents the review of projects selected
One lesson on multicountry coordination from the
for in-depth desk studies.
Batangas Bay site is the increased use of civil society
groups, especially the private sector. In fact, a com-
Rio de la Plata
mon observation in most multicountry projects is the
importance of involving a broad base of stakeholder
A variety of different views and a large number of
groups as early as project preparation. During project
institutions can make project preparation very com-
design of the Batangas Bay site, there was a con-
plex. This seemed to be the case for the project cover-
scious effort to bring all concerned government agen-
ing the Rio de la Plata and its Maritime Front that was
cies together, but such coordination had to be done by
submitted by UNDP on behalf of Uruguay and Ar-
only one unit--in this case, the provincial govern-
gentina ($10 million total, $6 million GEF). The area
ment. Scientists from the province's universities and
is part of the Patagonia Shelf Large Marine Ecosys-
other professionals brought in by the project provided
tem (LME) and is biologically rich from a fisheries
the scientific basis for designing the pollution control
standpoint.
and prevention activities. But it was through the pri-
vate sector where funds were mobilized and where
The project's transboundary issues relate to massive
concerted actions on the part of industries were made.
pollution loading, continued dredging for navigation
that stirs up highly toxic bottom sediments, overfish-
Adopting Well-Defined Performance Indicators.
ing, releases of contaminants from ships, and frag-
Project impacts and sustainability were assessed
mentation of institutional jurisdictions for addressing
through the application of performance indicators,
these issues. As evidenced by the long preparation
but these were limited to the ICM sites. Four sets of
time, different assumptions held about what GEF
indicators were used: process indicators--measuring
might support, the number of GEF Council comments
achievements in the process or approach adopted for
when the project proposal was submitted, the number
project design and implementation, stress removal
of institutions that necessarily must be involved, and
indicators--measuring progress in developing ways
the sheer complexity of the situation, international
of reducing environmental stress in the coastal and
waters projects can be institutionally and technically
marine areas, sustainability indicators--measuring
very complex and necessarily take long periods of
impacts of introducing mechanisms for ensuring and
time to sort out solutions.
continuing environmental management efforts be-
yond the project's life, environmental stress indica-
Two joint commissions between Argentina and Uru-
tors--assessing the changes in the coastal and marine
guay have jurisdiction depending on the area, one
environment before and after the project.
close in on the Plata estuary and the other extending
out into the LME. They were created under the Treaty
Although there are improvements to be made in mea-
of the Rio de la Plata and its Maritime Front, signed
suring these indicators, they have been very useful in
by the countries in 1973. Both the Binational Techni-
detecting progress and areas where changes need to
cal Commission for the Maritime Front and the Ad-
be introduced at various stages of the project. It may
ministrative Commission for the Rio de la Plata were
be useful to add more socioeconomic indicators, es-
proposed to be involved in the project according to
pecially those that relate to diversity in culture and
their mandates. However, their jurisdictions begin
history, governance, and community impact. Addi-
offshore and therefore have little legal jurisdiction
tionally, it may be helpful to think about how these
over the land-based sources of pollution that are driv-
indicators can be measured and evaluated by
ing degradation of that part of the Patagonia Shelf
nonproject participants, and how such measurements
LME.
can be made by engaging affected populations and
communities. A similar framework for M&E of inter-
23

---

Another important lesson relates to the use of a GEF
Rio Bermejo
project in creating a steering committee (known as
the Project Coordinating Committee) that will have
The Bermejo River Basin of Bolivia and Argentina
all the necessary jurisdictions represented on the apex
originates in the Andes and flows through the Chaco
committee as well as in a Technical Advisory Group
region to the Paraguay River. It is a major basin of
and Intersectoral Working Groups in each country to
123,000 square kilometers, covering an area the size
provide that country's input to the TDA and SAP
of Hungary and Bulgaria. Excessive levels of sedi-
processes. The bodies representing appropriate juris-
ment, important transboundary biodiversity, and the
dictions include the Argentina Secretary for Natural
existence of a binational commission for develop-
Resources and Sustainable Development, City of
ment of the basin made the area attractive for the first
Buenos Aires Secretary for Urban Planning and Envi-
GEF international waters project to be undertaken
ronment, Province of Buenos Aires Secretary for En-
within the TDA-SAP project formulation (for consis-
vironmental Policy, Argentina Navy and Coast
tency with the GEF Operational Strategy). In essence,
Guard, Ministry of Economy, and Argentina
such a small initial project--$2 million from GEF for
Undersecretary for Fisheries. In Uruguay, the repre-
two years--with such strategic multicountry work
sentative bodies are the Uruguay Ministry of Hous-
coupled with demonstration activities in basin man-
ing, Land Planning and Environment, Municipality of
agement and land degradation control was a para-
Montevideo, Uruguay Navy and Coast Guard, Uru-
digm for OP-9 in the Operational Strategy for
guay Planning and Budget Office, and National Fish-
international waters and for involving stakeholder
eries Institute. Together with the Administrative
groups in the basin in helping determine their sustain-
Commission for the Rio de la Plata and the Binational
able development future.
Technical Commission for the Maritime Front (in the
Foreign Ministries), the three GEF implementing
Consistent with the GEF Operational Strategy, a fol-
agencies, and the Inter-American Development
low-on international waters project is under prepara-
Bank, this large group forms the Project Coordinating
tion to implement the priority measures identified by
Committee or apex group responsible for the project.
the SAP along with expected baseline activities
funded by others. This is similar to the strategy in
One of the institutional issues to be addressed is
other GEF focal areas where an enabling activity
whether some more simple arrangement for joint
grant is provided to undertake the strategic work of
management of the area would make more sense in
identifying priorities and producing action plans/
addressing the ecosystems concerns of the shared
strategies for submittal to convention Conferences of
water body. Another dimension of this fragmented
the parties; this is then followed up with a number of
approach is this UNDP project covering only part of
country-driven projects addressing the top priorities
the LME, while a complementary series of World
submitted to the conventions. In this case, the SAP
Bank GEF and regular program projects, a UNDP
implementation projects are submitted to the GEF
GEF biodiversity project, and IDB projects address
Council and serve as the basis for determining coun-
the remaining areas. In order to facilitate an ecosys-
try-driven funding priorities of a transboundary na-
tem-based analysis in this fragmented world of juris-
ture. Of particular note is that the project was able to
diction-based requests for GEF projects, the UNDP
evoke considerable involvement and excitement from
Rio de la Plata project was charged with the responsi-
NGOs and subnational levels of government as well
bility to produce the TDA in a coordinated manner to
as from the binational commission. This lesson--that
set out the linkages among environmental problems
OP-9 projects can benefit from the participation of
in a clear and transparent context. The GEF Interna-
local stakeholders in the identification and planning
tional Waters Task Force has identified this complex
of both demonstration activities as well as necessary
plethora of project requests and environmental prob-
multicountry strategic work (TDA and SAP)--is im-
lems to be a priority for a programmatic approach
portant for commitment to implementation at later
under the international waters focal area similar to
stages as the SAP is implemented with or without
that developed for the Danube-Black Sea Basin.
GEF assistance.
24

