GEF Program Study on International Waters Lessons Learned

WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

GEF PROGRAM STUDY ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS LESSONS LEARNED

1 Project Cycle: UNREALISTIC DONOR EXPECTATIONS Development of SCS project considered by GEF Secretariat too slow – 6 years, However this allowed:• consolidation of government commitments• more detailed elaboration of operational documents• clear understanding of the management framework• trust and confidence building

SLOW DEVELOPMENT CAN BE ADVANTAGEOUS

WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

2 Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis: PERIODIC UP-DATES; ALL ENCOMPASSING STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS; IDENTIFIED CAPABILITIES AND DEFINED RESPONSIBILITIES.

• SCS TDA & outline SAP completed 1998;• Preparatory phase 2002 – 2004 revised components of the TDA in

greater depth;• Foci of operational phase 2005 – 2007 are:

SAP and NAP elaboration;Demonstration site operation: and,Regional exchange and site networking

TDA REVISION EVERY TEN YEARS ?


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

3. Value of Demonstration Projects BUILD CONFIDENCE THROUGH TANGIBLE LOCAL BENEFITS; MULTI-DISCIPLINARY APPROACHES.

SCS experience suggests:• National interlocutor vital to ensure full engagement

of local stakeholders• Sites strengthen regional networks• Sites build network components at levels below

Federal/National Government level• Sites strengthen South-South Exchange and enhances

self-reliance

THE ONLY WAY TO ENGAGE PROVINCIAL, & LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN REGIONAL PROJECTS ?


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

4. Selection of appropriate scales for assessment and management: CONFLICT BETWEEN SYSTEM BOUNDARIES AND POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS;

SCS experience indicates necessity for• Separation of S & T issues from Political decision

making• S & T advice should come from neutral sources• Experts and consultants should preferably be from the

region• Political decision making in the project should be the

sole prerogative of the governments without IA, GEF ordonor influence

KEEP SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MATTERS SEPARATE FROM POLITICAL DECISION MAKING


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

4. Selection of appropriate scales for assessment and management: SITE SELECTION PROCESS

Site Selection in SCS involved building from ground up regional and national consensus on: a. biological, environmental, transboundary and socio-

economic indicatorsb. assembling maximum number of site related data setsc. conducting a cluster analysis to group the sitesd. agreeing the scale or scores for criteria and indicatorse. ranking sites within clustersf. Deciding on the sites

PROCESS DISCUSSED AND AGREED AT ALL STAGES AND ALL LEVELS; ONCE COMPLETE NO DISAGREEMENT


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

5 Value of Strategic Planning: DECLARATORY APPROACH DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT; COMBINATION OF SAP AND NAPS

SCS approach to:• Develop NAP’s as TDA data are refined;• Review framework SAP targets regionally;• Feed regional targets into national level NAP discussions• Regional discussion of NAP’s prior to individual government

approval• Take NAP drafts as inputs to Regional SAP• Consolidation of SAP and initiation of intergovernmental approval

STEPS 1, AND 2 COMPLETED; STEP 3 ONGOING;STEPS 4 & 5 NOV. 2005; STEP 6 2006/2007


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

6. The Inter-Ministry Process: POLITICAL MOMENTUM, SENIORITY OF REPRESENTATION

SCS Inter-Ministry Committee’s:• Work well in some countries, not in others• Concerned only with cross sectoral matters not with scientific or

technical issuesWhen Chaired by Senior Officials or Ministers/Deputy Minister’s

IMC attracts higher level representation from other sectors

SUCCESS OR FAILURE REFLECTS INDIVIDUAL’S COMMITMENTS AND EFFORTS RATHER THAN THE

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GOVERNMENT CONCERNED


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

7. Project Operational Arrangements and Support: INTER-PROJECT CO-ORDINATION AD HOC AND DEFICIENT;

SCS Inter-project Co-ordination, with PEMSEA• SCS collaboration with PEMSEA, must remain superficial

since the organisational structures, participating countries and mode of management are different in each project.

• The purposes and functions of the demonstration sites are fundamentally different. SCS focuses on rural, local community based management of sites; PEMSEA generally focuses on integrated management of urbanised areas with multiple use conflicts

COLLABORATION NOT POSSIBLE JUST BECAUSE PROJECTS ARE IN THE SAME REGION;

COMPLEMENTARITY MAY BE OF GREATER IMPORTANCE


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

7. Project Operational Arrangements and Support: FORMAL ACCOUNTING OF COUNTERPART CONTRIBUTIONS;

SCS Procedures• 1st Project Steering Committee meeting, October 2001,

agreed the full project document including:• A Cost Coefficient of US$ 70/day inclusive of office

support costs, salary, and benefits to be used in estimating in-kind co-financing;

• A commitment of 25% of the time of each Focal Point from each Executing Agency to the project;

• A time estimate for in-kind contributions during the preparatory phase;

• Complete budgetary transparency (Full budget on the web).


AGREE THE ESTIMATES UP FRONT

WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

7. Project Operational Arrangements and Support: FORMAL ACCOUNTING OF COUNTERPART CONTRIBUTIONS;

SCS Procedures for verifying co-financing• Each six month report lists the meetings, their duration,

agenda, report, and list of participants. Possible to calculate the actual in-kind co-financing, realised through participation of individuals in national level meetings.

• A second verifiable element is the costs of time of members participation in the regional scientific and technical committee (RSTC) and project steering committee (PSC) meetings.

• The estimated in-kind co-financing for these elements from January 2002 to June 2004 that can be verified is 1,086,225 (29%) of the total 3,751,038 million US$.


VERIFICATION BECOMES A ROUTINE MANAGEMENT TASK

WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG


7. Project Operational Arrangements and Support: FORMAL ACCOUNTING OF COUNTERPART IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS;

VERIFICATION ENCOURAGES BACKSLIDERS TO IMPROVE

Total Components Estimate

Actual US $

Cambodia 123,200 140,420

China 86,100 62,790

Indonesia 123,200 174,475

Malaysia 123,200 10,150

Philippines 123,200 180,670

Thailand 123,200 348,705

Viet Nam 123,200 159,040

Total 825,300 1,076,250

Percentage 130

WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

1. Production and use of an accessible GEF International Waters Focal Area Manual

2. To develop a comprehensive M & E System for IW Projects3. Incorporation of a regional level co-ordination mechanism4. Redefinition of the GEF International Waters Task Force.

GEF PROGRAM STUDY ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS RECOMMENDATIONS

WE FORSEE THAT ALL THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL RESULT IN AN INCREASED WORK LOAD FOR

PROJECT MANAGERS BUT WITH LITTLE COMENSURATE BENEFIT

Documents

GEF Program Study on International Waters Lessons Learned