World Bank Document...* Angela DeLuca Wagener, GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) In addition, the following persons made direct contributions to the study: * Susanne

Evaluation Report #1-01

227312001

GEF

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

International WatersProgram Study

Final Report

Prepared by:

J. Michael BewersJuha 1. Uitto

Global Environment FacilityMonitoring and Evaluation

GEF International Waters Program Study

Acknowledgements

The International Waters Program Study was managed by the GEF Secretariat Monitoring and Evalua-tion Team, and carried out by a team consisting of an independent lead consultant and representatives ofthe GEF Secretariat and the three GEF Implementing agencies.

The Program Study Team members were as follows (in alphabetical order):

* J. Michael Bewers, Lead Consultant, GEF Secretariat M&E Team

* Christophe Crepin, Senior Regional Coordinator, Africa Environment and Social Development, TheWorld Bank

* Alfred M. Duda, Senior Advisor, International Waters, GEF Secretariat

* Andrew Hudson, Principal Technical Advisor, International Waters, UNDP/GEF

* Andrea Merla, Senior Environmental Specialist/Program Manager, Land and Water, GEF Secretariat

* John Pernetta, Deputy Executive Coordinator, UNEP/GEF

* Juha I. Uitto, Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, GEF Secretariat M&E Team

* Angela DeLuca Wagener, GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP)

In addition, the following persons made direct contributions to the study:

* Susanne Leloup, Consultant, Africa Environment and Social Development, The World Bank; and

* Maria C.J. Cruz, Senior Social Scientist, GEF Secretariat.

Several other individuals assisted in the preparation of the various Annexes to the report of the StudyTeam. Additional contributors deserving of acknowledgement in this report are: Laurent Granier(UNEP), Julius Kinderlehrer (University of Sheffield), Isabelle Vanderbeck (UNEP), Rene Coenen(IMO), Richard G.V. Boelens (Enterprise Ireland) and Daniel Minchin, (Department of the Marine,Ireland).

The main report has been drafted by Michael Bewers and Juha Uitto, assisted by William Faries,drawing upon the various component analyses that are contained in the background documents preparedby the Program Study Team (listed in Annex 2 to this report and available upon request from the GEFM&E Unit). The mode of operation was that the background documents each had a lead author and havebeen subsequently reviewed by the entire Program Study Team.

Juha I. UittoTask ManagerGEF International Waters Program Study

iii

Foreword

The GEF Council, at its meetings in December 1999 and May 2000, requested a review of GEF opera-tions prior to the next replenishment, which begins in 2001.' This review, the Second Study of GEF'sOverall Performance (OPS2) is being carried out by a fully independent team which is expected tocomplete its work by the end of 2001. The OPS2 is the third major GEF-wide review to take place sincethe Facility was created.2 Among the broad topics the OPS2 team will assess are:

* Program Results and Initial Impacts

* GEF Overall Strategies and Programmatic Impacts

* Achievements of the Objectives of GEF's Operational Policies and Programs

* Review of Modalities of GEF Support

* Follow-up of OPS 1

To facilitate the work of the OPS2 team, GEF's Monitoring and Evaluation team, in cooperation withthe GEF Implementing Agencies, decided to undertake program studies in the biodiversity, climatechange, and international waters focal areas. The role of these program studies is to provide portfolioinformation and inputs for the OPS2 team's considerations.

The International Waters Study was undertaken by an interagency team comprised of staff from the GEFsecretariat, the three GEF implementing agencies, and the GEF Scientific and Technical Advisorfy Panel(STAP) with additional support from consultants contracted to undertake detailed studies in differentparts of the portfolio as well as to consolidate all the information collected and background documentsprepared.

Jarle HarstadSenior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator

I Joint Summary of the Chairs, GEF Council Meeting, December 8-9. 1999, and GEF/C. 15/11.

2 The first two studies, respectively. were Global Environment Facility: Independent Evaluation of the Pilot Phase.UNDP. UNEP, and World Bank (1994) and Porter, G., R. Clemen,on, W. Ofosu-Amaah. and Michael Philips, Study ofGEF's Overall Performance, Global Environment Facility (1998).

iv GEF International Waters Program Study

v

Table of Contents

Executive Summary vii

Introduction 1

Methodology and Timeline 2

Background on GEF Approach to International Waters 4

Findings 6

Portfolio Distribution 6

Portfolio Trends 7

Alignment with GEF Guidance and Policies 8

Agreement with Regional and International Treaties 9

The TDA Approach to Preparing SAP 10

Project Performance and Review of Completed Projects 13

Completed Projects 13

Demonstration Projects 14

Findings from Site Visits 14

Geographically Based Approaches 18

Single Versus Multiple Implementing Agency P'rojects 20

Community-Based Approaches to Managing Transboundary Waters 22

Portfolio-Wide Observations and Responses to Previous Review Efforts 24

Strategic Issues 24

Operational Issues 25

Administrative Issues 25

Recommendations 27

Annexes 31

Annex 1: Initiating Memorandum 32

Annex 2: Background Documents 38

Annex 3: Complete List of Projects Included in the Program Study 40

vi GEF International Waters Program Study

Glossary of Terms

ASBP Aral Sea Basin Program

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

GPA Global Program of Action on Land-Based Sources of Pollution

IA implementing agency

LME Large Marine Ecosystem

MSP medium-size project

OP Operational Program

OPS I Firsts Study of GEF's Overall Performance

OPS2 Second Study of GEF's Overall Performance

POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants

SAP Strategic Action Program

SIDS Small Island Developing States

STAP GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel

TDA Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

WB World Bank

Executive Summary vii

Executive Summary

1. This report presents the main findings of the GEF Biennial International Waters Conference inGEF International Waters Program Study, Budapest, Hungary, and four field-based reviews.conducted from August 2000 to February 2001.The study was undertaken by a team comprising Conclusionsan independent lead consultant, representativesof GEF's monitoring and evaluation unit (M&E), 5. Overall, GEF's projects and PDFs align wellGEF secretariat, the three GEF implementing with the strategic guidance adopted by the GEFagencies (UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank), Council. The allocation of projects among theand the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel international waters OPs is appropriate. Shifts in(STAP). emphasis among the OPs since the completion of

the GEF Pilot Phase are entirely warranted in the2. At the time of the review, GEF had provided context of changing international perspectives onsupport to 41 full projects and four medium-size priority problems in, and threats to, aquaticprojects (MSP) in the international waters focal environments.area, which includes GEF Operational Programs8, 9, and 10. To date, 11 of these projects have 6. GEF projects have made, and continue tobeen completed. In addition, PDFs (Project make, significant contributions to the implemen-Preparation and Development Facility funds) tation of existing global and regional agreementshave been approved for 22 projects which may that address the protection and restoration ofenter the GEF portfolio upon further develop- freshwater and marine ecosystems. Indeed, GEFment. Not including co-financing, overall GEF can be considered a major, or possibly the major,funding to international waters efforts from 1991 facilitator of the implementation and increasedto December 31, 2000, totals $444 million. adoption of international waters laws, action

plans, and regional environmental protection3. At the request of the GEF Council, an agreements.independent Second Study of GEF's OverallPerformance (OPS2) has been initiated and is 7. The regional distribution of internationalexpected to be completed by the end of 2001. waters interventions is relatively well balanced.The goal of the study highlighted in this report, Overall, Africa has the largest share of GEFas well as focal area studies underway in international waters funding ($104.5 million),biodiversity and climate change, is a systematic followed by Asia ($90.8 million), Latin Americaself-assessment that can contribute to the delib- and the Caribbean ($56.6 million), Eastern Europeerations and work of the OPS2 team. ($40.1 million), and Small Island Developing States

($12.3 million). Another $20.9 million has been4. In undertaking this work, the review team allocated to global projects. In addition, the shifts inused a collection of relevant documents and emphasis among regions, as evidenced by thedatabases provided by the GEF secretariat and balance between projects currently under imple-the implementing agencies, broad consultations mentation and the preparatory and pipeline con-with GEF stakeholders, participation at the First cepts, appear entirely appropriate.

viii GEF International Waters Program Study

8. Despite these accomplishments, a greater tion projects continue to justify some allocationseffort should be made to clarify the guidance of resources under OP 10 to demonstrationwhich directs GEF's international waters portfo- projects of similar nature. Only limited impactslio. Among other things, this complicates the could be identified from the four project siteprocess of sharing lessons among projects and visits, largely due to the fact that the projects hadmay inhibit support for future projects by not yet reached sufficient maturity to produceparticipating countries with insufficient or quantifiable environmental benefits.unclear guidance.

13. Efforts to expand the GEF's operational9. The nature of international waters projects, focus, such as creating an operational programwhich often involve joint efforts by the three on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), and toGEF implementing agencies as well as a number incorporate greater use of integrated ecosystemof different countries, highlights the need for a management (e.g., OP 12) require additionalformal mechanism within the GEF to ensure thought on the roles and definitions of theadequate monitoring, coordination, and different operational programs currently in use.cooperation.

10. The current emphasis on undertaking a Recommendationsscience-based transboundary diagnostic analysis(TDA) prior to the design of a strategic action 14. Based on these findings, the review high-program (SAP) is appropriate for projects in OP lights the following recommendations for8 and 9. There does appear, however, to be a ensuring a more effective and responsive interna-need for more GEF guidance regarding the tional waters program for the GEF:nature of TDAs and the manner in which theylead to, and are distinct from, the development * While it is too early to expect much informa-of SAPs. tion regarding measured improvements in

international waters environments from GEF11. Among individual projects and operational interventions, as GEF's experience increases,programs, overall project performance varies. preparations should be made for includingWith regard to the three levels of indicators- more comparable information on process,process, stress reduction, and environmental stress reduction, and environmental statusstatus-most of the impacts could be found at indicators in future project evaluations.process levels. This is not surprising given thelong time required to show actual improvements * The use of science-based transboundaryin the international waters environment. The diagnostic analyses (TDAs) as a basis forreview of completed projects, however, showed facilitating countries' agreements on jointthat some present and future reductions in stress remedial or preventive actions (in the formon the marine environment can be directly of a SAP) should continue. However, whereattributed to GEF projects. The degree to which feasible, efforts should be made to shortenthese interventions were effective in reducing the time required for a TDA.stress in the regions concerned, however, isdifficult to quantify due to the absence of * Given the complex nature of internationaluniform tools comparing the impacts of several waters projects, which can involve theactivities and sources of pollution. cooperation of a large number of countries

and implementing agencies, an interagency12. The review of demonstration projects found advisory function within the GEF is neededthat the projects are generally both well con- to help ensure coordination and effectiveceived and satisfy the criteria for GEF support. development of the international watersThe potential incremental benefits that can focal area.accrue from both global and regional demonstra-

Executive Summary ix

All high-risk projects, or those with high- * The intent of OP 8 and OP 9 should berisk components, should be subjected to a clarified to make them mutually coherentmid-term review. In addition, final or and consistent with the new OP 12. Alongterminal evaluations of projects should only these same lines, the emphasis on ship-be conducted after project implementation derived impacts on international waters inhas been completed. OP 10 should be reduced and the emphasis

on land-based activities and their effects,* Procedures for feeding back "lessons including those mediated by atmospheric

learned" to the formulation of projects in the transport pathways, should be increased.international waters focal area have beeninitiated recently. The first GEF Biennial * A procedure and timetable for the prepara-International Waters Meeting was held in tion of guidelines on major concepts used2000 and IW:LEARN is just getting started. within the Operational Strategy and theAccordingly, such learning should be Operational Programs should be devised.formalized as a transparent and effective Specifically, these guidelines should providemechanism within the GEF. clear definitions and examples of the follow-

ing topics: incremental cost estimation,G GEF should consider increased assessments application of the "ecosystem management"of the suitability of proposed executing concept, TDAs, and the "Large Marineagencies to ensure competent project Ecosystem" concept.management and the sustainability of anyactivities (administrative arrangements or * A streamlined oversight and trackingorganizations) engendered through GEF methodology should be prepared andinternational waters projects. implemented by the GEF that defines the

procedures to be used from project inceptionI In South America, an evaluation of progress through to final review and feedback. Thisin the development of projects should be methodology should include appropriate andconducted with a view to identifying oppor- uniform documentation to ensure transpar-tunities for accelerating attention and ency and accountability.national commitments to the resolution ofenvironmental problems in large multi-country catchments, particularly those on theeastem side of the Andes.

x GEF International Waters Program Study

Introduction

Introduction

15. The GEF Council, at its meetings in Decem- 17. To facilitate the work of the OPS2 team,ber 1999 and May 2000, endorsed the conduct of GEF's monitoring and evaluation unit, in con-a review of GEF operations prior to the next junction with the implementing agencies,replenishment, which begins in 20011 . This decided to undertake program studies in thereview, the Second Study of GEF's Overall biodiversity, climate change, and internationalPerformance (OPS2) is to be carried out by a waters focal areas. The role of these program"fully independent team" which is expected to studies is to provide portfolio information andcomplete its work by the end of 2001. The OPS2 inputs for the OPS2 team's consideration.is the third major GEF-wide review to take place Participating members on the internationalsince the Facility was created 2 , waters program study team included representa-

tives of the three implementing agencies (UNDP,16. Among the broad topics the OPS2 team will UNEP, and the World Bank), members of theassess are: GEF secretariat, and an independent consultant.