---

Another observation from the completed SAP has
corrective activities in each of the basin states. This
been the use of demonstration activities to catch the
commitment of state governments has led to mutual
attention of stakeholders upfront and to try pilot inter-
agreement regarding program activities, even where
ventions to determine whether they may be scaled up
countries' individual priorities vary greatly. GEF and
in the implementation project. This made the basin
its implementing agencies were involved in this pro-
land and water management problems concrete to the
cess, with the World Bank being the actual imple-
wider public whose use of poor land management
menting agency.
practices initially created the transboundary sedimen-
tation problems. These demonstrations may have
Compared to the project identification and design
shown that future implementation will be less risky
processes used in, for example, the Danube River
and that corrective actions for transboundary pur-
Basin or Rio Bermejo, the method of involving all
poses that depend on the cumulative impact of many
relevant stakeholders into the process at an early
local actions may well be successful. This raises the
stage seems to have been informal. This has perhaps
same issue as the Lake Victoria project: To be suc-
contributed to a tension between local and interna-
cessful on the broad scale needed to reverse the type
tional parties, including consultants.
of land degradation being experienced in the Bermejo
and in the downstream Paraguay-Paraná system,
It is not clear whether the "GEF as coach" strategy
projects warrant financing packages that address lo-
could have led to another kind of project design using
cal issues at the same time as stakeholders are being
the strong commitment in the area as a driving force.
asked to address global issues.The Bermejo is at
The question about the role of local organizations
about the same stage as the Black Sea-Danube, and both
with respect to international consultants may be a
projects may benefit from an exchange of lessons.
topic requiring discussion within GEF. This discus-
sion is even more relevant in regions where there is a
One final observation involves the institutional struc-
strong local culture with set ways of dealing with
ture of the project. UNEP does not have a country
situations and circumstances, as compared to the bu-
presence to undertake such a project. It chose to part-
reaucratic culture of a large international organization.
ner with the Organization of American States (OAS),
which does have such a country presence, has the
The International Fund to Save Aral Sea is a high-
capacity to address these difficult land and water
level cooperative body with representatives from sev-
resource management issues, and served as a coach to
eral ministries from each basin state. The
the binational commission. The commission and its
organization serves as a coordinative mechanism, al-
subsidiary country agencies undertook the project
lowing information flow between various ministries
work. While coordination meetings were explicitly
and states. In this sense, it acts in a somewhat similar
facilitated by OAS to involve UNDP and the World
manner to the interministerial committees, such as in
Bank on the project's steering committee, it does not
the Danube Basin project. Even though it seems to be
appear that the priorities in the SAP have been con-
an appropriate mechanism in a multicountry setting,
sidered by the two organizations as part of their sup-
it is possible that some lower level connection that
port to the two countries. Similarly, the lack of formal
allows NGOs and other relevant organizations to par-
interministerial committees in each country may mean
ticipate could be useful.
that priority needs identified by the NGOs, binational
commission, and subnational governments in the SAP
Red Sea and Gulf of Aden
may not have been internalized in the finance, planning,
agriculture, or environment ministries of the two coun-
The seven countries of the Red Sea have long recog-
tries to ensure that root causes of the degradation identi-
nized that they experience common environmental
fied in the TDA could be addressed quickly. Further
problems and threats in their shared large marine
insight into these dynamics would require a site visit,
ecosystem. In 1982, they signed the Jeddah Conven-
which was beyond budget scope.
tion to affirm their commitment to cooperate in pro-
tecting the Red Sea ecosystem; they also created a
Aral Sea Basin
Program for the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf
of Aden. This program was officially established in
The serious environmental degradation of the Aral
1996 by the Cairo Declaration, which was signed by
Sea Basin has resulted in a commitment to begin
all parties.
25

---

The countries sought GEF assistance for project
tion sources so that the regional project could be
preparation funds in 1995, and a Block-B grant was
focused on prevention and straightforward activities
issued with all three GEF implementing agencies col-
with a good chance of success.
laborating in project preparation. Each agency used a
portion of the Block B funding to prepare its compo-
Lake Tanganyika
nent of the project. The resulting project was ap-
proved by the GEF Council; its total cost was $37
The multicountry Lake Tanganyika project entitled
million, with $19 million of that provided by GEF.
Pollution Control and Other Measures to Protect
Biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika was designed in a
The collaboration began with preparation funding be-
radically different way from the predominantly
ing distributed among all three implementing
single-country Lake Malawi project discussed earlier.
agencies.Each agency therefore had administrative
Building on early experiences in facilitating the
resources with which to develop collaboration as well
Danube and Black Sea Basin projects, UNDP applied
as preparation resources to manage the in-country
some of these project principles to assist Burundi,
work. The strategic work needed for consistency with
Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, and Zam-
the Operational Strategy was accomplished during
bia in addressing their shared lake basin. With more
Block-B preparation. A simple TDA was produced as
than twice the funding of the Lake Malawi project
well as a SAP upon which the project was based.
($10 million), a great deal more could be accom-
While this level of progress is possible during prepa-
plished in building institutional commitments for
ration for OP-9 preventive and simple projects, OP-8
joint multicountry collaboration.
remedial projects with serious transboundary issues
may take an entire project and several years to gain
A PCU was established to facilitate each country's
multicountry agreement. The resulting project was
participation in activities independently as well as
the first GEF international waters joint project among
jointly. High-level officials from each nation partici-
the three implementing agencies. This modality is
pated in a steering committee that was responsible for
being tested and replicated for remedial activities as
the project. Various programs were established with
part of OP-8 in the Caspian Sea project.
the objective of helping the riparian countries pro-
duce an effective and sustainable system for manag-
The Red Sea project is based on the concept of under-
ing and conserving the lake's biodiversity. By
water protected areas that are not only important
involving local communities in its design, the project
biodiversity sites but also serve as spawning and
embraced the dual needs of development and conser-
nursery areas, sustaining fishery populations upon
vation so that people's livelihoods can be maintained
which commercial and artisanal fishers depend. Po-
into the future. It covered a broad range of issues,
litical commitment represented by the regional con-
from biodiversity to fisheries, impacts of sedimenta-
vention and Cairo Declaration is important for GEF
tion and catchment degradation, pollution, socioeco-
because it demonstrates a commitment to carry on
nomic issues, education, and development of a joint
with regional activities--sustaining interventions and
geographic information system (GIS).
SAP implementation--through continued financing
of the program when GEF funding has ended.
The original concept called for production of a strate-
gic plan for the lake. Following adoption of the GEF
The Red Sea has provided a unique opportunity to
Operational Strategy by the GEF Council, UNDP
cluster international waters and biodiversity projects,
worked with the project to modify its program of
enabling complex situations to be broken down into
work to be more consistent with the international
manageable chunks for simplicity in implementation.
waters portion of the Operational Strategy. The
The Red Sea project was developed with the under-
project adopted the approach of joint fact-finding in
standing that it would not duplicate four single-coun-
compiling information so all countries could review it
try integrated coastal management projects (Egypt,
and update it through the GIS. The result is a TDA
Yemen, Sudan, Eritrea). In addition, the Gulf of
that prioritizes two or three top shared issues and
Aqaba is the worst hotspot for transboundary pollu-
relegates the remaining environmental problems to
tion in the Red Sea. With the World Bank, a separate
other efforts. Pollution discharges in Bujumbura,
remedial, single-country international waters project
Burundi, and Kigoma, Tanzania, were cited as
(in OP-8) was developed to address the hotspot pollu-
hotspots for abatement activities. Excessive sediment
26

---

loading from certain river basins, mostly in Burundi
been made in understanding the technical issues of a
and D.R. Congo, and scattered elsewhere, were iden-
transboundary nature, identifying hotspots for con-
tified for accelerated attention; the overfishing issue
certed action, building a joint understanding and
was identified as important because of the large com-
shared ownership of the lake basin, harnessing scien-
mercial fishery, its economic importance to certain
tific organizations and local communities, and setting
nations, and the transboundary nature of the stock and
the stage for building political commitments at the
patterns of landings and markets.
top level for joint management of the resource. The
GEF project is expected to close during the latter part
The program also adopted the formulation of a SAP, a
of 2000.
series of activities to be implemented not only jointly
but also by individual countries to address the top-
Portfolio Survey
priority issues. Various assessments conducted under
the programs built the capacity of country officials to
Survey Design
sample and assess environmental status in the areas of
biodiversity, pollution, and sedimentation. Many of
Questionnaires (see Annex 2) were sent to all 36
the publications are available on the project's
sample projects. Twenty questionnaires were re-
website, which also features country links and links
turned; only a few, however, were fully completed.
to UNDP, GEF, and coaches from international orga-
All returned questionnaires are available from the
nizations. Additionally, the site facilitates dialogue
GEF Secretariat M&E Team as Volume II of this
among the countries on shared issues. For those with-
report.
out Internet access, CD-ROMs are produced every
three months. These, together with the public portion
The survey had 20 questions, 9 of which concerned
of the website, promote transparency among NGOs,
project identification and design; the remainder in-
government officials, countries, and funding organi-
volved various aspects of project implementation.
zations.
The following presents a brief description of the sur-
vey population:
As of the end of 1999, the Lake Tanganyika govern-
ments had produced a fourth draft of an international
·
Thirteen out of 18 belong to the international wa-
treaty to affirm their political support for the restora-
ters focal area, and 5 belong to the biodiversity
tion and protection of the Lake Tanganyika ecosys-
focal area.
tem (Convention on the Sustainable Management of
Lake Tanganyika). The draft convention establishes a
·
Eight projects are implemented by UNDP, six by
Lake Tanganyika authority consisting of a joint man-
the World Bank, and three by UNEP. In two
agement committee and a secretariat to assist the
projects, all three implementing agencies are in-
nations in operationalizing sustainable management
volved; in one UNDP is working together with
of the lake, its biological resources, and the catch-
UNEP; and in another, the World Bank has joined
ment area draining to it. Various protocols and an-
with UNDP.
nexes will specify progressively more stringent
country commitments as implementation proceeds.
·
Four projects are executed by UNOPS, four on a
The draft SAP includes the commitment to move
national or binational basis; the rest have varying
toward the convention and the lake management au-
arrangements.
thority. It also contains provisions for national ac-
tions within the regional framework.
Inventory of Projects
Despite war and unrest in D.R. Congo and Burundi--
The inventory of projects covered by this review is
which necessitated moving the coordination office to
presented in the following table.
Tanzania in the short term--important progress has
27

