Challenges for the ConferenceA World Bank Perspective

Tony GarveyWater Resources Advisor

South Asia Region, World Bank

World Bank International Waters Portfolio (47 Projects)

Regional Seas (7) Baltic, Caspian, Danube/Black, Aral, Mediterranean, Red, Gulf of Aqaba

Intl River Basins (6) Nile, Niger, Senegal, Lesotho, Parana, Mekong

Lakes (5) Ohrid, Victoria, Malawi, Chad

Groundwater Basins (1) Guarani

Nutrient Pollution Reduction (4) Poland, Rumania, Georgia, Black Sea Partnership

Wetland/Biodiversity Restoration and Conservation (12)

Others related to biodiversity and coastal & marines resources (12)

How Do These Projects Fit Into The Bank’s Program?

The Bank’s Program in a Country is driven by two things The countries development imperitives and

priorites for external development financing The Bank’s mission and priorities

• Macro economic management• Poverty Alleviation• Sustainable Development• Good Governance and Public Sector Performance• Enabling market led growth

IW Projects Deal with Tranboundary Waters -- What Are We Talking About?

A river or lake basin including its coastal and possibly marine area with multiple political/administrative jurisdictions

These entities may be constitutional, sovereign or statutory -- hence they have legitimate interests and responsibilities founded in law

Problems arise because Present or future actions cause externalities in other

jurisdictions The scope of development in one jurisdiction may have

physical or legal limits that can only be removed by another jurisdiction

There may be major differences in the need for water in time and space that create economic and social risks including sustainability and preemption of future options

What Are Some of the Specific Issues?

Environment -- water quality, ecosytem functions, land degradation

Expansion of water services -- power, flood mitigation, water supply for drinking, irrigation, industry, navigation

Financing capital investmentLack of sustainability -- groundwater

depletion, degradation of the hydrologic cycle, erosion and sedimentation, pollution

Gaps in data, information, knowledge -- flood forecasting, hydrologic analysis

What Have We Been Trying to Do About These Problems and Issues

Create international institutional frameworks and mechanisms for cooperation

Expand the knowledge and information base -- monitoring, data bases, models, research and studies

Create planning frameworks -- TDAs and SAPs that articulate issues and options, and suggest priorities

• Can This Approach Work?

• Is It Working?

• Is It Just Too Early Too Tell?

• Are There Important Constraints That We are Ignoring?

• What Are The Implications for GEF?

External Barriers to CooperationThe basic approach is appealing --

establish an international framework to address a transboundary, international problem -- but can it be successful if: There is asymmetry in knowledge, capacity,

economic wealth, poverty Riparians lack experience with integrated

planning and water management Short-term economic and social

development priorities and interests differ among riparians

There are significant differences in access to capital and fiscal space

Internal Barriers to Cooperation Lack of an adequate knowledge base Poor governance in the water sector Lack of participation of stakeholders The lack of fiscal space to build capacity and

make institutional changes especially in new areas like environmental management

Short-term economic and fiscal returns outweighs long-term investment in institutions and reform

The difficulty in making the transition from supply side management to integrated water management

Few examples of successful national or international river or lake basin management

Constraints GEF May Be IgnoringLack of country commitment

Wide gulf between focal points/ line ministries/ departments and policy makers -- wants vs means

Policy makers commitments can be measured by how they allocate resources -- low budgets reflect low priority

Policy makers do not have the fiscal space or options to finance the required capacity -- nothing of real value is really free

GEF’s high transaction costs for the country and the Bank are a major disincentives and hinders ownership and commitment -- nothing of real value should necessarily be easy, but nothing should be this hard

RETHINKING THE GEF MODEL The linkage between achieving national

sustainable development and capturing global benefits -- local benefits vs global benefits; how can you capture global benefits at the margin if local benefits aren’t achieved or sustainable?

Coherence of GEF Objectives and National Priorities?

Patience vs. Immediate returns and results? Seeing a new reality -- Outcomes versus outputs -- a short intervention to buy down a barrier does not look realistic if a country cannot follow through

Working both sides of the street -- building local capacity to participate in basin or international frameworks for cooperation

BAU+GEF=disappointment and disaster?

• Can This Approach Work?

• Is It Working?

• Is It Just Too Early Too Tell?

• Are There Important Constraints That We are Ignoring?

• What Are The Implications for GEF?