A complete list of study team members is* Program results and initial impacts provided in the Foreword.

* GEF overall strategies and programmatic 18. At the time of the review, GEF had providedimpacts support to 41 full projects and four medium-size

projects (MSP) in the international waters focal* Achievement of the objectives of GEF's area. To date, 11 of these projects have been

operational policies and programs completed. In addition, PDFs have been ap-proved for 22 projects which may enter the GEF

* Review of modalities of GEF support portfolio upon further development. Not includ-ing co-financing, overall GEF funding to interna-

* Follow-up of OPSI tional waters efforts from 1991 to December 31,2000 totals $444 million.

'Joint Summary of the Chairs, GEF Council Meeting, December 8-9, 1999. and GEFIC.1511 1.2The first two studies, respectively, were Global Environment Facility: Independent Evaluation of the Pilot Phase,UNDP, UNEP, and World Bank (1994) and Porter, G., R. C16mencon, W. Ofosu-Amaah, and Michael Philips, Study ofGEF's Overall Performance, Global Environment Facility (1998).

2 GEF International Waters Program Study

Methodology and Timeline

19. Beginning in August 2000, the program * Brazil: Integrated Management of Land-study team agreed on a series of elements Based Activities in the Sdo Francisco Basinrequired for the study, including specific areas (implemented by UNEP)for review, the design of a questionnaire forproject managers and others involved in GEF * Brazil: Implementation of Integrated Water-projects in the field, and the locations and shed Management Practices for the Pantanalprocedures for site visits. In addition to an and Upper Paraguay River Basin (imple-overall portfolio analysis and review of project mented by UNEP).performance, the following topics were high-lighted for in-depth examination: In addition, the consultant conferred with the

headquarters staff of all three implementing• Experiences with the use of the agencies and the International Maritime Organi-

transboundary diagnostic analysis approach zation in London, which is the executing agencyfor preparing SAPs for GEF's Ballast Water Project3 .

* Multiple versus single implementing agency 21. The program study was intended to examine,efforts in some detail, the portfolio of projects within

the international waters focal area. The study's* Regional approaches to complex situations. objective was to review the coverage of GEF

international waters programs, as well as the20. The review team also participated in the First results and preliminary impacts.GEF Biennial International Waters Conference,held in Budapest from October 14-18, 2000, and 22. As part of its work, the study team wasundertook field visits to four GEF projects: asked to analyze project data using performance

indicators at three levels, considering possible* Water and Environmental Management in alternatives within each of the following types:

the Aral Sea Basin (implemented by theWorld Bank) * Process indicators (i.e., the processes that are

likely to lead towards a desirable outcome)* Implementation of the Strategic Action

Program Toward Achievement of the Inte- * Stress reduction indicators (concrete actionsgrated Management of the Benguela Current that reduce the environmental stress on theLarge Marine Ecosystem (implemented by water bodyUNDP)

* Environmental status indicators (actualimprovement of ecosystem quality).

3 The full project name is Removal of Barriers to the Effective Implementation of Ballast Water Control and Manage-ment Measures in Developing Countries, implemented by UNDP.

Methodology and Timeline 3

23. The study team also sought to determine the initiatives regarding damage and threats to suchextent to which current GEF policies agree with environments. A complete initiating memoran-the strategic guidance adopted by the GEF dum for the study can be found in Annex 1.Council and recommendations provided by boththe Pilot Phase Review and OPS 1. In addition, 24. In completing its work, the study teambecause there is no single, global agreement on compiled a number of background documentsinternational waters like there is in biodiversity and raw data which deal in greater depth with a(CBD) or climate change (UNFCCC), the review number of the issues raised in this report. Awas requested to provide some assessment of complete list of this background documentationGEF's policies and procedures on priority issues is available in Annex 2 and can be obtained fromin international waters and determine the relative the GEF M&E Unit.alignment with contemporary intergovernmental


Background on GEF Approachto International Waters

25. GEF's approach to international waters is set financial, regulatory, and institutional measuresout by the Council in the Operational Strategy that are necessary to achieve this goal. The long-document. It calls for a comprehensive approach to term objective is to undertake a series of projectswater resource management, an approach that is: to help groups of countries work collaboratively

in achieving changes in sectoral policies and" .cross-sectoral, integrates ecological activities so that transboundary environmental

and development needs, and is based on issues that cause degradation in shared waterholistic analyses of the carrying capacity bodies can be resolved. OP 8 projects focus onof the water environment ... The GEF will seriously threatened water bodies and the mostact as a catalyst to ensure that countries imminent threats to their ecosystems.better understand the functioning of theirinternational waters systems, gain an 27. OP 9 is broader in scope. Its long-termappreciation of how their sectoral activities objective is to achieve global environmentalinfluence the water environment, and find benefits through implementation of projects thata means for collaborating with neighbor- integrate the use of sound land and water re-ing countries to collectively pursue source management strategies as a result ofeffective solutions." changes in sectoral policies and activities that

promote sustainable development. Both OP 8 and26. GEF's international waters focal area OP 9 are often multicountry in nature, but OP 9includes projects in marine and freshwater projects tend to focus on preventive measuressystems and are categorized into Operational rather than remedial, highly capital-intensivePrograms (OP) 8, 9, or 10. These operational measures.programs are:

28. In OP 10, GEF projects are intended to help* OP 8: Waterbody-Based demonstrate ways of overcoming barriers to the

adoption of best practices that limit the releases* OP 9: Integrated Land and Water Multiple of contaminants causing priority concerns in

Focal Area international waters. This includes demonstrationprojects for addressing land-based sources of

* OP 10: Contaminant-Based pollution, projects related to contaminantsreleased from ships or persistent toxic sub-

In OP 8, GEF is intended to play a catalytic role stances, and targeted regional or global projectsin assisting groups of countries to make changes useful in setting priorities for possible GEFin various sectors (agriculture, industry, etc) so interventions. This operational program alsothat the particular waterbody and its drainage aims to involve the private sector in utilizingbasin can sustainably support human activities. technological advances for resolving theseGEF helps the countries use technical, economic, transboundary concerns. A more complete

4Operational Strategy, GEF (1996); GEF Operational Programs, GEF (1997).

Background on GEF Approach to International Waters 5

description of these various OPs and their * Priority preventive and remedial actionsobjectives is available in the GEF OperationalStrategy and Operational Programs4 . Cross-cutting issues and linkages to

other focal areas29. In both OP 8 and OP 9, the OperationalStrategy recommends the formulation of a SAP * Institutional strengthening and capacity-as an appropriate initial step in helping countries building needsdefine priority problems, establish commitmentsfor specific actions, and agree on additional * Stakeholder involvement and publicinterventions for priority transboundary con- awareness activitiescems. SAPs are particularly needed where"transboundary concerns, additional needed * Program monitoring and evaluationactions, and incremental costs are not adequatelydefined." * Institutional mechanisms for imple-

mentation."30. The Operational Strategy states that:

31. A key element for preparing a SAP among"The SAP should provide for a balanced countries is a scientific transboundary diagnosticprogram of preventive and remedial analysis (TDA) of priority transboundaryactions, support both investment and environmental problems. Since this process iscapacity-building activities, and identify associated with many of GEF's intemationalkey activities in the following areas: waters projects, it was closely examined in the

program study.


Findings

Portfolio Distribution mental threats and needs, there are some imbal-ances in the distributions at the sub-regional level

32. The portfolio analysis of GEF's international and among ocean receiving basins.waters projects found that the distribution ofprojects among the various operational programs, 34. The growth of projects in OP 10 would seemboth by number and funding, is similar. Region- to put to rest criticisms expressed in OPS 1ally, Africa has the largest share of GEF interna- regarding the lack of global projects in thetional waters funding ($104.5 million), followed portfolio. The review did find, however, thatby Asia ($90.8 million), Latin America and the there may be a disproportionate investment inCaribbean ($56.6 million), Eastern Europe this operational program to projects in the Latin($40.1 million), and Small Island Developing America and Caribbean which gives undueStates ($12.3 million). Another $20.9 million has weight in financial allocations to Caribbeanbeen allocated to global projects. Figure 1 projects.provides information on numbers of projectsapproved and under development per region. A 35. OP 9 projects are predominantly based incomplete list of the GEF international waters Asia, with the smallest allocations in the Middleprojects included in these figures is presented in East/North Africa region and Eastern Europe.Annex 3. However, the 10 projects being prepared with

PDF-B funds in Africa will soon give Africa the33. While the review finds this regional distribu- greatest emphasis. While this may be entirelytion to be appropriate in light of known environ- understandable, the review questions whether the

Figure 1Number of Approved Projects and Projects Under Development Within Regions

25

20

15 _0000:|000g-00_ES00000 04000000-00-000.0000lt000 *Under Development

E Approved

10

5

0

Region

Findings 7

generally lower level of investment in Latin along with the Arctic and Antarctic oceans. AnAmerica and the Caribbean is appropriate. examination of projects in the pipeline or under

development, however, suggests that most ofPortfolio Trends these deficiencies are being rectified, though the

limited focus on the Eastern Indian and Eastern36. In examining the current portfolio of intema- Pacific oceans will remain.tional waters projects, it is helpful to understandthe shifts in emphasis in the development of 39. Finally, it is also helpful to examine the GEFfuture projects. An analysis of projects receiving portfolio in light of a number of particularlyPDF assistance from the GEF is also helpful. important issues central to international watersRegionally, for instance, the review found an (Figure 3). Nine such issues were identified inenhanced emphasis on projects in sub-Saharan the initiating memorandum. They are:Africa, relative to other areas (Figure 1).

I. Freshwater scarcity and ecosystem conflicts37. From an international waters perspective, it (particularly in Africa and the Middle East)is equally meaningful to examine the distributionof projects among global international waters II. Freshwater basin and coastal pollution andbasins. Each of the international waters areas that sedimentationare the subjects of international waters projects isconnected, ultimately, to a major receiving ocean III. Degradation of transboundary groundwaterbasin. If the projects are broken down in relation systemsto these basins, it should reflect the degree towhich each has received similar levels of IV. Degradation of wetland ecosystems,investment. particularly transboundary systems

38. The results of this basin analysis (Figure 2) V. Coastal/marine nutrient over-enrichmentshow that, by and large, the Eastern IndianOcean and the Eastern North and South Pacific VI. Persistent toxic substancesare not represented in the current GEF portfolio,

Figure 2Number of Approved Projects and Projects Under Development

in Relation to Oceanic Receiving Basins30

25

20

s 15 fl 0 0 0 . ; E *Under Development

E 15 a H- ; - ; ; i - | | | E Approved

0 X le ICO 4 > &0 I>

Oceanic Receiving Basin


Figure 3GEF Projects by Issue in International Waters

16 g 1 ~ .I

14

12

. . _ 0 0 t:0i 00000 : j00000X0i L 003X0000j-;:* Pilot Projects1 0

ti Approved

2 Z POFs

4

2

09 ,0 0 z ov

e 44~ 4 P ~^&~~~~ /4 4 \:@ o>§v 4 4t ,<&

,, 4+ Issue

VII. Coastal and marine fisheries success in fostering national and multilateralcommitments to improved environmental

VIII. Ship-related contaminants protection measures and the implementation ofthe aims and objectives of a range of intema-

IX. Global issues. tional agreements.

Overall, the study team found a justifiably strong 41. Nevertheless, as observed by OPS1, not allfocus in issues II and V, and increased attention the criticisms and suggestions made in the Pilotin project development to issues I, II, and VI. Phase evaluation have been addressed to date,While the team found minor inequities on a and there remains room for improvement in theregional basis when looking at these issues, the guidance provided by the GEF at both strategicsample size is essentially too small to draw any and operational levels. Specifically, the Pilotconcrete conclusions. Phase evaluation referred to the need for guid-

ance with respect to concepts such as "participa-Alignment with GEF Guidance tion," "incremental costs," and "global benefits,"and Policies as well as appropriate approaches to promoting

sustainability, innovation, and the development40. Substantively, the range of projects within of global dimensions of national environmentalthe international waters focal area align well with policies and strategies and their linkage to GEFthe GEF's Operational Strategy and the Opera- projects. The need for guidance on these topics istional Program specifications adopted by the still evident for all GEF focal areas.GEF Council. Furthermore, they represent viablevehicles for the promotion of actions to redress 42. In the context of international waters, thedamage to international waters environments. In topics for which additional guidance could provethis respect, they have achieved considerable useful include the utility of the "large marine

5 The review of this OP (Integrated Ecosystem Management) was not in the purview of the program study and wouldhave been premature given that the operational program only became operational in 2000.