---

Other
Material
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Question-
naire
Returned
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
P
6
SAP
F
TDA
TDA/
SAP
P
P
P
PX
P
p
P
TDA/
PDF-B
TDA/SA
P-LBS
TDA/SAP
TDA draft
Inter-min
Committee
X
X
X
PCU
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
no
o
o
Conven-
tion
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
N
X
X
of
No.
Countries
7
5
4
9
8
9
7
3
11
2
6
2
4
3
8
2
A
E
UNOPS
UNIDO
UNOPS
UNOPS
IMO
UNOPS
UNOPS
National
Barcelona
Conven-
tion
National
UNOPS
Binational
MRC
OAS
B
IA
UNDP
UNDP
UNDP
UNDP
UNDP
UNDP
UNDP
WB
UNEP
WB
UNDP/UN
EP
UNDP
WB
UNEP
UNDP
W
UNDP
UNEP
GEF
9.3
6.0
10.0
8.5
8.0
3.9
1.8
35.0
6.3
3.0
8.4
6.0
11.1
3.2
Funding (M $)
Total
23.3
6.0
10.0
43.5
11.4
3.9
8.7
77.6
10.5
4.3
18.3
10.8
17.9
6.0
Full
project or
PDF-B
PDF-B
PDF-B
PDF-B
PDF-B
or
OP
Pilot
Phase
Pilot
Phase
Pilot
Phase
Pilot
Phase
Pilot
Phase
Pilot
Phase
OP-8
OP-8
OP-8
OP-8
OP-8
OP-8
OP-8
OP-8
OP-8
OP-8
OP-8
OP-8
OP-9
Project Title
Black Sea Environmental
Management
Industrial Water Pollution
Control in the Gulf of Guinea
Large Marine Ecosystem
Pollution Control and other
Measures to protect Biodiversity
in Lake Tanganyika
Danube River Basin
Environmental Management
Prevention and Management
of Marine pollution in the East
Asian Seas
Developing the Danube River
Basin Pollution Reduction
Programme
Developing the Implementation
of the Black Sea Strategic
Action Plan [Program?]
Lake Victoria Environmental
Management
Determination of the Priority
Actions for the further
Elaboration and Implementation
of the Strategic Action Program
for the Mediterranean Sea
Lake Ohrid Management
Addressing Transboundary
Environmental Issues in the
Caspian Environment Program
Pollution Control and Habitat
Protection in the Rio de La
Plata and its Maritime Front
Mekong River Water Utilization
Reversing Degradation Trends
in the South China Sea
Benguela Current LME
Bay of Bengal LME
Yellow Sea LME
Strategic Action Program for
the Binational of the Bermejo
River
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
28
6
P means that TDA and/or SAP is planned

---

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
P
P
P
P
raft
SAP+TDA
D
SAP
Draft
SAP
TDA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
5X
5
9
13
3
20
2
1
1
8
1
3
1
1
10
IFAS
PERSGA
UNOPS
IMO
SPREP
OAS
HELCOM
Bi-
National
National
National
UNOPS
National
National
National
UNOPS/
WB
WB
UNDP/WB
/UNEP
UNDP
UNDP
UNDP
UNDP
UNEP
UNDP
UNEP
WB/UNDP
UNDP
WB
WB
UNDP/
UNEP
WB
UNDP
WB
WB
UNDP/
WB
12.0
19.3
5.2
16.2
12.3
3.1
5.0
1.5
10.9
3.0
12.9
0.5
2.3
15
71.5
45.0
10.1
28.5
20.3
4.0
5.4
1.7
23.6
3.0
18.4
0.6
3.2
115
PDF-B
PDF-B
PDF-B
PDF-B
PDF-B
PDF-B
OP-9
OP-9
OP-9
OP-9
OP-9
OP-9
OP-9
OP-9
OP-9
OP-9
OP-2
OP-2
OP-2
OP-3
OP-3
OP-4
OP-4
STRM/
Pilot
OP-9 Pilot
Phase
Water and Environmental
Management in the Aral Sea
Basin
Implementation of the Strategic
Action Program for the Red
Sea and Gulf of Aden
Preparation of the Strategic
Action Program and Trans-
boundary Diagnostic Analysis
for the Tumen River Area, its
Coastal Regions and Northeast
Asian Environs
Building Partnerships for
Environmental Protection and
Management of the East Asian
Seas
Implementation of the Strategic
Action Program of the Pacific
Small Island Developing State
Integrated Management of the
Lake Chad Basin
Western Indian Ocean
Integrated Management of the
Okavango Basin
Costa Rica-Nicaragua:
San Juan River Basin
Baltic Sea Regional Project
Conservation of Biodiversity
in the Lake Titicaca Basin
Lake Malawi/Nyasa
Biodiversity Conservation
Danube Delta Biodiversity
Establishment of a Programme

for the Consolidation of the Meso-
American Biological Corridor
Forest Biodiversity Protection
(Poland)
Reducing Biodiversity Loss at
Cross-Border Sites in East Africa
Transcarpathian Biodiversity
Protection (Ukraine)
Biodiversity Protection
(Slovac Republic)
Nile Basin Initiative-Basin-
Wide Shared Vision Program
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
29

---

Summary of the Survey
Project Implementation
Project Identification and Design
Organization. Project organization usually consists
of three levels: a regional decisionmaking body, a
GEF project identification usually involves a variety
regional implementing unit, and national secretariats.
of multinational and national organizations, includ-
ing NGOs. In one-third of the projects, the GEF Sec-
In the decisionmaking body, project member coun-
retariat was also involved. The GEF Secretariat's
tries are usually represented by the appropriate minis-
input was used mainly in more recent projects based
tries. Projects like the Mediterranean and Rio de la
on experience with the older ones. That is under-
Plata efforts are implemented directly under the cor-
standable, given GEF's rather short history. In recent
responding convention. The Danube Basin pilot
projects, such as the second Danube Basin project, a
phase project was steered by a task force in which
consultant familiar with GEF requirements was hired
other stakeholders, NGOs, and international donors
to assist in finalizing the project proposal. In one of
were also represented.7
the latest projects under preparation, the Nile Basin
project, the World Bank planning philosophy starting
Most projects have project implementation/coordi-
from the "vision" was utilized.
nating units or regional secretariats handling day-to-
day operations. The role of the regional secretariat
The existing regional conventions and international
with respect to national secretariats varies from
and multicountry agreements were recognized in the
project to project. In projects such as that at Lake
project preparation process. However, only seven
Ohrid, both participating countries have their own
projects were based on a special convention. The
project implementation units. Regional secretariats
interest of national governments varied: usually na-
often coordinate regional expert groups. National
tional governments seemed to be more active in
secretariats may be independent agencies, or they
projects where the number of participating countries
may be directly under ministries.
was relatively low, perhaps depending on the gener-
ally higher amount of financing available to each
The following observations about project organiza-
participating country.
tion can be made:
NGOs were, to some extent, involved in project de-
·
It is important that the regional secretariat be an
sign. Selected NGOs were invited to participate in
independent unit not bound to a national secre-
steering committees. The scientific community was
tariat.
usually used in project preparation. Only in three
cases was the scientific community represented on
·
In some projects, the appointed secretariat person-
the steering committee. Other commissions or secre-
nel are conducting that assignment in addition to
tariats were utilized in project preparation in half of
other duties. This has prevented the secretariat
the cases. In six projects, interministerial committees
from being as efficient as it could be. Both re-
were formed during project preparation.
gional and national secretariats should therefore
employ their personnel as full-time employees.
As a general conclusion, in most cases a wide variety
of organizations are involved in the project prepara-
·
Projects have benefited from involving stakehold-
tion process. This is important in creating commit-
ers such as NGOs into the decisionmaking body.
ment and ownership. With respect to multicountry
settings, the various stakeholders could be even more
·
Intergovernmental multicountry organizations
involved on a regional basis than they would be if
seem to be a very effective means of involving
each country attempted to involve them internally.
countries' sectoral ministries in addressing
transboundary concerns. Multicountry organiza-
7
The Danube project now receives directions from the convention Conference of the Parties.
30

