€¦ · Web viewProject Summary. The project will begin to fill an information gap about the role of groundwater and its contribution to water balances in lakes, rivers, and wetlands

2013 Annual Project Review (APR)

Project Implementation Review (PIR) OF UNDP Supported GEF Financed Projects

PIMS 3765 - Project Title: Mainstreaming Groundwater Considerations into the Integrated Management of the Nile River BasinFocal Area International Waters

Lead RTA Vladimir Mamaev

Lead Country(ies) (EGY) Egypt

Revised Planned Closing Date 31-Mar-2014

Overall Risk rating Low

Overall DO rating Moderately Satisfactory

Overall IP rating Moderately Satisfactory

GEF grant amount disbursed so far 633,847

Project SummaryThe project will begin to fill an information gap about the role of groundwater and its contribution to water balances in lakes, rivers, and wetlands by enhancing national and regional capacity to add a “groundwater dimension” to joint management of the Nile basin and will ensure a common understanding of groundwater issues and analysis among the riparian countries.

UNDP-GEF Technical Advisor’s Comments

Explanation for change to Overall DO Rating or Overall IP Rating:

Is this the terminal PIR that will serve as the final project report? No

If the mid-term review (MTR) OR the terminal evaluation (TE) was started but not completed this reporting period, please explain how these are progressing and note if any delays are expected:

May 20, 2023 Page 1 of 34

If the mid-term review (MTR) OR the terminal evaluation (TE) was completed this reporting period, or if this is the final APR/PIR, please address the following points here:

UNDP Country Office’s Comments

If the mid-term review (MTR) OR the terminal evaluation (TE) was started but not completed this reporting period, please explain how these are progressing and note if any delays are expected:

If the mid-term review (MTR) OR the terminal evaluation (TE) was completed this reporting period, or if this is the final APR/PIR, please address the following points here:

Dates of Project Steering Committee/Board meetings during reporting period:February 2013

May 20, 2023 Page 2 of 34

PROGRESS TOWARD DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

Description Description of Indicator Baseline Level Target Level at end of

projectLevel at 30 June 2009

Level at 30 June 2010




Goal: The development objective of the project is to provide the scientific basis and necessary institutional and policy support for incorporating a groundwater dimension into planning and management of the Nile basin ecosystem as an essential component of sustainable development of the Nile Basin. Objectives: a) Improve the assessment of groundwater-surface water interactions towards strengthening protection of key ecosystem resources as well as the gains from and losses to groundwater on rivers and lakes in the Nile basin; b) Enhance the characterization of the role of groundwater in wetlands and of the Sudd Swamps in the regional water cycle; c) Improve the use of water balance models in estimating basin-wide annual and monthly water balances

1.Identification and adoption of a mechanism ( specialist panel, GW specialist network ) to sustain the inclusion of GW considerations in NBI processes 2. Enhanced mainstreaming of GW Consideration in national level water resource management.

Groundwater is overlooked in the regional water resource planning.

Groundwater resources in the Nile river system are adequately assessed, managed, and integrated into water resource planning

Project document prepared and discussed at the inception meeting in Vienna in January 2009.

Model selection is underway. Large data sets have been collected from various global sources Preparation for the coordination and steering committee meeting in Addis Ababa is underway. Preparation for two regional training workshops is underway. Sampling plans have been completed in most countries. Equipment has been ordered and delivered in most countries. Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Egypt conducted their first sampling campaigns. Sudan conducted site

• Technical coordination and project steering committee meeting were conducted in Addis Ababa (28Sep-01Oct2010). • Two regional training workshops were conducted in Addis Ababa and Cairo during 15 Nov-10 Dec 2010. • Six countries have conducted sampling campaigns. Rwanda, Burundi, and D.R.Congo have not started sampling yet. • The second steering committee meeting was conducted in Entebbe, Uganda during 27-29 June 2011. • Development of distributed monthly water balance model for the Nile basin is underway. • All countries have received basic field sampling

Using on IAEA TCAF Funds all nine countries have collected water samples from precipitation, rivers and ground water for isotope and chemical analysis. Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania have each conducted 2 sampling campaigns. Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan have undertaken 3 campaigns. Burundi, Rwanda and DR Congo have carried out one campaign each.