Findings 9

Figure 4Numbers of GEF International Waters Projects Correlating

with Specific International Agreements

35 r

30

25

20_

15

10

o L11- 11.- 1 _gL|,

ecosystem" and "ecosystem management" * Global Program of Action for the Protectionconcepts that assume prominence in the new of the Marine Environment from Land-OP 125. Based Activities (GPA)

43. The Pilot Phase evaluation also advocated * MARPOL 73/78 Conventionstreamlining review mechanisms. The presentstudy found the current plethora of GEF review * Convention on Non-Navigational Uses ofmechanisms to be unwarranted. It places a heavy Intemational Watercourses (CIW)burden on resources that are not compensated forby improved project oversight. A more structured * United Nations Agreement on Straddlingand formalized review system is needed, solely Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fishfrom GEF perspectives, that leads to much Stocksgreater effectiveness and transparency in theprocesses of feedback to new project conception * Draft global Convention on Persistentand design. Organic Pollutants (POPs)

Agreement with Regional and Inter- * Convention to Combat Desertificationnational Treaties

* Ramsar Convention44. GEF projects contribute significantly to theimplementation of the provisions of a variety of * Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).international environmental agreements (Figure4). The projects within the international waters Furthermore, a number of the GEF's interna-focal area promote the implementation of a large tional waters efforts also contribute to thenumber of international agreements at the global implementation of the United Nations Treaty onlevel including: the Law of the Sea. The fact that the majority of

international waters interventions relate to more


than one such agreement is an inherent advan- 49. The GEF has also been instrumental intage as it results in more comprehensive, or achieving country commitments to establish newholistic, projects and SAPs that focus national multicountry agreements for the management ofactivities on objectively defined priority issues. shared water bodies, such as Lake Tanganyika

and the Caspian Sea. Many multicountry institu-45. In addition to these global agreements, GEF tions are weak, however, both politically andinterventions in international waters have made, financially, and frequently limited to advisoryand continue to make, contributions to the functions6. These findings are of particularimplementation of a range of existing regional importance because the study authors believeagreements that address mutual protection and that the role of regional conventions and interna-restoration of river drainage basins and marginal tional river and lake basin organizations is ofsea areas. critical importance for the success and

sustainability of GEF initiatives.46. As seen in Figure 4, the main focus is onland-based activities that degrade marine waters 50. Despite important successes, the study finds(under the GPA) followed by loss of biodiversity that several global conventions and their secre-(CBD), fisheries over-exploitation (Straddling tariats have not taken full advantage of theStocks), loss of wetlands (Ramsar) and hazards opportunities arising from GEF projects toassociated with shipping (MARPOL). advance their sectoral goals and foster their

translation into national legislation and policies.47. Thus, for instance, through GEF action to In addition, a satisfactory level of synergy hasreduce nutrient pollution in the Black Sea basin, yet to be achieved with existing internationalthe provisions and objectives of the GPA, as convention mechanisms, such as their Consulta-translated into regional commitments by the tive Meetings of Contracting Parties and theirDanube and Bucharest conventions, are strength- secretariats, that would further strengthen theened by compliance with the Ramsar Conven- catalytic role of the GEF, the replication of success-tion, and vice versa. At the same time, beneficial ful demonstrations, and global awareness of, andconsequences also accrue with respect to the compliance with, international agreements.preservation of biodiversity.

51. The holistic approach that underlies the GEF48. Furthermore, many GEF projects in different international waters strategy and the majority ofregions address the fragile ecosystems of coastal its projects is tangibly demonstrating how theenvironments where marine and freshwater systems effectiveness of international environmental lawinteract, hydrodynamic processes are more intense, can be enhanced through collective arrangementsand the impact of human activities is increasingly and responses. Indeed, one of the strengths ofmanifest. All these projects enhance synergies GEF interventions is that they allow countries tobetween the Jakarta Mandate of the Convention on address issues in a way that deals not only withBiological Diversity and the GPA, and in some national concerns and the internal effects ofinstances MARPOL, as is the case with projects in national activities, but also external effects ofthe Yellow Sea, the Patagonian coast and shelf, and national activities and the effects of activities bythe southern Mediterranean. Where freshwater other countries sharing the same water body.scarcity represents the major transboundary threatto ecosystems, the interplay of the Ramsar, CIW, 52. The GEF can thus be seen as a major, orand desertification conventions have provided a possibly the major, facilitator of the implementa-basis for the design of a number of GEF projects, tion and increased adoption of internationalsuch as the Okavango and the Niger Basin projects. water laws, action plans, and regional environ-

6 The prevalence of environmental or water ministries and the lack of interministerial committees at national levels areadditional elements undermining the effectiveness of these organizations.

Findings 11

mental protection agreements. The sustenance usually within a harmonized multinationaland promotion of such regional agreements and context, to restore or preserve from furthertheir environmental protection activities is one of degradation a specific international waters area.the measurable and concrete benefits of GEF Although such analyses can be conducted by, andinternational waters activities. within, single countries, the need to identify

transboundary effects and causes makes itThe TDA Approach to Preparing SAPs desirable that the analyses be conducted on a

multilateral basis involving all riparian states to53. As discussed earlier in this report. OPs 8 and an international water body.9 place emphasis on the need to formulate SAPsfor interventions to address the degradation of, or 56. The review finds that there are a variety ofthreats to, international waterbodies based on ways in which a TDA is conducted. Some aresound scientific analysis (the TDA). more resource-intensive than others, but these

usually offer advantages in providing greater54. Such scientific and technical assessment is insight and specificity, thereby providing anneeded to identify and quantify the environmen- improved information base for the formulation oftal issues and problems in the international SAPs. They also improve the objectivity of thewaters area and identify their immediate, inter- process. Since SAPs are inherently politicalmediate, and fundamental causes. The analysis instruments agreed to by a number of countries,involves an identification of causes and impacts objectivity is not a mandatory foundation for aof environmental disturbances and/or threats and SAP but it usually improves the effectiveness ofassesses the scale and distribution of impacts at concomitant actions to resolve environmentalnational, regional, and global levels, predomi- problems. In sum, the TDA is used to objectivelynantly in socio-economic terms. The identifica- determine the facts, while the politics of address-tion of causes specifies practices, sources, loca- ing those facts are undertaken as part of the SAP.tions, and human activity sectors from whichenvironmental degradation arises or is threatened. 57. The study focused on four examples taken

from GEF preparatory activities as a basis for55. A TDA thus provides the basis for the subsequent observations on their advantages andformulation of a SAP embodying specific actions drawbacks. The four examples chosen, whichor interventions that can be adopted nationally, differ considerably in approach and content, are

Box 1Creating a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis

for the South China Sea

One of the more detailed and well-structured TDAs examined by the study concernedthe South China Sea, which involved the cooperation of seven countries (Cambodia, China,Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam).

The development of the South China Sea TDA began with the establishment of na-tional committees in each of the seven participating countries. Each of these national commit-tees prepared a country report that contained a national analysis of water-related problems andconcerns. These country reports were then considered at a meeting of national coordinators andinvited regional scientists. At this meeting, each of the issues raised within the country reportswas collectively assigned a weight so that an initial list of major concerns could be defined.

The process of ranking issues in the South China Sea differs considerably from the one


Box 1, continued

undertaken for the Lake Tanganyika project, where priorities were assigned partly on the basisof considerations such as "feasibility" and "additional benefits," which would normally beconsidered at a later stage.

In the South China Sea, the analyses in the national reports and in the TDA itselfidentify a series of root causes of current environmental problems and threats in the region ofwhich the most important are: rapid growth in coastal populations, rapid economic growth overthe last decade, the pace of industrialization, and the influence of globalization of trade.

The resulting GEF project in the region, Reversing Environmental Degradation Trendsin the South China Sea andi Gulf of Thailand, contains four major components, three of which(habitat degradation and loss, over-exploitation of fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand, and land-based pollution) correspond to categories of issues identified in the TDA. The full projectimplemented by UNEP will derive specific national actions in relation to each of these catego-ries, leading to a high-level intergovernmental meeting at which these actions will be adoptedwithin a SAP.

for the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, the South 60. In these cases, the study concludes that itChina Sea, Lake Tanganyika, and the Yellow Sea. would be desirable for TDAs to be part of theWhile a summary of the study team's findings is preparative process leading to project design.presented here, greater detail on this aspect of the This would require resource requirements for thereview can be found in Box 1 below. conduct of TDAs to be satisfied from PDF-B

budget allocations. The TDAs examined in the58. All the TDAs examined bring the process of study clearly demonstrate that it is possible toSAP development to its starting point. In this conduct relatively comprehensive TDAs withinsense, they can be regarded as valuable examples the PDF-B budget limits. The increased PDF-Bof a logical sequence of activities leading to the allocations for multicountry projects, adopted byformulation of an effective and credible SAP. the GEF Council, should be adequate to ensure thatThis is the real value of transboundary diagnostic more PDF-Bs include convincing scientific basesanalysis. It permits the logical development of a for the actions proposed. More recommendationsstrategic action program that is based on a on this issue are included later in the report.reasoned, holistic, and multisectoral consider-ation of the problems associated with the state of, 61. Overall, the case studies examined by theand threats to, international waters. Furthermore, study adequately demonstrate TDAs' utility as ait is a valuable vehicle for multilateral exchanges means of allowing regions to approach problemof perspectives and constraints as a precursor to resolution in international waters areas in athe eventual formulation of a SAP. pragmatic and coherent manner. The conduct of

TDAs provides a vehicle for multilateral consul-

59. Nevertheless, the TDA/SAP process has tation in the early stages of the development ofbeen criticized for unnecessarily delaying action SAPs, thereby reducing the risk of having to

make a postiori revisions of SAPs and, morethat addresses problems in international waters iareas. This is particularly the case in areas where .impor esuing rthe tion ofrcesoucto Issues of substance rather than perception.countries or other concerned bodies have suffi- Grappling with priorities at early stages in thecient reason to believe that the environmental SAP development process offers greater long-threats and priorities are already known. SAP benelopensuring that greater lon

term benefits in ensuring that multilateral action

Findings 13

is focused on issues of key importance that are terms of meeting their originally conceivedlikely to offer the largest net benefits. objectives and in fostering concrete progress on

multilateral action to address prevailing problems.62. The study finds that encouraging an orga- In general, the performance of OP 8 projects isnized, strategic identification of priority issues in something of a mixed bag. In the final evaluation,regional areas has been an important ancillary all OP 8 projects received criticism on some majorbenefit of international waters interventions. In aspects of their performance. However, it should bethis context, the GEF deserves credit for foster- noted that only two of the completed projects wereing science-based assessments that help define designed after the adoption of the operationalSAPs. Through this process, scientific, technical, programs. The remainder, retroactively assigned,social, and political considerations are all did not strictly follow the OP guidance, except forbrought to bear on identifying priorities for the the three ship-related. projects.adoption of harmonized and coherent multilateral -

action. Attention is thereby focused on issues of Completed Projectssubstance conceived from comprehensiveperspectives rather than matters of perception. 65. The performance of the 10 completed projects7

for which final reports exist shows considerable63. In many cases, the challenge is to achieve a variability (Table 1). Some projects, however, haveshared vision and commitment among countries clearly been more successful than others. The twosharing a water resource regarding addressing projects on ship waste handling in the southwesternpriority transboundary environmental issues Mediterranean (Oil Pollution Management Projectconcerning the water body. Therefore, the for the Southwest Mediterranean Sea) and in Chinadevelopment and endorsement of a SAP, and (China: Ship Waste Disposal) can be regarded ashence political commitment to its implementa- very successful in meeting their objectives. Sometion, is in itself often the major achievement. present and future reductions in stress on theEven in cases where the problems appear to be marine environment can be directly attributed toknown (e.g., the Aral Sea basin), the lack of an these projects. Moreover, in the case of the China:agreed SAP can hamper joint action by the Ship Waste Disposal project, these reductions incountries to address the transboundary environ- stress are quantifiable.mental issues. On the other hand, addressing allpriority issues identified in a comprehensive SAP 66. Despite these successes, the degree to whichis frequently beyond the abilities of GEF and these projects were effective in reducing stress inrequires coordinated efforts by the countries and the regions concerned, however, remains an opendonors. Therefore, completing an agreed SAP is question in the absence of any uniform tool foritself commonly an important process indicator comparing the relative severity of impact amongfor GEE a number of activities and sources. This is the

value of the TDA approach, especially if it isProject Performance and Review of conducted holistically and objectively.Completed Projects

67. In addition, as has been pointed out in the64. Among individual projects and operational earlier GEF reviews, there is a continuing needprograms, overall project performance varies. In for strong and sustainable political commitmentgeneral, projects within OP 10 were clearly for projects to fulfill their objectives. This wassuccessful. Among OP 9 projects, the Strategic clearly demonstrated in the Water PollutionAction Programfor the Binational Basin of the Control and Biodiversity Conservation in theBermejo River and Prevention and Management Gulf of Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem project,of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas which was plainly overambitious. There remainsprojects were found to be the most productive in doubt, based on the final evaluation report, that

I The Pilot Phase Caribbean "project was actually a Pre Investment Facility (PRIF) grant that never matured into a full project.


the degree of political commitment is as strong 69. Other lessons learned from completedor as sustainable as it would have been if the project projects include:had been based on more modest ambitions.