---

tions have been effective in enforcing national
experiences and whether results could be improved
political and legislative interventions because of
through larger regional cooperation (e.g., Danube,
the harmonization that occurs in their multicountry
Black Sea, Mediterranean, or Lake Malawi, Lake
processes.
Tanganyika, and Nile Basin). More portfolio-wide
interactions through programmatic approaches would
The scientific community is usually involved in
help in addressing this problem.
project preparation and implementation. It seems that
it is often easier for scientists to work with
Project funding occurs through the implementing
multicountry issues than it is for policymakers. How-
agencies. On the average, 50 percent of funding was
ever, the cooperation of both groups is needed to
provided to governments, 15 percent was utilized by
obtain sustainable results. The extent to which the
the PCUs, 27 percent was used by external consult-
scientific community is needed in project manage-
ants, and 6 percent was used by other groups such as
ment and decisionmaking remains to be analyzed. As
NGOs. Based on such a small sample, it is difficult to
noted, however, scientific analysis of data is critical
say whether there are differences in funding alloca-
in producing a TDA.
tions across projects conducted by the different
implementing agencies.
About half of the projects had arranged
interministerial committees or other groups to cope
Verifiable Indicators of Political Commitment.
with issues dispersed among several ministries.
The most frequently mentioned verifiable indicator
These arrangements have significantly improved the
was the financial or in-kind support of member coun-
flow of information between ministries and improved
tries to project activities or project coordination.
the understanding of various points of view of the
Some projects followed the national budget alloca-
different ministries with respect to project issues.
tions for the project. Expressions of support, whether
Many projects would benefit from more intensive
written or oral, are also carefully noted.
interministerial multicountry cooperation in the form
of improved information gathering and development
To achieve the political and legislative changes
of ways for producing "buy-in" with regard to needed
needed to guarantee sustainable development, verifi-
changes.
able indicators should be identified.
In most projects, the involvement of the private sector
Involvement of Other GEF Implementing Agen-
and NGOs could be improved. The same applies to
cies. The majority of the projects responding to the
local governments, municipalities, and cities. The
questionnaire regarded the involvement of other
commitment of these groups is crucial for changing
implementing agencies in the project in a positive man-
the attitudes and behavior of the initial target, the
ner. During project preparation, the involvement of sev-
local populace.
eral agencies was considered less important.
The role of consultants varies in project implementa-
The World Bank could be involved in projects where
tion. International consultants have been used for
economic development is important for environmen-
tasks where regional expertise has not existed. In
tal improvement. The World Bank's role could also
those cases, a transfer of knowledge to regional ex-
be to finance investments to model solutions directly
perts has been emphasized. The experience in
related to pollution reduction.
projects examined shows that, for sustainable results,
the use of local consultants is preferred.
UNDP could use the project mechanisms and exper-
tise in developing and implementing technical assis-
Operational Linkages and Funding. The projects
tance projects in related fields.
have established operational linkages with other
project activities in the area in order to avoid duplica-
UNEP's role could be in the area of scientific, legal,
tion of effort and reduce competition. However, only
and policy issues. It could act as a coordinator of
a few operational linkages between GEF-funded
policy questions among countries in the region. An
projects were reported. The GEF Secretariat could
"honest broker" role related to other UN agencies was
negotiate with the implementing agencies regarding
also proposed for UNEP.
how GEF projects could benefit from other project
31

---

Multicountry Issues That Have Required Special
lem in virtually all multicountry projects. Neither
Attention. There was a vast variety of responses to
pure market solutions nor pure political and legisla-
this question. Most answers concerned issues related
tive solutions can be presented alone for resolving
to communication, coordination, and data sharing.
these issues; both types of solutions are needed.
These issues should already be taken into account
during project design. When planning a project, legal
Organizational Structures
and social issues should be an integral part of project
implementation just as are scientific and environmen-
As mentioned above, project organizational struc-
tal concerns.
tures vary considerably. In the following, a rough
classification is made. It is impossible to place all of
The free flow of data seems to be a problem in some
the projects in one of these categories; rather, they are
projects. This also should be taken into account in the
meant as broad descriptions of the varying organiza-
project design phase. One reason for limited informa-
tional models.
tion flow is language problems, particularly in re-
gions where there is no common language. Another is
Regional project organizations usually have three ba-
data "protectionism" or commercialization: in some
sic levels: regional, national, and project. In addition
countries, organizations expect financial compensa-
to this, a decisionmaking body above a regional sec-
tion to release data.
retariat or implementing unit exists.
Perhaps the most difficult multicountry issues are
Type I regional project organization is presented below.
related to different and conflicting uses of a particular
resource. Conflicts between industrial waste, sludge,
agriculture, water use, fishing, recreation, and
Type I
biodiversity may occur both within and among coun-
tries. Selection of hotspots has also created problems
between countries. Another problem is whether an
upstream country is entitled to build a dam leaving
the downstream areas without water.
Technical questions may create multicountry issues
as well. This is especially common in international
basins where the water flow unites all the countries in
the watershed. The Lake Victoria water hyacinth
problem is just one example.
Most Positive Aspects in Multicountry Implemen-
tation Arrangements. Most of the projects' positive
This type of organization consists of relatively inde-
achievements are related to increased cooperation
pendent national organizations with weak linkages to
and mutual trust among the riparian countries and
the regional unit. This type of organization is similar
various stakeholder groups involved. In complex
to those used in the Lake Victoria projects and, per-
multicountry settings, the establishment of a positive
haps, the Lake Ohrid project. National independence
atmosphere among countries must be regarded as an
allows countries to proceed at varying speeds suitable
important achievement. Cooperation and creation of
to each country. Considering the differences between
mutual trust has even been possible among groups of
countries in the projects, making progress in solving
project participants where there are no political con-
transboundary issues may be hampered. This applies
tacts between countries.
to both technical and political components in project
implementation. Because GEF projects are most de-
Challenges with Respect to Multicountry Settings.
pendent on regional activities, such activities need
Most of the challenges related to a lack of commit-
special attention in this kind of organizational struc-
ment and involvement on the part of the various
ture. The Type II structure relies heavily on national
countries. Differing priorities, especially in regions
coordinating units and both horizontal and vertical
with great economic differences, is a common prob-
cooperation. The Danube Basin project organization
32

---

was of this general type. The decisionmaking body
In this model, national bodies or ministries are not
consisted not only of member countries, but also of
directly involved in project implementation and
other relevant organizations and is now the Confer-
decisionmaking. Decisionmaking occurs through a
ence of Parties in conjunction with the commission.
convention, although its operationalization needs to
take place via decisions at the national level.
Type II
This structure may be especially suitable in regions
where there is a large number of countries. The le-
gally binding convention allocates authority to the
project organization with respect to riparian coun-
tries. Good coordination between project components
and the regional unit allows for a good information
flow from the project sites to the regional office; this
would otherwise be very difficult in regions such as
Mediterranean. The convention must be powerful
enough to affect the riparian countries for needed
institutional changes to take place. The project struc-
tures reflect the principle of tasks having regional di-
mensions being implemented at the regional level, tasks
having national dimensions implemented at the national
The Type II organization allows for tight contacts
level, and tasks related to project components imple-
both horizontally and vertically. Having project com-
mented at the project level. Several questions remain to
ponents in direct contact with each other increases the
be answered with regard to these organizational struc-
effectiveness of information dissemination. This
tures: Is it possible to find such a division of tasks? How
project structure requires special attention to connec-
does this division reflect the actual situation? Are there
tions with political decisionmakers; Otherwise, the
other aspects to be taken into account when designing a
complex network of contacts may lose its edge in
project organization?
catalyzing political and legislative change. The Type
II structure requires much from cooperating parties.
Among the factors affecting project organization are
Thus, cultural, linguistic, and political closeness is
the number and variety of countries, the resource in
important, as well as geographic proximity.
question, and political and economic realities. It may
be that even though a project organization does not
The Type III structure is presented below. In this
present the "ideal" structure, it may be the only struc-
structure, the regional secretariat has direct contacts
ture the countries have been able to agree upon. An-
to project components in various countries. Examples
other issue influencing project structure may be the
of this type of structure are the Mediterranean Sea
existing organizational structure of various stake-
project and HELCOM.
holders and their preferred ways of becoming in-
volved in project implementation.
Type III
Convention
33