* The need to ensure adequate funding for68. Among these completed projects, the communication functions among relevantimportance of the mid-term review in helping national institutions, NGOs, managers,turn around an underperforming project is clear. policy makers, experts, and even implement-The Pollution Control and Other Measures to ing agenciesProtect Biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika project,for instance, accomplished a great deal in the * The critical role of management actions orface of considerable difficulties. An important interventions that are community-basedpart of this success was due to the timeliness andeffectiveness of the mid-term review, which * The need to evaluate capacity buildingcould then be used to redirect the project. measures following project completion

Table 1Terminal Evaluations of International Waters Projects

# Country/Region Project IA OP # Evaluation Project DatesDate

1 Eastern Europe Protection of the Black Sea UNDP t 1997 1993-1996

Water Pollution Control and 82 Africa Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf UNDP (pit 1999 1994-1999

of Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem phase)

Planning and Management of Heavily 83 Caribbean Contaminated Bays and Coastal Areas UNDP (pilot undated 1995-1998

in the Wider Caribbean phase)

4 Eastern Europe Developing the Danube River Basin UNDP 8 1999 1997-1999Pollution Reduction Program

Pollution Control and Other Measures 9 20005 Africa to Protect Biodiversity in Lake UNDP (pilot 2000 (scheduled to

Tanganyika phase) terminate)

South America: A Strategic Action Program for the6 Argentina and Binational Basin of the Bermejo River UNEP 9 2000 1997-1999

Bolivia

East Asian Seas Prevention and 1994-19997 Asia Management of Marine Pollution UNDP (p 1998 (extension)

___________ ___________ ___________phase)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Western 1 08 Mediterranean Oil Pollution Management WB (pilt 2000 1994-2000Mediterranean ~~~~~~~~~~~~~phase)

109 China Ship Waste Disposal WB (palot 1997 1992-1997

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CrbeneeaeWse_ 19 19-9phase)__

10 Caribbean Wider Caribbean Initiatitve on Ship- 10(io 99 9419I I ~~~~Generated Waste WB (pIt9 19419

Findings 15

* The importance of political commitment Global: Removal of Barriers to the Effectiveexemplified by national agency leadership Implementation of Ballast Water Control andand a positive legislative environment Management Measures in Developing

Countries (UNDP)* The benefits of clearly defined roles for

implementing agencies prior to project Operational Program No. 8implementation. Hungary-Slovenia: Building Environmental

Citizenship to Support TransboundaryDemonstration Projects Pollution Reduction in the Danube (UNDP)

70. The study contained an examination of the Operational Program No. 9degree to which the projects designated as Integrating Management of Watersheds anddemonstration projects represent appropriate Coastal Areas in Small Island Developingdemonstrations of consultative processes, of States in the Caribbean (UNEP/UNDP)riparian or regional arrangements for environ-mental protection, or of technology that can Although not initially included in the character-subsequently be applied to advantage in other ization process, an additional project likely to beareas than the geographical focus of the project designated as largely demonstration has beenconcerned. Two projects that comprise demon- submitted for Council approval. This is thestrations predominantly were reviewed: Egypt: project entitled Global: Removal of Barriers toLake Manzala Engineered Wetlands and Removal the Introduction of Cleaner A rtisanal Goldof Barriers to the Effective Implementation of Mining and Extraction Technologies in OP 10.Ballast Water Control and Management Mea- This project, although as yet not designated asures in Developing Countries. demonstration project, was deemed worthy of

inclusion in this analysis.71. The study also examined other projects thathave demonstration components. To qualify for 73. The review by the study team found that, byconsideration, projects in this category should and large, these projects are both well conceivedhave the potential for replication elsewhere, but and satisfy the relevant criteria for GEF support.such replication would occur through other The potential incremental benefits that canmechanisms (i.e., in future projects by other accrue from both global and regional demonstra-agencies). An example of a PDF project contain- tion projects continue to justify some allocationing components that might be considered for of resources under OP 10 to demonstrationreplication elsewhere is Support for the National projects of a similar nature.Plan of Action in the Russian Federation for theProtection of the Arctic Marine Environment Findings from Site Visitsfrom Anthropogenic Pollution. This projectincludes the definition and application of proce- 74. Only limited impacts could be identifieddures for the identification and characterization from the four project site visits undertaken asof hot-spots that might be considered suitable for part of the study. This was largely due to the factreplication in other areas. that the projects had not yet reached sufficient

maturity to produce quantifiable environmental72. The list of projects examined under these benefits. The two UNEP-implemented projectstwo categories are: visited in Brazil, Implementation of Integrated

Watershed Management Practices for theOperational Program No. 10 Pantanal and Upper Paraguay River Basin andEgypt: Lake Manzala Engineered Wetlands Integrated Management of Land-Based Activities

(UNDP); pilot phase in the Sao Francisco Basin, had been under


Box 2Review of the Removal of Barriers to the Effective Implementation of Ballast Water

Control and Management in Developing Countries Project

The Removal of Barriers to the Effective Implementation of Ballast Water Control andManagement Measures in Developing Countries project implemented by UNDP is centered onthe need to minimize the risks of alien species transfer by ballast water shipments. The impor-tance of this topic has been widely recognized and has resulted in the formulation of Guidelinesfor the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water published by the International Mari-time Organization (IMO) in 1998. Furthermore, there is a plan to develop a new internationalagreement to address the ballast water issue being developed under the auspices of theMARPOL 73/78 Convention.

Currently, the only basis for the development of systems for minimizing the risks ofalien species transfer by ballast water is the IMO gguidelines. Moreover, the GEF project willbe completed prior to the formulation of the new convention. This could be viewed as a severelimitation of the current series of demonstration activities within the project. However, thecountries that are the focus of the six demonstration port sites in the GEF project are activelyinvolved in the negotiations leading to the formulation of the new convention, and will likelyuse their experience to affect the development of appropriate guidelines. These participatingcountries and project sites include Brazil (Port of Sepetiba), China (Port of Dalian), India (Portof Mumbai), Iran (Kharg Island), South Africa (Port of Soldanha), and Ukraine (Port ofOdessa).

In addition to providing valuable lessons learned, this will help ensure that any devel-opments applicable to the nature of the management and compliance systems for alien speciestransfer by ballast water be identified early on, thereby enabling them to be addressed in projectimplementation before the project ends.

Overall, the study team found that this project appears to be a well-founded and, at theearly stages in project execution, a well-managed demonstration project. It ideally fits the aimsand objectives of demonstration projects within the GEF international waters portfolio. Recipi-ent countries have greatly benefited from contacts and the exchange of information withcountries already having national mechanisms for addressing ballast water issues. In addition,project managers are informed of the limitations of a strict focus on ballast water transfers ofalien species. This is particularly important if, as currently proposed, tributyltin (TBT) coatingsand paints are ultimately prohibited from use on all vessels. Such a change could make it likelythat hull transport of alien species by commercial vessels will exceed the transport of biologicalmaterial in ballast water, forcing some rethinking in project priorities.

To date, however, the indicators of success are positive and some additional actionstaken by the project coordination unit in the IMO has increased the broader benefits of theproject beyond those intended.

Findings 17

implementation for 13 and 15 months, respec- implementing agencies and other institutions.tively, at the time of the visit. Two well-attended workshops were held nine

months apart to conduct the consultation pro-75. Furthermore, the original design of the cesses necessary to undertake the strategic work,Pantanal/Upper Paraguay project had assumed and small groups collaborated during the interimthe existence of a SAP prepared with World to polish the strategic products (TDA and SAP).Bank support. However, it was evident that there The project brief that the GEF Council approvedwas no full SAP with priority actions, targets, for the full project contains the TDA (establish-and schedules but only a diagnostic inventory of ing several top priorities for activity among allthe broad priority areas that could be used as a the different environmental and transboundarystrategic framework. The task of the present concerns), the SAP (signed by several sectoralproject is, thus, to produce a SAP that will ministers from each of the three countriesarticulate the detailed action program for the detailing joint commitments), and a list ofregion. In the present project, all components are country-specific policy/legal/institutionalgeared towards preparing a SAP. The Sao reforms the ministers pledge to implement inFrancisco Basin project also employs the TDA/ each country during the project addressing theSAP approach. Collaborative work towards this few priorities and are responsive to the SAP.goal has commenced and both projects candemonstrate process indicators based on the 77. The Water and Environmental Managementorganization of planning workshops and estab- for the Aral Sea Basin project deals with thelishment of work programs bringing together world's most dramatic case of environmentalbroad categories of actors, including federal and collapse and land degradation: the progressivestate agencies, local universities and research drying up of the Aral Sea, the extinction of mostinstitutions, and NGOs. forms of its aquatic life, and the contamination of

huge land areas with salts and toxic substances.76. Similarly, the Implementation of the Strate- This-environmental tragedy was brought about ingic Action Program Toward Achievement of the a relatively 30-year period by excessive waterIntegrated Management of the Benguela Current abstractions (90%) from the two rivers whichLarge Marine Ecosystem project implemented by feed the Aral (the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya)UNDP displayed significant process indicators for irrigation purposes. Against a scenario ofbased on the successful Block B preparation political, social, and economic complexity, thephase. The preparation process resulted in efforts and support of the donor community havecompletion of a TDA/SAP only 17 months after been generally unsuccessful in improving basinthe initial workshop for stakeholders in August management, including interstate institutional1998. No other projects in OP 8 have accom- arrangements. Most major development assis-plished this effort during preparation or so tance institutions are presently downsizing theirquickly. While several projects in OP 9 have commitments8, or considering discontinuing theirproduced SAPs during Block B preparation, they programs (EU-Tacis, UNDP, bilaterals). Thewere for preventive actions associated with OP 9 environmental and social objectives which atrather than the complex situations characteristic least partly inspired the institution of IFAS (toof OP 8. During the course of preparation, four save.the Aral, and its riparian populations), havemanagement committee meetings were held with been lost, if not totally forgotten (see Box 3).an average of three participants from Angola, The short-term focus is now on preventing thefive from Namibia, and four from South Africa, further collapse of the irrigation system whileand including an average of six others from the efforts to support agreement on a joint vision/

'Technical assistance programs have generally focused on treating the symptoms and meeting the basic needs of theaffected populations, rather than addressing the root causes of the disaster.


Box 3The Challenge of Changing Priorities:

The Case of the Aral Sea

Few projects better exhibit the importance of solidifying an agreed and strategicapproach to international waters problems than the GEF's Water and Environmental Manage-ment in the Aral Sea Basin project, implemented by the World Bank. The project was selectedto be one of the four sites visited by the study team.

The objective of the project is to address the root causes of the overuse and degradationof the basin by assisting the participating countries in implementing a mutually agreed SAP.This effort is intended to stimulate and achieve substantive and concrete progress towards thefour objectives of the Aral Sea Basin Program (ASBP):

* Stabilizing the environment

* Rehabilitating the disaster zone around the Sea

* Improving the management of international waters

* Building the capacity of the regional institutions.

In particular, the GEF project is focused on the first and third objectives with the targetof "effectively reducing water consumption in the productive sectors, mainly irrigation, of atleast 15 percent" by the end of the project. This approach corresponded to the priorities andneeds perceived by the riparian countries: restoring some level of ecosystem functioning inareas surrounding the Aral, and stabilizing the sea itself while optimizing upstream irrigation.

Later, however, these priorities changed, and concern was mounting about the manage-ment of the salt mobilized by drainage waters, and the maintenance and sustainability of theirrigation system itself. While the Council-approved project document maintains the 15-percentreduction in water abstractions from the two rivers as a major project objective, the studybelieves this objective is not realistic. Moreover, it is no longer considered a priority given thenew scenario of growing land degradation within the irrigated lands, among other problems.Compounding this problem, basin-wide multicountry arrangements on water and environmentare apparently losing political support in the region, as indicated by the lack of activity, initia-tives, and even formal meetings, of IFAS (the project's executing agency).

commitment for water sharing among riparians, conditions in waterbodies; (c) identify actions toand the establishment of multisectoral and address the highest priority transboundarymulticountry management structures, are ongoing. problems; and (d) implement both agreed

regional and national policies, and legislative andGeographically Based Approaches institutional reforms, in tum attracting the

investments needed to address them.78. The Operational Strategy recognizes that aseries of international waters projects in a given 79. In essence, this comprehensive approachregion may be needed over time to: (a) build requires a set of relatively straightforward projectscapacity and political commitment of countries that collectively cover complex situations andto work together; (b) jointly acknowledge and set activities. This breaks complex challenges up intopriorities based on assessments of environmental manageable pieces and fosters action at three

Findings 19

institutional levels: multilateral, national (i.e., inter- ment in the Tonle Sap Region project, implementedministerial), and sub-national (i.e., essentially by UNDP with the Asian Development Bank.provincial and community) levels.

83. In the Reversing Environmental Degradation80. The Danube River and Black Sea region was Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf ofchosen by the former GEF International Waters Thailand project brief, the summary of activitiesTask Force, in collaboration with the countries, includes "regional harmonization." Thus, there isas a test geographic region for this approach. The a clear reflection of the need and means ofresults to date of this approach demonstrate a consultation between the South China Seanumber of lessons learned. Among these, project and the Mekong River project. The factconsiderable involvement-and funding-by that the project is being executed partly by thelending institutions such as the World Bank may secretariat for the Action Plan for the Seas ofbe needed to accelerate or intensify activities in East Asia (EAS/RCU) and the Coordinatingthe international waters focal area. In addition, Body for the Seas of East Asia (COBSEA) isthe very broad consultation process was a tool directly involved means that there are broadfor developing common understanding among regional bodies involved in the project that havenot only the recipient countries, but other a diversity of regional interests.interested organizations. Such understandingfacilitates joint action and collaboration and 84. The review also reveals a clear recognitionprevents duplication and the creation of gaps. of the need for mutual consultation in a regional

context. Not only are such inter-project and81. In addition to work in the Danube/Black Sea regional consultations specifically referred to inbasins, there are other regions where geographi- the relevant project briefs but the fundingcal approaches are being undertaken, including requirements to ensure such consultation arethe Mekong River-South China Sea region (four included in the two project's projected alloca-projects), as well as the Parana/Paraguay/Plata tions. There would thus appear to be an adequateRiver basin systems and Patagonian Shelf Large basis for ensuring coherence between the twoMarine Ecosystem (seven waters projects). projects and also an enhanced likelihood of post-

project collaboration with the possible consolida-82. In the Mekong River-South China Sea tion of future mutual interests into a regionallyregion, for instance, there are strong links in the comprehensive umbrella.relationship between the Reversing Environmen-tal Degradation Trends in the South China Sea 85. The review found that the implementingand Gulf of Thailand project and the Mekong agencies have a mixed record when it comes toRiver Basin Water Utilization Project. Both collaborating on a series of projects in theprojects are implemented by the World Bank. Parana/Paraguay/Plata River basins andThe projects were not, however, conceived Patagonian Shelf. UNEP's Strategic Actiontogether. Nevertheless, the relevant GEF project Programfor the Binational Basin of the Bermejobriefs were reviewed to determine the extent of River and Integrated Watershed Managementmutual recognition as well as the extent and Program for the Pantanal and Upper Paraguaynature of any consultative arrangements pro- River Basin projects, for example, have so farposed for exchanging information and experi- failed to establish effective means of cooperationence and ensuring that issues of mutual interest with other projects in the wider basin. UNDP'swere considered in concert. Both explicitly refer Plata Maritime Front project and the Worldto the other project. There is concern, however, Bank's Argentina Coastal Contaminationabout the low level of coordination between the project, however, are essential for fosteringMekong River project and the Cambodia-based collaboration among countries, implementingIntegrated Resource Management and Develop- agencies, and provincial governments.

20 GEF Interational Waters Program Study

86. In addition, the World Bank has three 89. Within the international waters portfolio,relevant, non-GEF initiatives in the region, there is only one full project and no PDF-Bs thatincluding a pollution reduction effort in Buenos are formally implemented by all three LAs. ThereAires that should be linked to the UNDP Plata are, however, two full projects and seven PDF-BsMaritime Front project. Two other initiatives in which two agencies cooperate (three withinvolve loans for addressing Patagonian Shelf UNDP and UNEP and four with UNDP and theissues (one for pollution abatement and the other World Bank). These nine projects are:to restructure fisheries management to stop themost important cause of overfishing in the large Full Projectsmarine ecosystem). The review also found anumber of other linkages between projects and * Implementation of the Strategic Actionimplementing agencies in the region, all posi- Program for the Red Sea and Gulf ofAdentive developments to ensure effective coordina- (UNDP/WB/UNEP)tion and use of limited resources.

* Addressing Transboundary Environmental87. In some cases, the study found that good Issues in the Caspian Environment Programintentions regarding collaboration at the start of (UNDP/UNEP/WB)projects may not be realized for many reasons,including turnover in implementing agency staff PDF-Bsor GEF institutional task forces, changes ingovernments, and disputes among nations over * Control of Euthrophication, Hazardousshared areas of marine ecosystems such as those Substances and Related Measures forassociated with fishing and oil exploration rights. Rehabilitating the Black Sea EcosystemIn general, however, the review found some very (UNDPIUNEP)good examples of agency coordination andeffectiveness in collaboration. * Nile Basin Initiative - Basin-Wide Shared

Wsion Program (WB/UNDP)Single Versus Multiple ImplementingAgency Projects * Development of a SAP for the Guinea

Current LME (UNDP/UNEP)88. The GEF Operational Strategy in interna-tional waters emphasizes implementing agency * Baltic Sea Regional Project (WB/UNDP)cooperation according to each agency's respec-tive comparative advantage. The Operational * Integrating Management of Watersheds andStrategy states that: Coastal Areas in Small Island Developing

States in the Caribbean (UNEP/UNDP)"[Thesel operational programs will helpcapture additional programmatic global * Senegal River Basin Water and Environmen-benefits in a cost-effective manner by tal Management Project (WB/UNDP)linking country-driven needs for interna-tional action with the comparative * Reversing Land and Water Degradationadvantage of different Implementing Trends in the Niger Basin (UNDP/WB).agencies... A comprehensive approachwill be followed in designing projects so In addition, Integrated Management of the Lakethat complementarities among Imple- Chad Basin consists of a full project imple-menting agencies ... will be achieved" mented by UNDP and a complementary PDF-C(italics added). by the World Bank that is intended to contribute

to the full project.

Findings 21

90. In undertaking this comparison, there were In general, there appears to be little communica-two basic sources of information. First, the team tion and exchange of experiences between GEFanalyzed the results of a questionnaire sent to projects, even those that operate in the sameproject participants and proponents. Second, an geographical area and would thus be the greatestin-depth analysis of project experiences was beneficiaries of collaboration that incorporatedcarried out through documents and site visits. lessons, prevented duplication, and ensured

efficiency. Lessons from earlier projects and91. Several respondents to the questionnaire projects from other implementing agencies arehighlighted the benefits of involving several insufficiently channeled into new project de-implementing agencies in developing a project. It signs. The reasons for this state of affairs werewas recognized that more could be achieved identified as competition between the imple-through a comprehensive approach and collabo- menting agencies and consequent unwillingnessration between the agencies. In line with the to cooperate, as well as the lack of a comprehen-Operational Strategy, the respondents recognized sive database on GEF projects.the advantages of each implementing agencycontributing according to their respective 94. More positively, the study found that thecomparative strengths. It was also mentioned that implementation of UNDP's Strengtheningideally a project should be prepared in consulta- Capacity for Global Knowledge Sharing in

tion with as many stakeholders as possible. The International Waters project (IW:LEARN) anddevelopment of the SAP for the Red Sea in the organization of the First GEF Internationalwhich all implementing agencies participated, as Waters Conference in October 2000 werewell as the Nile Shared Vision (PDF-B imple- promising steps taken to address these deficien-mented in collaboration by the World Bank and cies. Similarly, the PIR process is intended toUNDP) were mentioned as positive examples. ensure that feedback of lessons to new projects

takes place. In the particular case of the Black92. However, virtually all respondents had Sea-Danube-Dnieper basins, significant progressexperienced instances where implementation by has been made in coordinating the efforts of themultiple implementing agencies created addi- implementing agencies.tional burdens. It was mentioned that this hadresulted in longer project preparation times and 95. Overall, the consensus from the question-higher transaction costs and coordination costs. naire was that, while harnessing the comparativeThis is partly due to the differing procurement advantages of the various implementing agenciesrules and other administrative procedures was desirable and the projects benefited frombetween the agencies. But it was also felt that leveraging expertise and experiences vested inagencies had competing interests that did not the various agencies, there should normally onlynecessarily translate into the project focusing on be one implementing agency in charge of aits objectives. It was emphasized that the willing- project. Good communication and coordinationness to cooperate must come from the agencies between all implementing agencies duringthemselves and not be imposed by GEF. Similarly, project preparation and implementation was seenan opinion was expressed that having two or three as a necessity and preferred over multiple-agencyimplementing agencies may lead to an unclear implementation.division of responsibility and accountability.

96. The study team selected projects for closer93. Another issue highlighted in the survey was examination on the basis of different implemen-the lack of communication and coordination tation arrangements and varying levels ofbetween the implementing agencies. It was noted implementing agency coordination (see Box 4).that better communications existed upstream at While it is hard to draw definitive conclusions onthe concept stage but this communication the information available, the study finds that thebetween projects and agencies deteriorated later. experience of using multiple implementing


agencies, according to their comparative advan- Community-Based Approaches totages, has been positive. This is the case whether Managing Transboundary Watersthe implementing agencies are working togetherjointly, in parallel on similar efforts, or in 98. Typically, stakeholders in internationalsequence on a project (i.e., one agency prepares a waters projects range from the implementingSAP while another implements follow-up agencies and executing agencies, which are oftenprojects). For this to occur, however, it appears regional institutions or a consortium of nationalbeneficial to clearly define the co-implementa- water and infrastructure ministries, to nationaltion arrangements and to outline the comparative and sub-national counterparts, private firmsadvantages of each implementing agency at the involved in shipping, service providers in portsoutset in a memorandum of understanding or and harbors, tourism agencies, large-scale fishingsimilar agreement. fleets, and, to some extent, coastal communities

and non-governmental organizations.97. On the other hand, the consensus emergingfrom the questionnaire survey with the project 99. While this multi-country set-up is necessarycoordinators and proponents suggests that joint to bring together decision makers bordering aimplementation arrangements unduly complicate common water resource, the study found someproject management and add to the bureaucracy projects that creatively blend community-basedthrough increased and often conflicting reporting approaches with regional cooperation. Threerequirements and administrative procedures of such approaches that may provide lessons orthe agencies. It appears that the initial costs of models for replication in other projects are: (a)implementation partnerships are indeed higher application of the integrated coastal zone man-but the expectation is that there would be net agement approach; (b) development of in-benefits at the end of the process. It is, thus, country and local outreach programs; and (c)clearly necessary to assess the benefits vis-a-vis establishment of working groups and localthe costs at the design stage before deciding on committees.joint implementation between agencies.