---

34

---

Lessons and Considerations
This final section outlines the main lessons arising
work for action in a multicountry setting can take
from the thematic review. It also raises some consid-
more than a decade. It is evident that commitment and
erations for GEF entities that may be useful for future
on-the-ground results in a multifaceted multicountry
development of multicountry projects. Note, how-
setting take time to develop.
ever, that the history of GEF multicountry projects is
still short and only a few such projects have been
The complex multicountry, multi-implementing
completed, most of which were designed during the
agency structure requires more careful--and thus
pilot phase before the establishment of the Opera-
longer and often more expensive--preparation than a
tional Strategy. Therefore, no firm and universal con-
single-country setting. It is not enough that the
clusions can be claimed. Furthermore, the thematic
project be technically and scientifically well pre-
review has focused primarily on the international
pared. The social, economic, and political aspects
watersportfolio. Although selected biodiversity
must also be taken into account. The inclusion of these
projects were initially included, the response rate to
aspects may prolong preparation time considerably.
the questionnaire and participation of biodiversity
project staff were very low. Consequently, only one
Operations in GEF-funded multicountry projects
biodiversity project was included in the field visits.
could develop from (passive) consultations toward
proactive regional implementation and leadership un-
Facilitation in Complex Multicountry Issues
der a programmatic framework. Along this develop-
ment, the utilization of OP-9 might be considered a
GEF can play a very important role in helping coun-
tool. OP-8 project remediations are often so compli-
tries address multicountry environmental problems.
cated that all three implementing agencies are
Multicountry projects are invariably complex in de-
needed. In OP-9 projects, which are of a more preven-
sign and include differing and often conflicting pref-
tive type, cooperation with all implementing agencies
erences by various stakeholders. This makes a
may not be needed. Working in a simpler organizational
multicountry setting politically sensitive--yet politi-
context, quicker results might be expected.
cal acceptability is essential to success. For example,
international waters projects, which can involve up to
Achieving a Shared Vision
15 to 20 countries that share a water body or basin,
are necessarily complex in nature with a wide variety
Even in cases where there is a common understanding
of social, political, economic, cultural, and physi-
of the problem, the various countries involved may
ographic conditions that must be taken into consider-
have different opinions about its importance and pri-
ation depending on the nature of the priority
ority. The recipient countries may perceive that they
transboundary water issue to be addressed.
have other more important priorities. Negative effects
may be experienced in downstream countries, while
The process of developing a shared vision and frame-
35

---

upstream countries may not feel the need to fix the
For the TDA-SAP approach to be more efficient, it
problem.
should involve all of the implementing agencies. It
should also focus broadly not only on scientific and
The creation of political commitment and public
technical dimensions, but also on the need to include
awareness is especially difficult in regions where
socio-politico-economic dimensions. It should in-
economic and social problems are given priority over
volve all relevant stakeholders, including the public
environmental ones. These difficulties may be rein-
and private sectors and civil society.
forced by a powerful industry sector resisting needed
changes for financial reasons. These circumstances
Six projects of those reviewed had already carried out
underscore the need for projects to identify and nur-
either a TDA, SAP, or both. Eleven other projects are
ture "win-win" approaches that involve the private
planning or finalizing their TDA/SAPs. Sufficient
sector.
materials to collect experiences and conduct an
analysis about the approach and its advantages and
There is also the question of national sovereignty
disadvantages as compared with other approaches,
with respect to joint activities. Without a joint agree-
such as the "shared vision" approach, are not yet
ment, the unilateral effects of a single country's ac-
available.
tions may hinder solutions to environmental
problems. On the other hand, the free rider problem--
When faced with complex situations, the solution
that is, a situation in which a party attempts to receive
might be parallel components consisting of a strategic
a benefit without contributing to its cost--may occur
project that produces the TDA and SAP and a compo-
if there is no binding agreement among countries.
nent that conducts demonstration projects in each
country related to the suspected top-priority
As noted in the GEF Operational Strategy elements
transboundary issue. This strategic approach is valu-
related to international waters, initial strategic
able in that it may not only gain the multicountry
projects have been useful as the equivalent of en-
commitments to collaboration but also energize and
abling activities in other GEF focal areas by breaking
involve ministries, subnational governments, com-
down the barriers among countries and enabling a
munities, and NGOs in the site work that precedes the
joint focus on high priorities. This approach allows
upcoming implementation phase. To maintain com-
complex situations to be broken down into several
mitment at the local and national levels, more con-
more manageable priority issues as part of the analy-
crete benefit-producing components should be
ses to help speed understanding and implementation.
present at the initial stages of the project. This could
The GEF-recommended processes of joint fact find-
be a pilot project or an investment in a development
ing and sharing of information to produce a TDA
activity. Microprojects and demonstrations have pro-
helps facilitate agreement to focus on a few top-
duced some positive results, although when imple-
priority transboundary issues and sets the stage for
mented, implications regarding incremental cost have
countries' production of a SAP of country-specific
to be taken into account.
and regional actions regarding the policy, institu-
tional, legal reforms and investments needed to ad-
Implementation of activities needing immediate ac-
dress the transboundary priorities.
tion might start in parallel with project preparation. In
most projects there are hotspots that affect the envi-
A well-timed succession of GEF-financed interven-
ronment and that can be assessed without extensive
tions constitutes a pragmatic approach to addressing
and time-consuming study.
such complex international waters and multicountry
institutional issues. Following an initial strategic
Ecosystem Approach Key to Transboundary
project, one or more multicountry and/or single-
Resource Management
country projects may be appropriate to implement the
reforms and investments outlined by the countries in
In cases where the ecosystem is regional,
the SAPs. Following agreements in the SAP, such a
multicountry approaches are needed to address sus-
sequence might also be part of a programmatic ap-
tainable development of transboundary resources
proach to implementation resulting from a strategic
with a specific focus on a reduction of externalities.
project for particularly complex and difficult situations.
The management of a shared ecosystem requires an
integrated and holistic approach.
36