Box 4Differing Approaches

The international waters program study team selected several projects for closerexamination on the basis of different implementation arrangements and varying levels ofImplementing Agency coordination. The Integrated Management of Land-Based Activities inthe Sdo Francisco Basin and Determination of Priority Actionsfor Further Elaboration andImplementation of the Strategic Action Program for the Mediterranean Sea projects, forexample, represent a model where a single agency is implementing the present project stage,but where interagency collaboration took place or is foreseen at different stages. The Water andEnvironmental Management in the Aral Sea Basin project, on the other hand, was developedunder the umbrella of the Aral Sea Basin Program (ASBP) established by UNDP, UNEP, andthe World Bank in the early 1990s.

In some cases, one implementing agency is best positioned to carry out a project. In theImplementation of the Strategic Action Program Toward Achievement of the Integrated Man-agement of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem project, for example, UNDP hasbeen the only implementing agency involved. According to the completed TDA and agreed

Findings 23

Box 4, continued

SAP, policy, legal, and institutional reforms and capacity development to facilitate their imple-mentation appear to be the key interventions to address the transboundary environmental issues.Assisting the countries with these issues falls within UNDP's comparative advantage in GEF.Therefore, not having the other implementing agencies involved was not seen as a problem.Linkages are being developed with other implementing agency projects proposed for GEFsupport in the area.

The Aral Sea Basin Program, on the other hand, is more complex. Implementedthrough the World Bank, the project currently suffers from the lack of a multisectoral orinterministerial coordinating body. As originally conceived, the GEF project was intended tocatalyze efforts of the international community to build a coherent common strategy in theregion. Substantial co-financing was negotiated with several multilateral and bilateral donors.Since the approval of the project document, however, the country priorities have shifted, makingenvironmental assistance a lower priority. Most of the other major programs, including that ofUNDP, are being downsized or cancelled, leaving the World Bank- implemented GEF projectisolated. The World Bank is concerned about the fragmentation of efforts and is taking stepsthrough the project to facilitate alternative anrangements and enhance cooperation. GEF actionsin the Aral Sea basin would clearly benefit from a broader collaboration among the implement-ing agencies. This is, however, difficult in the context of the current situation in the region.

A third example is that of the Sao Francisco Basin project, which is aimed at support-ing an integrated approach to the planning and management of the Sao Francisco River Basinand its coastal zone. Its main components include the development of a diagnostic study (TDA)to provide a sound scientific and technical basis for strategic remedial actions to protect themarine environment from land-based sources. Based on this, the project is intended to formulatea Watershed Management Program (i.e., a SAP) for the basin. GEF assistance to Brazil in thiswork is implemented through UNEP.

In light of UNEP's comparative advantages, this is an appropriate role for the agency.The intention is that once the SAP is completed and investment needs are identified, the WorldBank-either through its regular program or with GEF-can assist the country in implementingthese. Similarly, if the needed actions identified include legal, policy or institutional reforms,these would fall under the purview of UNDP. GEF implementing agency cooperation in thiscase would thus be sequential. It is still too early to assess whether this model will work inpractice. Promising signs include the regular communication mechanisms that have beenestablished between the project and the World Bank, and the coordination of all regional waterprojects in the area by the same person in the Brazilian government.

100. In the Building Partnershipsfor the protect small-scale fishermen, enhanced aware-Environmental Protection and Management of ness of coastal zone management issues amongthe East Asian Seas project, for example, the local people, and cooperation with the privateimplementation of integrated coastal zone sector on reducing coastal pollution.management at pilot sites in China and thePhilippines has had positive impacts in the 101. In general, the study found a number ofestablishment of coastal and marine legislation to innovative mechanisms for stakeholder participa-


tion built into several international waters time. These outstanding recommendations areprojects (Table 2). Among other things, these augmented by additional observations by thismechanisms clearly facilitated the creation of study and have been collectively itemized withinlocal and regional bodies, the participation of the three categories: strategic, operational, andprivate sector, and measurable improvements in administrative.environmental indicators.

Strategic IssuesPortfolio-Wide Observations andResponses to Previous Review Efforts 103. In general, the study team found that the

approach embodied in the Operational Strategy102. The study found a number of issues within continues to be valid as a basis for furtherthe GEF international waters portfolio which development of the international waters focalmay hinder the effectiveness and understanding area. In its work, however, particularly at theof the GEF. Many of these issues were previ- Budapest conference, it became evident thatously identified in the Pilot Phase evaluation and much of the terminology and requirementsthe OPS 1, though they may not have been associated with the preparation of internationalconsidered "major recommendations" at the waters projects is either ambiguous or unclear.

Table 2Institutional Mechanisms for Stakeholder Participation

Classification of Institutional Mechanisms for Stakeholder Participation Examples ofProjects Projects

Water Body * Regional NGO Forum with international and regional NGOs providing Danube RiverBased advisory services and small grants given to local NGOs on water Black Sea

management sub-projects

. Multilevel project execution set-up with NGO and private sector Caribbeanrepresentatives

* Joint management set-up of government with NGOs and private sector Lake Ohrid

Integrated Land * Regional body for project management, including scientific and academic Aral Seaand Water institutions

* Local implementation teams formed; composed of farmers and NGOs to Polandcarry out project outreach

* Periodic consultations through public meetings for feedback to project Brazil Pantanalsteering committee involving private sector Argentina

* Multi-sectoral project coordination committees formed in pilot sites, East Asian Seas,including agreements with end-users in communities SIDS

* Creation of multi-sectoral Environmental Working Group involving Tumen Riverscientists, private sector, and NGOs

Contaminant * Creation of Advisory Panel representing NGOs, academic institutions, Global KnowledgeBased local governments, private sector, and coastal communities Sharing

* Local committee composed of port authorities, fishery operators, shipping China Ship Wastecompanies, and scientific institutions formed to assist project management unit

* Intercountry project steering committee formed with NGO and private Wider Caribbean,sector cepresentatives Southwest

Mediterranean

Findings 25

This is despite the fact that the preparation of 107. The study found a need to improve theguidance on several of these topics had previ- efficiency of project assessment and reviewously been recommended by earlier GEF re- procedures used within GEF focal areas, particu-views. Clarifications could improve understand- larly when examined in the context of theing of, and support for, ongoing and future GEF implementing agencies' review practices. This isprojects. highlighted further in the "Recommendations"

section of this report.104. In light of the emphasis on indicators forjudging the performance of GEF interventions in 108. The team found that little attention appearsinternational waters, the review found that there to have been given to the qualities (e.g.,are tools, such as the estimation and utilization sustainability) of prospective executing agenciesof net benefits, which could further help measure in the review of proposed projects. There isthe effectiveness of GEF's efforts. evidence that weaknesses on the part of execut-

ing agencies have, in some instances, resulted inOperational Issues substantial problems during project implementa-

tion. Accordingly, the team found that steps need105. The study found that the current opera- to be taken to incorporate reviews of the suitabil-tional programs contain ambiguities and opportu- ity of executing agencies at the project submis-nities for misinterpretation. Moreover, as the sion stage.GEF's experience grows, and its mandateexpands to incorporate concerns like integrated 109. Finally, a major finding of the study is theecosystem management (OP 12) and persistent effectiveness of coordination and programmaticorganic pollutants, there may be a need to revisit planning in international waters achieved throughthe original operational programs in international interagency coordinating mechanisms, such aswaters. For example, clarifying OP 8 and 9 to the task force. This is particularly important inmake them mutually coherent, consistent, and light of the multiagency, multinational characterdistinct in relation to the new OP 12 may be of the international waters portfolio.necessary. Similarly, the description of OP 10warrants revision to reflect the transfer of certain Administrative Issuescontaminants to the proposed operationalprogram to address the new POPs Convention. 1 10. Complementing comments made earlier,

the study found considerable confusion or lack of106. The danger that funding may be assigned to understanding regarding the following: incre-immediately tractable issues that are of less mental cost calculations; application of thesignificance in a given region was also noted. "ecosystem management" concept; transboundaryThe likelihood of such approaches is heightened diagnostic analysis; and the "Large Marine Ecosys-in the absence of a preparatory TDA as a basis tem" concept. These observations are consistentfor the formulation of a SAP. Ideally, support for with ones made by the two previous GEF-widespecific project activities should be provided on performance reviews.the basis of a comparative evaluation of allcauses of the damage or threat concerned, 111. The review also found a number of otherthereby ensuring that a dominant cause or source issues of GEF-wide relevance that made assess-is being addressed and that limited funding is ment of the portfolio more challenging-and lessspent most effectively. Nevertheless, the study efficient-than should be expected. Thesealso acknowledges the desire by many recipients problems relate to:to see concrete action occurring on importantissues where the relative impact of different * Lack of uniformity in project titles andenvironmental concerns are better known. numerical coding (The names of projects


often change as they progress from develop- ongoing projects or the project developmentment through implementation. Added to this processis the proliferation of abbreviated names forprojects, and it becomes difficult to have any * Lack of increased monitoring for high-riskcertainty about the project to which a projects, the need for improved efficiency inreference is being made.) review procedures, and better follow-through

of lessons learned* Lack of uniformity in length and formats of

project documents and evaluations, particu- * Need for quantifiable indicators of perfor-larly terminal evaluations mance at project proposal stage and in-

creased attention to those indicators in* Difficulty in determining whether lessons terminal evaluations.

learned are being channeled back into

Recommendations 27

Recommendations

112. Based on its conclusions, the study team's guidelines should provide clear definitions andrecommendations follow. examples of the following topics: incremental

cost estimation; the application of the "ecosys-113. The review found that much more could be tem management" concept; transboundarydone to clarify the role of the various operational diagnostic analysis; and the "Large Marineprograms, particularly in light of the expansion Ecosystem" concept, assuming these conceptsof GEF's mandate to address persistent organic will continue to be of relevance to the interna-pollutants and integrated ecosystem management tional waters focal area.(OP 12). For instance, OP 8 and OP 9 should beclarified to make them mutually coherent and 117. Consider increasing assessment of theconsistent with the new OP 12. suitability of proposed executing agencies to

ensure competent project management and the114. Along these same lines, the definitions in sustainability of any activities (administrativeOP 10 should be revised to reduce the emphasis arrangements or organizations) engenderedon ship-derived impacts on intemational waters through GEF intemational waters projects. Suchand increase the emphasis on land-based activi- evaluations would reduce the prospects ofties and their effects, including those mediated implementation delays and other problemsby atmospheric transport pathways. Concur- attributable to executing agencies. There is arently, the classes of priority contaminants need to ensure, at the project proposal stage, thatshould be reconsidered and revised to reduce the appropriate measures are incorporated intoemphasis on metals, hydrocarbons, and those projects to maintain the viability of any basin orpersistent organic pollutants of primary relevance regional organizations used or established for theto the new POPs Convention. purposes of executing GEF international waters

projects beyond the life of the project.115. The use of science-based transboundarydiagnostic analyses as a basis for the formulation 118. All high-risk projects, or those with high-of strategic action programs should continue. risk components, should be subjected to a mid-This will increase confidence that priority threats term review. Most projects, in fact, would benefitare being effectively addressed in SAPs. It will from mid-term reviews. The clear benefitsalso ensure that in cases where land degradation exemplified by the influence of the mid-termis a priority issue, appropriate resources are review of the Lake Tanganyika project suggestprovided to meet that threat in subsequent GEF that such reviews can significantly improveinterventions. project performance. However, the costs associ-

ated with mid-term review of all projects would116. A procedure and timetable for the prepara- consume too large a proportion of projecttion of guidelines on major concepts used within implementation costs. Therefore, mid-termGEF's Operational Strategy and the Operational reviews could be confined to those projectsPrograms should be devised. Specifically, these exhibiting high risks of failure to deliver on the


major objectives as judged during the Project 123. In South America, an evaluation ofImplementation Review process. progress in project development should be

conducted with a view to identifying opportuni-119. In addition to increased use of mid-term ties for accelerating attention and nationalreviews, final or terminal evaluations of projects commitments to resolving environmentalshould only be conducted after project imple- problems in large catchments, particularly thosementation has been completed. Moreover, GEF on the eastern side of the Andes. Considerationshould insist on uniformity for these final should also be given to opportunities for devel-evaluation reports. This will require GEF to oping country-driven projects that addressdefine and adopt a common format for these dominant problems in the smaller catchmentsreports and insist on adherence to it. Such a step draining regions to the west of the Andes. Suchwould enable easier comparison of performance projects could be the basis for projects in allamong projects and streamline feedback pro- western South American countries.cesses, leading to improvements in the quality ofproject proposals. 124. A streamlined oversight and tracking

methodology should be prepared and imple-120. Given the complex nature of international mented by the GEF defining the procedures to bewaters projects, which can involve the coopera- used from project inception through final reviewtion of a large number of countries and Imple- and feedback. This methodology should includementing agencies, there is a need for an inter- appropriate and uniform documentation to ensureagency advisory function within the GEF to help transparency and accountability. The methodol-ensure the coordination and effective develop- ogy should be reviewed by an independent groupment of the international waters focal area. In of management and technical experts prior to itsaddition to providing advice on overall portfolio adoption within the GEF. By eliminating thedevelopment, this also could ensure that demon- redundant and ineffective procedures currently instration projects are replicable in a global context use, the costs of such an exercise should be moreand focus on priority problems for which than recovered.solutions are needed beyond the project area.

125. The reviews of GEF projects should121. Procedures for feeding back "lessons learned" concentrate increasingly on those offering theto the formulation of projects in the international greatest potential benefit to international waterswaters focal area have been initiated through the activities. Reviews at the concept/PDF andIW:LEARN project and the GEF Biennial Interna- project submission and completion phases, plustional Waters Conference, held for the first time in the PIR, are the most valuable to the program.October 2000. Accordingly, there is a need to Other forms of GEF review, including mid-termformalize this process in a transparent and effective reviews of high-risk projects and reviewsmechanism within the GEF. periodically carried out by the M&E unit for

specific purposes of overall focal area align-123. While it is too early to expect much ment and performance, should be carried outinformation regarding measured improvements as need arises.in international waters environments from GEFinterventions, as GEF's experience increases, 126. The GEF secretariat should take immediatepreparations should be made for including more steps to ensure that all documents pertaining tocomparable information on process, stress GEF projects produced by the secretariat arereduction, and environmental status indicators in amenable to proper citation and accessiblefuture project evaluations. Process indicators, for through a single website. Furthermore, in view ofinstance, are already available in most cases, but the lack of universal access to the Internet,it is also extremely difficult to make coherent hardcopy and electronic (diskette or CD-ROM)and objective comparisons among the process copies of all documents should be maintained inindicators for individual projects.

Recommendations 29

a central facility within the secretariat for formats of all project documents both to enhancedistribution on request. transparency and facilitate comparative evalua-

tions of projects and project reviews. It is127. A unique alphanumeric identifier for each understood that the implementing agencies haveproject should be assigned by the GEF secretariat their own procedures, requirements, and docu-to avoid confusion among projects and to obviate mentation regarding project formulation, admin-the current widespread practice of using diverse istration, and management. This recommendationshort form or truncated titles for the same applies only to the documents collated andproject, a problem not limited to international assembled by the GEF secretariat, for whichwaters projects. This should be complemented by greater uniformity, simplicity, and transparencyguidelines defining the length, structure, and is warranted.


Chapter Title 31

Annexes

Annex 1: Initiating Memorandum

Annex 2: Background Documents

Annex 3: Complete List of Projects Included in the Program Study


Annex 1: Initiating Memorandum

1. Background Europe ($22.3 million; 6 projects), and SmallIsland Developing States (SIDS) ($12.3 million;1 project). Another $20.9 million has been

The International Waters Focal Area allocated to global projects.

1. Since the Pilot Phase, GEF has supported 41 4. In 1997, GEF adopted three Operationalfull projects and 4 medium-size projects (MSP) Programs (OP) for the Intemational Waters focalin the International Waters area. Eleven of these area'. The OPs provide the objectives, scope,have been completed to date. In addition, 22 expected outcomes and outputs for each programproject development funds (PDFs) have been to achieve during the FY1998-2000 (Annex 1).approved. The OPs are:

2. Twelve projects were approved during the * OP 8: Waterbody-based OperationalPilot Phase (1991-1994) for a total GEF alloca- Program;tion of $117 million. Leveraged co-financing was$ 100 million. The major geographic focus was in * OP 9: Integrated Land and Water MultipleAfrica ($41.5 million), followed by Asia ($38 Focal Area Operational Program;million), the Caribbean ($18 million) and Europe($17.8 million). The main issue addressed by * OP 10: Contaminant-based OperationalPilot Phase projects was ship-related contamina- Program.tion with emphasis on remediation measures andcontingency planning. All other projects repre- 5. The projects that have been undertakensented attempts to address marine/freshwater within the OPs 8-10 have been grouped accord-pollution with a variety of approaches. ing to the type of intervention/objective into the

following categories in the 1999 Program Status3. After the adoption of the GEF Operational Review (PSR)2:Strategy, a total of 27 projects for a cumulativeallocation of $212 million were approved during a. OP 8 - Diagnostic priority-settingthe period of FY1995-1999. The anticipated co- projects embracing entire LMEs orfinancing ration is slightly over 1:1. Africa has watersheds (remediation);had the largest share of fund allocation ($63.4million; 4 projects), followed by Asia ($52.8 b. OP 8 - "Action oriented" projectsmillion; 5 projects), Latin America and the involving demonstrations of remediationCaribbean ($38.6 million; 6 projects), Eastern measures (pollution, focus on nutrients);

'GEF Operational Programs. Global Enviromnent Facility, Washington, DC, 1997.2 GEF International Waters Program Status Review, September 1999.


12c. OP 9 - Diagnostic priority-setting

projects embracing entire LMEs or 10watersheds (prevention); 8

d. OP 9 - Prevention of land degradation, 6

water scarcity, adaptation to climatechange, integrated land/water manage-ment (freshwater resources only), 2

underground waters management; 0 b C d e f g .a b c d e f g h

e. OP 10 - Global Plan of Action (GPA)demonstrations, freshwater-marine full projects, Msinterface; PDFs, concepts

f. OP 10 - Global contaminants;

g. OP 10 - Ship-related pollution/environ-mental hazards; tional Waters projects, carried out by the M&E

Team jointly with the implementing agencies inh. OP 10 - Regional/global technical FY2000, will provide inputs to and will be made

support (assessments, training, targeted available for the Program Study. The objective ofresearch). the review was to identify emerging lessons

about what kinds of multi-country approaches6. The distribution of full projects and MSPs have worked, what have not, why, and underinto the above categories is seen in the following what circumstances 4 .figure3 . The figure also includes the PDFs andnew project concepts. This reveals a shift over I. The Tasktime in the emphasis of the portfolio frompriority-setting/diagnostic to action-oriented Relationship with the OP52projects thus reflecting the maturing of theportfolio. We may also note the expected in- 8. The Second Study of GEF's Overall Perfor-crease in global contaminant related projects mance (OPS2) will focus on the assessment ofwhich in turn reflects the emerging global the GEF's program results and initial impacts. Itconcerns on persistent toxic substances. will evaluate the GEF's overall strategies and

programmatic impacts, achievement of theThematic Review of Multicountry Project objectives of GEF's Operational Policies andArrangements Programs, and review the modalities of GEF

support. OPS2 will be carried out by a fully7. The Thematic Review of Multicountry independent team appointed in consultation withProject Arrangements with a focus on Interna- the GEF Council.

Source as 2 above.

4The results of the review suggest the importance of addressing the environmental issues at all levels. In a multicountrysetting, regional cooperation arrangements at the shared waterbody level are needed. At the country level, inter-ministerial committees should provide inputs to the multicountry process. as well as to ensure coordinated implementa-tion at the sub-national level. At the same time, local level actions in each basin country are necessary. Carrying out atransboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA) and preparing a strategic action program (SAP) have proven helpful infostering a shared vision, political commitment, and a framework for addressing the transboundary environmentalproblems. Demonstrations and pilot projects that start to address concrete problems on the ground have been found to bea useful means of moving towards action oriented projects while completing the strategic work.


9. The focal area Program Studies are intended III) Degradation of Transboundary Groundwaterto contribute to the OPS2 through a systematical Systems (Bellagio Draft Transboundarycritical self-assessment of the portfolio. The Groundwater Treaty);International Waters Program Study will focuson the coverage of GEF international waters IV) Degradation of Wetland Ecosystems,programs, as well as the results and preliminary particularly Transboundary Ones6 (Ramsarimpacts. The Program Study will be undertaken Convention; Convention on Biodiversity);internally by the GEF M&E Team together withthe GEF Secretariat Land and Water Team and V) Coastal/Marine Nutrient Overenrichmentthe implementing agencies. (Global Plan of Action for the Land-based

Sources of Pollution);Response to Global InternationalWaters Issues VI) Persistent Toxic Substances (POPs Convention);

10. The GEF Operational Strategy (OS) for 7 VII) Coastal and Marine Fisheries (Law of the Sea);Technical assistance programs have generallyfocused on treating the symptoms and meeting VII) Ship-Related Contaminants (MARPOL).the basic needs of the affected populations, ratherthan addressing the root causes of the disaster. Analysis of Expected Results and Impacts ofIntemational Waters5 was developed to respond the GEF International Waters Focal Areato the main global environmental issues thatthreaten transboundary water resources. The OPs 12. Due to the long-term nature of ecological8-10 further defined the issues. The Program changes in international water bodies it isStudy will assess whether the GEF is addressing expected that the impacts of GEF Internationalthe priority issues in each geographical setting Waters programs on the environmental statusand to evaluate how well it is responding to the will be difficult to detect in a global context.threats. Nevertheless, it is assumed that results may be

measurable in specific waterbodies in which11. The global transboundary issues that form GEF programs and projects have been active.the priority areas of action for the GEF havebeen identified in the GEF OS as follows. Each 13. The Program Study will analyze the avail-one of these issues is a subject of an international able data utilizing performance indicators attreaty or agreement, or an intergovernmental three levels, considering possible alternativesprocess intended to lead to one. within each of the following types:

I) Freshwater Basin Scarcity and Ecosystem * Process indicators (focusing on the processesConflicts (in particular, but not exclusively, that are likely to lead towards a desirablein Africa and the Middle East) (Convention outcome);on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses ofInternational Watercourses); * Stress reduction indicators (focusing con-

crete actions that reduce the environmentalII) Freshwater Basin and Coastal Pollution and stress on the water body); and,

Sedimentation (Convention on the Law ofthe Non-Navigational Uses of International * Environmental status indicators (focusing onWatercourses); actual improvement of ecosystem quality).

5 GEF Operational Strategy. Global Environment Facility, Washington, DC, 1996.

6 Linkage to OP 2 in biodiversity focal area.


14. Based on the analysis of the relevant data, II. Types of project interventions/designthe Program Study will attempt to draw likely or features; and,plausible linkages between GEF InternationalWaters project interventions and observed III. Projects organized into a geographically-changes in all three types of indicators, taking based programmatic approach.into account known or likely contributions ofother actors to the observed changes. 19. Level I: The Program Study will assess the

coverage, expected results and impacts of the15. These data will be aggregated for all project projects addressing each specific issue. It willresults and impacts, with regard to each indicator also relate the program performance to the short-where it is relevant in order to arrive at measures term objectives stated under each OP. Theof overall global impacts in regard to that Program Study will address, i.a.:indicator.

* Numbers of projects addressing each of the16. The Study will formulate overall conclusions priority issues;on GEF International Waters project influence onthe processes that reduce stress on the intema- * Geographical coverage;tional water environment, the reduction of thesestresses at the sectoral source, and the state of the * Resources allocated and leveraged;intemational water environment.

* Implementing agency collaboration;Ill. Methodology

* Extent of stakeholder participation; and,17. The Program Study will utilize a variety ofmethodologies tracking down the coverage, * Expected results and impact.results and initial impacts. These methodologiescover quantitative analyses of project documen- 20. Level II: The Program Study will focus ontation, review of evaluation reports, interviews the types of projects as defined by differentwith task managers in the implementing agen- design approaches. The basic dichotomy reflectscies, questionnaires and interviews with project whether they are: (i) strategic priority-settingpersonnel, and selected field visits. Agreed projects, like those utilizing primarily the TDA/indicators will be used for the Study (cf. para- SAP7 approach; or (ii) action-oriented projects,graph 13). utilizing primarily replicable demonstrations,

capacity development, and resource assessments.Levels of Portfolio Analysis

21. The Study will, i.a., assess the effectiveness18. The Program Study will focus on assessing of the two categories of projects in part drawingthe results of the International Waters focal area from the Multi-Country Project Arrangementsin relation to the above priority areas of action Thematic Review. Emphasis will also be placed(cf. paragraph 11). This will be done through an on the following aspects:analysis of the portfolio from three differentperspectives. The portfolio subject to the review * The types of interventions and institutionalwill include all projects completed, ongoing and arrangements, including cooperation mecha-under preparation. The three perspectives for nisms between countries and implementingportfolio analysis are: agencies;

I. Global transboundary issues addressed; * Implementing agency collaboration;

7Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis/Strategic Action Program.