---

The ecosystem-based approaches detailed in the in-
The involvement of relevant existing organizations
ternational waters elements of the Operational Strat-
has clearly improved the commitment of stakehold-
egy strongly suggest that entire basins be considered
ers, and thus made the projects easier to implement.
if important transboundary linkages exist and that all
There are many different ministries involved in the
the linked problems such as habitat loss, pollution,
same areas. Dialogue and communication have ben-
overfishing, and water diversion be addressed if they
efited from arrangements such as interministerial
constitute priority problems. The production of the
committees. The inclusion of relevant NGOs has
TDA often involves the science community so that
been important in involving local stakeholders into
analyses of the complex linkages are available to all
the project framework. There have been some good
participants. It does no good to just treat symptoms of
experiences in letting local NGOs coordinate local
problems such as weeds when the root causes remain
project activities. NGOs may also play an important
unaddressed or other considerations such as overfish-
role in influencing policymakers regarding needed
ing still drive ecosystem degradation. An important
legislative interventions.
lesson involves including the drainage basin as part of
the ecosystem approach to international waters and to
All relevant stakeholders (regional, national, and lo-
address fisheries, pollution, and habitat loss when
cal governments; NGOs; the scientific community;
they are linked to water body degradation as well.
and the private sector) must be involved in the pro-
Many of the regional projects initiated activities that
cess. The motivation and ownership thereby achieved
focused only on water resources without including an
are crucial to producing sustainable results.
explicit analysis of actions to tackle land-based
sources of environmental problems. As a result of
Multicountry transboundary settings include myriad
past experiences, most projects have plans to address
issues--technical, legal, institutional, behavioral, sci-
these issues at a later stage.
entific, capacity, etc.--and project designs together
with critical needs for important funding resources.
The inclusion of the entire catchment into the project
This underscores the importance ofstrong donor coor-
analysis and design from the outset could also shorten
dination and cofinancing and can justify the partner-
the time required for activities to begin having an
ships based on comparative advantages and
impact.
co-implementation by GEF implementing agencies.
Most of the project areas already have activities
Importance of Broad-Based Participation
funded and conducted by several international, re-
gional, and/or bilateral agencies. Good coordination
Political commitment at the highest level is necessary
of activities and avoidance of duplication of work is
to ensure smooth operation of multicountry institu-
beneficial to all parties. Competition among the fund-
tions and on-the-ground implementation of the ac-
ing agencies for the projects sometimes hinders such
tions identified in strategic projects. Such
cooperation. Donor coordination is therefore impor-
commitments have been expressed in numerous
tant and should take place in a country-driven con-
multicountry regional conventions that set the tone
text, which can provide a framework for the different
for many of the GEF projects reviewed here. Where
interventions. Such a framework may be based on a
no political commitment other than an agreement to
TDA-SAP or within evolving programmatic ap-
proceed on a GEF project was present, commitments
proaches. GEF projects can and should be used to
for policy, institutional, and/or legal reforms and in-
leverage funding and actions by other actors operat-
vestments have been slow to emerge. A series of
ing in the same region.
conventions that are progressively more specific re-
garding commitments or a series of updated protocols
With the complexity of these situations, collaboration
or annexes are also proving useful to express
among GEF implementing agencies according to
multicountry commitments to action for
their comparative advantages is proving to be a suc-
transboundary issues. GEF implementing agencies
cess story in overcoming barriers to multicountry
have played, and are poised to continue to play, an
action to restore and protect transboundary waters.
important catalytic role in facilitating this evolution
Similarly, involving other executing agencies has
of commitments and of multicountry institutional ar-
been a strength of implementing agencies in this focal
rangements over time.
area. Executing agencies such as OAS, FAO,
UNIDO, IMO, IOC, PAHO, IDB, SPREP, EBRD,
37

---

and AfDB are beginning to spread the reach of GEF
The three-level strategy from regional to national and
implementing agencies in harnessing other compe-
from national to local has applicability in
tent organizations to assist countries to address their
multicountry projects. Experience shows that it is
shared transboundary water problems. Collaboration
easier to reach a regional agreement that binds coun-
with bilaterals and other donors can accelerate strate-
tries to harmonize their activities, for example, at the
gic work and time to implementation on the ground.
convention level, than to do it the other way around.
While different priorities of different donors may
The legally binding regional agreement may then be
create challenges and even problems, the existence of
applied in the participating countries. In GEF
a SAP and the development of programmatic ap-
projects, this is a long stage and advances at various
proaches to certain water bodies with complex situa-
speeds in different countries. An active multicountry
tions provide a framework for all donors to assist
organization is important during that process. It main-
recipient countries with the top-priority interventions
tains a transparent database and provides a common
detailed in their SAPs. This also provides a frame-
means for countries to report their results. Alongside
work within which to harness comparative advan-
the national legislative activities, the third step--
tages of different executing agencies.
from national to local--may begin with increased
local commitment emerging through a changed in-
NGOs and the scientific community can play impor-
centive structure and its enforcement. The role of
tant roles in multicountry projects to ensure (1) trans-
information dissemination and public awareness can-
parency and political support, (2) that sound science
not be overemphasized in this regard.
is utilized to improve management decisionmaking,
and (3) subnational level implementation of interven-
It is not always possible, however, to begin a regional
tions at hotspots and in community-based activities.
initiative by providing support through a
multicountry body. Channeling funds through na-
Involvement of Multiple Levels of Institutions
tional recipients may be appropriate, but the project
design should nevertheless incorporate a truly re-
Work on multiple levels of institutions is essential
gional component. The intent to build the regional
for, in particular, GEF international waters projects
level as well as the proposed process should always
addressing transboundary water bodies and basins.
be clearly spelled out in project documents.
The projects benefit from work on the international or
multicountry level by countries that share the water
The sustainability of regional bodies is the key issue
body or basin: At the single-country national
that should be taken into account in the project's
level,interministerial committees involve the sectors
preparation stage. Funding of regional arrangements
that create the stress on the water bodies in producing
should be ensured beyond the project cycle. Thus,
the input to the multicountry processes on behalf of
those organizations that will be involved over the
each country and then translating the international
long term should be integrated into the mainstream of
political mandate down to the third institutional level,
the participating countries' organizational structures.
subnational governments and communities for imple-
mentation on the ground. The country-specific
Policy and Legislative Implications
interministerial committees are key elements in en-
suring expected outcomes.
The long time span of project activities seems to
highlight a need for institutional changes and institu-
The GEF Operational Strategy for international wa-
tional development. Conventions and their institu-
ters suggests that GEF project design include the
tions evolve over time toward more specific
development of transboundary mechanisms that can
commitments. This evolution has implications for
harmonize national activities in order to address the
project organizations, and implies that GEF's role is a
root causes of environmental problems. A succession
catalytic one. The institutional structures among
of GEF international waters projects may be appro-
countries are sometimes very different. For example,
priate where the preparatory phase produces a TDA-
a common incentive structure and enforcement sys-
SAP, and the next phase involves implementation of
tem for the project as a whole may be difficult to
the SAP. It has been beneficial to projects if they have
establish. Common and objective identification and
been able to produce a TDA-SAP as a basis for fur-
measurement of indicators may be difficult to agree
ther activities.
upon. Countries may or may not be sensitive to the
38

---

extent of environmental damage caused by their
participating countries. Such packages have led to
behavior.
increased commitment on the part of the project par-
ticipants in the projects covered by this review. Fur-
Policy and legislative implications and interventions
thermore, threats to the regional and global
unfortunately seem to play only a minor role in the
environment frequently stem from local actions and
early phases of GEF involvement in the current port-
are caused by social and economic conditions in the
folio. Projects often do not have components for a
area. There is need to address these root causes if the
proper analysis of policy and behavioral implications.
transboundary environmental conditions are to be im-
Project activities seldom have ways of tying national
proved. This suggests a package in which a GEF
policymakers in as integral parts of project imple-
project is combined with a project by one of the
mentation. The Operational Strategy suggests a focus
implementing agencies addressing the development
on policy, institutional, and legal reforms in subse-
issues and national benefits.
quent projects.
One of the factors that makes it difficult to determine
Experience in GEF projects has shown that
incremental costs is that those paying the cost of
multicountry coordination of policy reforms requires
environmentally destructive activities are often in an-
mutual trust which often can be created only over a
other political jurisdiction from the sources or causes
long time span. A relatively powerful regional coor-
of the environmental problems. The polluter may not
dinating unit, preferably backed by a convention, has
even be aware of the damage caused. The question of
turned out to be helpful in the process of political and
who should pay the cost of an activity having a nega-
legislative harmonization.
tive impact on the environment becomes a regional
property rights question requiring regional political
Even if countries in some projects have been able to
decisions. National (societal) costs and costs of indi-
alter relevant legislation, lack of enforcement and
vidual behavior must be clearly defined to potentially
monitoring systems hinder legislative effectiveness
highlight the agreed incremental cost that might be
in many cases. Similarly, the incentive structure for
supported by GEF. Evidence suggests that the market
changing behavior could be influenced by political,
alone, operating on the "polluter pays" principle is
legislative, and economic means.
not always capable of solving these problems.
Financial Issues
Monitoring and Evaluation Systems
The preparatory process of a multicountry project
Monitoring and evaluation plays a central role in
involves extra transaction costs (incremental costs)
managing complex multicountry projects. Effective
that should be taken into account in making decisions
M&E systems can provide transparency among par-
about the funding of multicountry project prepara-
ticipating countries and project components regard-
tion. Implications on PDF and administrative re-
ing project progress and results. While GEF may play
sources should be considered; this means that a
a role in starting the system, the collection of M&E
significantly higher amount of resources should be
data should be internalized and taken over by the
allocated to these operations, both at the preparatory
participating countries. These data would ideally be
and supervisory stages.
posted in a regional database accessible to all stake-
holders.
There is evidence that Block-B money for producing
a TDA-SAP has been an effective way of utilizing
Each of the multicountry project designs should in-
these resources. However, the maximum limit of
clude indicators at three levels: (1) process indicators
$350,000 may not be sufficient for that purpose. In
(focusing on processes likely to lead toward a desir-
such cases, a full project may be used for the prepara-
able outcome--an example would be completion of a
tion of a TDA-SAP.
SAP); (2) stress reduction indicators (concrete ac-
tions that will reduce the environmental stress on the
In projects dealing with transboundary resources and
shared ecosystem, such as installation of a sewage
those in which GEF's role is to focus on producing
treatment system); and (3) environmental status indi-
global benefits, it seems important to create financing
cators (measures of actual improvement of ecosystem
packages that allow national benefits to accrue to the
quality). Complex multicountry projects could also
39