* Demonstration effects and replication Collection of Relevant Datapotential/modality; and Creation of Databases

* Institutional sustainability. 25. Basic documents informing the Studyinclude the GEF Operational Strategy, GEF

22. Level III: The assessment will focus on the Operational Programs, and documents relevantexperiences gained with the Programmatic to work on performance indicators for theApproaches, defined as the strategic organization International Waters focal area, including theof countries' requests in a specific geographical Multicountry Project Arrangements Thematicregion and transboundary issue. The Program- Review and Addressing Transboundary Environ-matic Approach is also seen as an opportunity to mental Problems in the Black Sea Basin: Aachieve multiple global benefits and to build Programmatic Approach.upon the synergies and complementaritiesbetween the various GEF focal areas. 26. The Program Study shall identify and collect

all project documents on GEF international23. The programmatic framework for Address- waters projects available in the GEF Secretariat,ing Transboundary Priorities in the Danube/ implementing agencies, and the STAP, includingBlack Sea Basin is the first attempt to develop a GEF Secretariat project reviews, project mid-full-fledged GEF Programmatic Approach to a term review and completion reports, othergeographic area and issue in the International evaluation documents, and STAP selectedWaters focal area, as called for in OP 8 short- reviews.term objective (e). It establishes a commonagreement among the countries and GEF imple- 27. The Thematic Review of Multicountrymenting agencies for objectives and program- Project Arrangements will be used to inform thematic indicators that will be utilized to measure Program Study concerning the experiences withprogress over the five-year program. different kinds of institutional and organizational

arrangements and processes used in International24. In addition to the Danube/Black Sea Basin Waters projects. In some case, further analysisprogram, other emerging programmatic ap- building upon the review will be carried out inproaches will be included in the Program Study. the Program Study.Regions where there is a framework in place oremerging to link the freshwater catchment areas 28. The First GEF Biennial International Watersto the receiving marine ecosystem in an inte- Conference, October 14-18, 2000, will be usedgrated manner include, i.a.: as an opportunity for data collection, interviews

and discussions with project proponents and* South China Sea, Mekong; personnel.

* Parand-Plata-Patagonian Shelf Large Marine 29. The Program Study will identify any gaps inEcosystem; data that could be filled later. The task of filling

the data gaps, however, goes beyond the scope of* Western Africa; the present Study.

* East African Great Lakes; Field-Based Reviews

* The Baltic Sea. 30. A limited number of field visits will beundertaken to selected projects to verify and


supplement reported on-the-ground results and plan showing when specific tasks need to beimpacts, focusing on process and stress reduction underway or accomplished.indicators. The selection of projects for in-depthstudy and visits will be based on carefully 33. The Program Study will engage in extensivecrafted analytical questions that will lead to collection of data and information through thespecific criteria. Additional criteria that will implementing agencies, as well as directly frominfluence the selection of the projects include: projects at country level. The Study Team will

travel to selected countries as determined necessary.* Cluster of global transboundary priority In other cases, local consultants will be hired and

issue; thoroughly briefed for country level work.

* Type of project (priority-setting vs. action- Expected Outputsoriented/demonstration);

34. The Program Study will result in a report* Duration of implementation; covering the three levels of analysis (I, II, III)

with regard to the achievement of results and* History of PIR (Project Implementation impacts, as measured through the process, stress

Review) ratings; reduction, and environmental status indicators.The report will consist of an executive summary,

e Implementing agency; and, a concise main report, and detailed annexes. Thereport and background documents will be made

e Geographical region. available to the OPS2 team.

IV. Mode of Work Timeframe

31. The Study Team for the International Waters 35. The Program Study will be undertaken fromProgram Study will consist of one full-time staff July 2000 to February 2001, with early resultsmember of the GEF Monitoring and Evaluation fed to the OPS2 team, which is expected to beginTeam, members of the GEF Secretariat Land and work around January 2001. The First GEFWater Team, implementing agencies, a representa- Biennial International Waters Conference will betive of STAP, and one senior external consultant. held in October 2000. Country-level fieldwork

will be carried out during September-December32. The Study Team at the Inception Meeting on 2000. Final completion of the Program StudyAugust 24-25, 2000, prepared an initial work will take place in January-February 2001.


Annex 2: Background Documents

The main report was drafted by Michael Bewers and Juha Uitto drawing upon the various componentanalyses reported in the background documents. The mode of operation was that the background documentseach have a lead author and have been subsequently reviewed by the entire Program Study Team.

The background documents and principal authors were as follows:

1. Initiating Memorandum - J.l. Uitto

2. Inception Meeting Decisions - J.I. Uitto

2a Component Analyses - J.M. Bewers

2b Questionnaire for GEF Intemational Waters Project Principals - J.M. Bewers

2c Process for the Detailed Examination of Projects Used for the Purposes of Component Analysesand for the Selection of Site Visits - J.M. Bewers

2d Aide-Memoire for Site Visits - J.M. Bewers

2e Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators for GEF International Waters Projects - A.M. Duda

3. Analysis of Composition and Trends within the International Waters Portfolio - J.M. Bewers andS. Leloup

3a Full and Medium-Size Project Characterizations

3b PDF Characterizations

3c Overall Project Characterization

4. Strategic and Operational Analysis of the International Waters Focal Area - J.M. Bewers

5. Surveillance and Advisory Functions in the International Waters Focal Area - J.M. Bewers

6. Project Performance: Analysis of Terminal Evaluations of International Waters Projects - J.M. Bewers

7. Review of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) Approach to the Preparation of StrategicAction Programs (SAPs) - J.M. Bewers

Annex 2: Background Documents 39

8. Analysis of the Land Degradation Linkage Study from International Waters Perspectives - J.M. Bewers

9. Review of Geographic-Based Programmatic Approaches -A.M. Duda

10. Analysis of International Waters Demonstration Projects - J.M. BewerslOa Review of the Ballast Water Project - J.M. Bewers

lOb Strategic Issue Bearing on the GEF Full Project: Removal of Barriers to the Effective Imple-mentation of Ballast Water Control and Management Measures in Developing Countries -J.M. Bewers and J. Pemetta

11. Review of Contributions to Global and Regional Agreements - A. Merla

12. Single v. Multiple Implementing Agency Project Review - J.I. Uitto

13. Community-Based Approaches to Managing Transboundary Waters - M.C.J. Cruz

14. Analysis of Questionnaire Results - J.M. Bewers

15. Mission Reports

15a Water and Environmental Management in the Aral Sea Basin - A. Merla

15b Integrated Management of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem - C. Crepin andA.M. Duda

15c Brazil: Integrated Management of Land-B ased Activities in the Sao Francisco Basin - J.I. Uitto

15d Brazil: Integrated Watershed Management Program for the Pantanal and Upper Paraguay RiverBasin - J.I. Uitto

These background documents are available upon request from the GEF Secretariat Monitoring andEvaluation Team.


Annex 3: Projects Includedin the Program Study

Project Title Project Type IA OP

Africa: Pollution Control and Other Measures to Protect Biodiversity in UNDP FP 8 (PP)Lake Tanganyika

Africa: Implementation of the Strategic Action Program Towards theAchievement of the Integrated Management of the Benguela Current UNDP FP 8Large Marine Ecosystem

~~ 3 33 3~~~

35~ A~~ ''.3 3 ...............5..5

Africa: Reversal of Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Lake UNDP FP 9Chad Basin Ecosystem

Africa: Western Indian Ocean Islands Oil Spill Contingency Planning UNEP PDF-B 9

Africa: Support to the Nile Basin Initiative - Basinwide Shared Vision WB/UNDP PDF-B 9Program

Africa: Integrated Management of the Volta River Basin UNEP PDF-B 9

Africa: Senegal River Basin Water and Environmental Management WB PDF-B 9Program

Africa: Western Indian Ocean Islands Oil Spill Contingency Planning WB FP 10

Asia/Pacific: Reducing Environmental Stress in the Yellow Sea Large UNDP FP 8Marine Ecosystem

Asia/Pacific: Mekong River Basin Water Utilization WB FP 8

.5 55.5 .5 55~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ............

Annex 3: Complete List of Projects Included in the Program Study 41


/.c, B nga.r le em j.: ' , , ' :

Asia/Pacific: Building Partnerships for the Environmental Management UNDP FP 9of the East Asian Seas

3e 8' ,~'3 ', ' . j ' -, 3,IMPlCrt tlemente$1of twSratvicAcib Prga'o e Pa&fkSmallt~lad, e *Sm"taes

Brazil: Integrated Watershed Management Program for the Pantanal UNEP FP 9and Upper Paraguay River Basin

ee of int S ;oa~~aiiIt Basin~~~ * i:t;3

8'' K~~~~ UNEP FP '¶0I .

Bulgaria: Wetlands Restoration Project WB PDF-B 8

CE Europe/FSU: Developing the Danube River Basin Pollution UNDP FP 8Reduction Program

o',g, f & 1 'S 6 '8 3 ' ' ' o ' ' ' < . P Y 8

Peloper~~~~~~~~~~ Rie ti a'eepen fSPIImnaBUNP

CE Europe/FSU: Addressing Transboundary Environmental Issues in UNDP/UNEP/- FP 8the Caspian Environment Program WB

CE Europe/FSU: Strengthening Implementation of Nutrient Reduction UNDP/WB/UN- PDF BMeasures and Transboundary Cooperation in the Danube River Basin EP - 8

Erivlton Mh.'¶~geneninber4 '

3R ?3 . 8 . . '38 ... ,,........... ................................. e S;UJ 33 3,.

China: Ship Waste Disposal WB FP 10 (PP)

'3 ' 3 ' ' i .:

Georgia: Agricultural Development II WB FP 8

a R aIi" se Assmt o i$y . E j

Global: Development of National Implementation Plans for Persistent UNEP PDF-B 10Organic Pollutants

f al Removelaffrrier l a the Eff'cti m B 1.

Global: Regional Oceans Training Program UNEP FP 10 (PP)9~~~~~~~~~' '3 -' '' Y 899t + '. '?'';e+ J '6 4witiolvefrNttze 310<

Global: Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) UNEP FP 10

Global: Strengthening Capacity for Global Knowledge-Sharing in UNDP FP 10International Waters

.b: SI .-to ' . ' U .F&.' ..

Jordan: Gulf of Aqaba Environmental Action Plan WB FP 8

Latirt MakrcetCar¶bbew~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;3 E i' 'i't'o' " ?nen.';'!,','.3 .n.........the..........de....1a......., ,.1. f lab1tat>ettntatlor * .,.2t>t , 2, Y u??'S ' '8. l' 33i 1 ,y- ' * 7 8' '

, a: !; A? sM



Latin America/Caribbean: Formulation of a Strategic Action Program forthe Integrated Management of Water Resources and the Sustainable UNEP FP 8Development of the San Juan River Basin and its Coastal Zone

Latin America/Caribbean: Environmental Protection and Sustainable WB PDF-B 9Integrated Management of the Guarani Aquifer

:M~ 01dl .

Latin America/Caribbean: Reducing Pesticide Runoff in the Caribbean UNEP PDF-B 10

Latin America/Caribbean: Wider Caribbean Initiative for Ship- WB FP 10 (PP)Generated Waste

_~~~

Latin America/Caribbean: Strategic Action Program Implementation UNEP FP 9for the Bermejo River Basin

Poland: Rural Environmental Project WB FP 9

Regional: Developing the Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic UNDP FP 8Action Plan

Regional: Building Environmental Citizenship to Support UNDP MSP 8Transboundary Pollution Reduction in the Danube

Regional: Implementation of the Strategic Action Program for the Red UNDP/WB/UN- FP 9Sea and Gulf of Aden EP

Romania: Black Sea Agricultural Pollution Control WB PDF-B 8

Russian Federation: Persistent Toxic Substances, Food Security, and UNEP MSP 10Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North

GEF

Global Environment Facility1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433 USATelephone: 1(202)473-0508Fax: 1(202)522-3240Internet: www.gefweb.org

& Printed on recycled paper