---

benefit from identification of indicators for factors
would likely start accruing only after the project life
such as mutual trust among countries, public senti-
span, it is important to ensure the sustainability of the
ment, and stakeholder commitment.
M&E system. The system should therefore be inte-
grated into the regular mechanisms of the participat-
The development of process indicators allowing the
ing countries or a convention/treaty. Alternative
monitoring and evaluation of trends and improve-
funding sources should be explored.
ments in the regional cooperation process--i.e.,
policy analysis and behavioral modifications--is
Programmatic approaches may provide ways of de-
needed. This could help shorten the time required for
veloping a longer term setting through a phased ap-
political and legal interventions.
proach. Benchmarks, milestones, and other indicators
should be developed for this purpose.
As the time scale during which actual environmental
benefits can be expected is lengthy and benefits
40

---

Acronyms
AfDb
African Development Bank
ASEAN
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
EBRD
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EPDRB
Environmental Program for Danube River Basin
EU
European Union
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GIS
geographic information system
HELCOM
Helsinki Commission
ICM
integrated coastal management
IDA
individual credit agreement
IDB
Inter-American Development Bank
IOC
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
IMO
International Maritime Organization
JCP
Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Program
LME
large marine ecosystem
LVEMP
Lake Victoria Environmental Management Program
LVFO
Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization
M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation
41

---

MAP
Mediterranean Action Plan
MARPOL
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
MED POL
Program for Pollution Monitoring and Research in the Mediterranean Sea
METAP
Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program
MEDU
MAP Coordinating Unit
NGO
non-governmental organization
OAS
Organization of American States
OP
operational program
PAHO
Pan American Health Organization
PCU
Project Coordination Unit
PDF
Project Development Facility
PDMO
Program Development and Management Office
PIR
Project Implementation Review
PMTF
Project Management Task Force
PSC
Program Steering Committee
SAP
Strategic Action Program
SIP
SAP Implementation Program
SPREP
South Pacific Regional Environment Program
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
UNDP
United National Development Programme
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNIDO
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
UNOPS
United Nations Office for Project Services
42

---

Annex 1: Terms of Reference
Beginning on or around August 2, 1999, the consult-
preparation and administration of the multi-country
ant will provide up to 16 person weeks of services to
projects from the point of view of the implementing
the World Bank (Global Environment Coordination ­
agencies and the GEF Secretariat. Answers to these
Africa Region) in close collaboration with the GEF
questions will be fed back into the design of future
Secretariat Monitoring and Evaluation Program to
projects as well as help guide projects already under-
assist in carrying out a thematic review of multi-
way.
country project arrangements.
The review will focus on multi-country projects in the
Background
GEF portfolio that address transboundary issues
within a common ecosystem or other geographical
A sizable portion of the GEF portfolio--including all
area requiring joint action by participating countries.
but a handful of international waters projects--in-
These include projects that deal with transboundary wa-
volve more than one country. The 1998 Project
ter bodies, e.g., most of the international waters portfo-
Implementation Review (PIR) identified a number of
lio; and projects (or sets of projects) that address issues
advantages that multicountry approaches can offer.
in a transboundary protected area or corridor.
However, these projects can often be more complex
than those carried out in a single country, and present
Approach for the Review
a number of challenges to GEF and its implementing
agencies. One of these challenges, in fact, is the
The proposed review will analyze experience in
greater importance for collaboration among imple-
greater depth than is possible during PIRs, but is not
menting agencies, both in activities carried out with
intended to be a full, field-level program evaluation.
GEF funding and in their own assistance programs.
It will be based on document and literature review,
interviews, and limited field visits. The review will
Objective
catalog the variety of arrangements used in multi-
country GEF projects to date, and examine their per-
The objective of the review is to identify emerging
formance in terms of a number of measures. These
lessons from experience about what kinds of multi-
measures are intended to capture the outcomes typi-
country approaches have worked, what have not,
cally sought from successful approaches to inter-in-
why, and under what circumstances. For activities
stitutional collaboration and project design and
that require joint efforts and commitments by more
implementation. They will be further elaborated dur-
than one country, what characteristics of project de-
ing the initial stages of the review itself, but are likely
sign and inter-institutional collaboration processes
to include the following factors:
and structures facilitate effective decision making
and implementation on transboundary issues? The
·
participating countries accept the need for joint
review would also look into the issues pertaining to
actions to address common problems in the eco-
system
43

---

·
decision making on transboundary issues is in-
·
the existence of a high-level declaration or con-
formed by science and fully involves all relevant
vention among participating countries
stakeholders
·
whether implementation is directed by a special
·
project initiatives are internalized within partici-
coordination unit created specifically for the
pating countries
project or integrated within existing institutional
structures
·
more is achieved through multicountry arrange-
ments than through the sum of individual country
·
the primary role of the project coordination unit:
actions
executive or advisory
·
there is a sufficient level of commitment of time
·
leadership qualities
and resources by participating countries
·
whether an international steering committee or
·
implementation is on schedule
similar is used
·
project activities are sustained following project
·
underlying country socio-economic factors
completion
·
the degree of influence within their countries of
·
project participants learn from and share experi-
those representing them in multicountry project
ences
mechanisms
·
inter-donor coordination is effective.
·
the extent of stakeholder involvement
The review will relate performance on these mea-
·
the structure of collaboration among implement-
sures to a number of variables. It will try to determine
ing agencies, other donors
whether there is evidence that the desired outcomes
are affected by any of them. These variables will be
·
an implementing agency's own procedures, expe-
further elaborated, but might include:
rience, and incentives as they relate to
multicountry (as opposed to individual country)
·
whether the project requires joint decisions and
projects
actions among participating countries/agencies to
achieve its objectives, or whether actions are taken
·
whether the project is executed by an international
independently by each one
organization.
·
the urgency or immediacy of the issue being ad-
It is recognized that multicountry projects may re-
dressed to the participating countries
quire more time and resources to prepare and admin-
ister. The review will also analyze this issue and its
·
how the project idea originated
consequences and identify whether certain types of
institutional and implementation arrangements can be
·
the nature of the design process, including the
utilized in order to reduce the project preparation time
amount of time and resources devoted to it
and the resources required for its implementation
without sacrificing the quality and sustainability of
·
the number of countries and/or agencies partici-
the project.
pating
Review Process
·
existing/ongoing relationships among the countries/
agencies participating (beyond project activities)
The review will be carried out in six steps. It will
begin with an inventory of all multicountry projects
·
whether or not the project builds on existing re-
in the current GEF portfolio of projects that have
gional agreements, institutions, or mechanisms
begun implementation. This inventory will be based
on the 1998 PIR reports and a review of other project
44

---

documents for projects not included in the 1998 PIR.
cies. A workshop will be organized where it will be
The databases developed of the biodiversity and cli-
reviewed and revised based on an in-depth discussion
mate change portfolios for the respective program
and the results of the further field visits.
indicators exercises could be used for the inventory,
as well. A limited number of non-GEF projects sug-
The results of the review will be disseminated widely
gested by the secretariat and implementing agencies
to all stakeholders through a variety of means. A GEF
may also be included.
Lessons Notes issue will be prepared on the main
findings and recommendations of the review.
The second step will be to develop a series of key
questions and hypotheses based on the performance
Timetable
measures and variables agreed upon for the review. It
will be used to guide interviews with implementing
The assignment would be implemented according to
agency and GEF secretariat staff, including project
the following timetable:
managers and perhaps executing agencies. At the
same time, a desk review (also based on these key
Step 1: Portfolio inventory; development of detailed
questions) of PIR reports, other project reports and
methodology and work plan--Completed by August
evaluations, and literature relevant to the subject of
8, 1999
the review will be carried out.
Step 2: Desk review of project reports; selection of
From the desk review, ten to twelve projects will be
projects for in-depth review--Completed by August
selected for more in-depth interviews with people
20, 1999
knowledgeable about project experience. These inter-
views would be step 3.
Step 3: In-depth review of selected projects; inter-
views with key individuals in the implementing agen-
Two to three projects will then be selected for field
cies and GEF Secretariat--Completed by September
visits in consultation with the implementing agencies.
3, 1999
The selected projects should include both interna-
tional waters and biodiversity projects. The field vis-
Step 4: Field visits to selected projects (possible that
its would be carried out by the consultant joined by
at this stage only one key project will be visited)
GEF Secretariat staff. The field visits will be coordi-
1st draft report--Submitted for review by GEF
nated with implementing agencies and, whenever
Secretariat by October 15, 1999
possible, will be carried out in conjunction with
2nd draft report--Revised and completed taking
planned supervision and other missions in order to
into account GEF Secretariat comments by
ensure the involvement of the implementing agency
November 1, 1999, for inclusion in the PIR
staff and to minimize the disturbance to the project.
process
These field visits may be spread over a longer period
of time.
Step 5: Further field visits to additional projects
(probably two). Preparation of 3rd draft report--
The consultant, in consultation with the GEF Secre-
Completed by February 29, 2000
tariat staff member in charge of the project, will pre-
pare a draft report based on the work that has been
Step 6: Workshop and preparation of final report--
carried out by October 15, 1999. This first draft report
Completed by March 31, 2000
will be reviewed, discussed within the GEF, and re-
vised for inclusion (second draft report) in the 1999
Reporting and Supervision
PIR process--step 4.
In providing these services, the consultant will work
In step 5, the review methodology will be revisited in
under the day-to-day supervision and guidance of
light of the experiences gained and further field visits
Christophe Crepin, World Bank Task Manager of this
will be organized as deemed appropriate. This will
study, Global Environment Coordinator for the Af-
lead to the preparation of the third draft report.
rica Region in close collaboration with Juha I. Uitto,
the M&E Specialist assigned to coordinate and over-
In the final step (6), the third draft report will be
see this review in the GEF Secretariat.
circulated to the implementing and executing agen-
45

---

46

---

Annex 2: Survey Questionnaire
Name of the project
Implementing Agencies
Dear Project Leader,
GEF is conducting a Thematic Review on multi-country implementation issues in projects within GEF
involvement. For this purpose we need information from projects on their experiences in this area. We will
kindly ask you to answer the questions below and return the questionnaire to your GEF Implementing
Agency contact by October 22.
Project relations with respect to transboundary issues
Project identification and design
In this section the questions concern the period prior to the actual implementation. Please, choose one or more
from the given alternatives by circling the corresponding number.
1. Which organization(s) were involved in development of the proposal from concept to the stage of GEF
submission?
1. The World Bank
2. UNDP
3. UNEP
4. GEF Secretariat
5. Other multinational organizations, which _________________________________________________
6. Bilateral organizations, which _________________________________________________________
7. Multi-country body, which ____________________________________________________________
8. Single country, which ________________________________________________________________
9. National organizations, which _________________________________________________________
10. Private sector, which _________________________________________________________________
11. Other, what ________________________________________________________________________
47

---

2. Was the project design influenced by other projects either GEF or non-GEF projects?
1. No
2. Yes. If yes, please, provide details.
3. List any conventions or international legal agreements to which this project directly relates.
4. How were the national governments involved in the project design process?
1. Were involved throughout the project design
Were they involved on a steering committee for
2.
Participated from time to time
project preparation?
1. None
3.
Were not particularly involved
2. Some
3. All
5. How were the non-governmental organizations involved in the project design process?
1.
Were involved throughout the project design
Were they involved on a steering committee for
2.
Participated from time to time
project preparation?
1. None
3.
Were not particularly involved
2. Some
3. All
6. How was the scientific community involved in the project design process?
1.
Were involved throughout the project design
Were they involved on a steering committee for
2.
Participated from time to time
project preparation?
1 No
3.
Were not particularly involved
2 Yes
7. How were sub national organizations involved in the project design process?
1.
Were involved throughout the project design
Were they involved on a steering committee for
2.
Participated from time to time
project preparation?
1. None
3.
Were not particularly involved
2. Some
3. All
8. Were any relevant international Commissions or Secretariats involved in the project design?
1.
Were involved throughout the project design
Were they involved on a steering committee for
2.
Participated from time to time
project preparation?
1 No
3.
Were not particularly involved
2 Yes
48

---

9. Were inter-ministerial committees formed in individual countries during the project design?
1.
No
2.
Yes. If yes, please, give details
Please, also comment on the
role of planning ministries and
finance ministries from each
country in the project?
Did they attend meetings?
Project implementation
These questions concern the period starting from the actual beginning of project implementation.
An indicative list of questions of interest to GEF is provided in boxes on the right column of most questions.
Some points in boxes may not be equally relevant to all projects.
10. Please, give a short description about how project implementation is organized (please, supply
an organigram if available).
Think about the organizational setting with
respect to the following items:
·
Is the project implemented jointly or sepa-
rately in various countries? Why?
·
Decision making: steering committees,
project management groups, etc. How of-
ten meet, who attend?
·
Problem solving processes
·
Mechanism for guaranteeing each parties'
commitment
·
How the multi-country institutional ar-
rangements are projected to carry on after
the GEF project ends?
49

---

11. How is the Project Coordination Unit or coordinating function organized (please, supply an
organigram if available)?
Think about the organizational set-
ting with respect to the following
items:
·
No. of persons
·
Location(s) and structure(s)
·
Independently established or re-
lated to an existing structure
·
Participation arrangements of
various stakeholders
·
Funding of PCU's
·
Capacity building for the future
12. Please, provide a brief description of the role, if any, of the following groups in project
execution
a. Intergovernmental Multi-country organizations
b. Individual participating governments
c. The scientific community ­ nature of involvement
d. Inter-ministerial or inter-ministry groups within each country
e. Private sector
f. Non-governmental (including community based) organizations
g. Local government (provincial, district, municipalities, cities, etc., local people)
13. How were consultants (local/international) used in the project?
50

---

14. Please, outline the operational linkages between the project and similar or related activities at
national and regional level
Think about the linkages with
respect to following issues:
·
What kinds of meetings:
How often? Who are usually
attending? Who should be
attending but are usually
not?
·
Other means of communica-
tion? And coordination?
·
What types of information
are typically shared?
·
Are there any formal or in-
formal coordination agree-
ments (e.g. MOU,
Cooperation agreements,
etc?)
15. What percent of project funding was:
a. provided to governments to undertake project activities
__________ %
b. utilized by the coordinating unit
__________ %
c. used by external consultants
__________ %
d. other groups such as NGO's
__________ %
16. What are the verifiable indicators of political commitment from the participating countries to the
project?
Indicators may relate to e.g.
·
Legislation/policy
·
Budgets
·
Institutional arrangements
·
Manpower
·
International/ Regional Con-
vention ratification
·
In-kind support
·
Investments
17. Would the involvement of other GEF implementing agencies be needed to provide follow-up
investments (WB), technical assistance (UNDP) or science and legal issues (UNEP) to improve the
outcome of the project? Which agencies and why?
51

---

18. Give three examples in your project where multi-country institutional issues have needed
special attention.
For the issues
·
Problems
·
Solutions
·
Lessons learned
19. In your opinion, what have been the most positive aspects in your project regarding multi-
country implementation arrangements?
20. In your opinion, what have been the most difficult aspects in your project regarding multi-
country implementation arrangements?
Thank you for your effort. We hope that this valuable information will help other projects in transboundary
issues.
52

---