-9 national reports were prepared by counterparts with the support of national experts hired by IAEA -1156 water samples were collected of which analyses of 875 samples were completed so far at IAEA’s laboratory in Vienna, Addis Ababa University and Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority (EAEA); all isotope analytical results of these samples have been shared with counterparts. -6 training courses (4 in the region and 2 in Europe) on topics related to water balance modelling, isotope hydrology and data interpretation have been prepared . -99 Hydrologists of the Nile basin countries received training in isotope hydrology, water balance

May 20, 2023 Page 3 of 34

in the Nile basin as an input to water planning and management; d) Facilitate the inclusion of groundwater considerations into integrated Nile basin water resources planning and management activities and ensure a common understanding of groundwater issues and analysis among the riparian countries.

reconnaissance for sampling.

equipment .Ethiopia; Sudan and Uganda have received additional pieces of equipment in the first quarter of 2011 • Recruitment and assignment of national experts is underway • Preparation for technical coordination meeting in Bujumbura, Burundi is underway. • Preparation for two regional training workshops is underway.

modelling, and sampling and data interpretation in the region (73) and Europe (26). - 32 expert missions conducted: 12 National expert missions to assist counterpart in data interpretation and report writing, 4 regional expert missions to assist in preparation of work plans and sampling, 16 international expert missions to provide training courses and technical supports. -Basic field and laboratory equipment totally worth of 350,000 USD were procured and donated to all nine project member countries -6 Project coordination and PSC meetings were conducted

Enhanced capacity in national and regional institutions to understand extent and impact of groundwater on selected rivers systems comprising the Nile basin

Databank operational with systems inplace for regular updates.

Sparse information and data available.

Continued investigation by national and regional institutions to use traditional and isotopic techniques to assess and monitor groundwater / surface water interactions. Accelerated sampling and analysis in progress

Project start-up activities including: Inception meeting conducted (Vienna, January 2009) and work on sampling plans completed in several countries;

Coordination meeting conducted (Kenya, July 2009); initial sampling campaigns completed in several countries; work started on

Groundwater sampling campaigns are now being augmented by river and lake sampling campaigns. Modeling activities are targeted to synthesize these data to assess surface water and

Two weeks training in hydrological water balance modelling given to all participating countries' counterparts in water balance modelling provided hands on experience

-1156 water samples were collected of which analyses of 875 samples were completed so far at IAEA’s laboratory in Vienna, Addis Ababa University and Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority

May 20, 2023 Page 4 of 34

equipment ordered and obtained in several countries.

compiling archival climatic, hydrologic, and isotopic data for mass-balance modelling.

groundwater interactions.

on use of the approach and technique of modelling and enhanced capacity in participating countries to develop hydrological models of the Nile basis.

(EAEA) -All isotope results with some remarks dispatched to counterparts. Samples received from Kenya,Uganda and DRC are being analyzed.

Training courses given on use of the model.

Sparse data, no water balance model in place

Comprehensive water balance model of Lake Victoria basin developed.

Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania prepared sampling plans.

Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania have received sampling and monitoring equipment. Uganda and Tanzania have conducted the first sampling campaign.

Sampling campaigns are underway in Uganda , Kenya, and Tanzania. Climatological and hydrological data are being compiled to provide input datasets for modeling.

Using on IAEA TCAF Funds all nine countries have collected water samples from precipitation, rivers and ground water for isotope and chemical analysis. Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania have each conducted 2 sampling campaigns.

-Working sessions by counterparts to compile, analyse and interpret all the isotope and conventional hydrogeological data for the sub region and use it to upgrade national reports and prepare sub regional report is be conducted at Kisumu, Kenya early next year. 3rd week of January 2014. -Meeting tasks defined & potential experts identified. - Implementation pending.

Water balance model tested. Training courses on use of the models given.

Water balance model non-existent. Sparse data available

Detailed lake water balance models which takes into account all inflows and outflows developed.

Work not yet initiated.

Expert mission to Burundi and Rwanda was conducted to review existing status and prepare a revised work plan Expert mission to DRC to

Sampling designs for Equatorial lakes have been completed. Climatological and hydrological data are being compiled to provide input datasets for

A regional expert from Uganda was recruited to go to Burundi and Rwanda for duration of two weeks each to support the counterparts with isotope data

Expert mission to assist Rwanda and Burundi counterparts in isotope and conventional hydrogeological data processing, interpretation and reporting to build on

May 20, 2023 Page 5 of 34

be conducted in September 2010.

modeling. collection and interpretations.

the previous missions. Implementation completed.

Model tests. Training of users

Data exists, but sparse and uncollated.

Lake water balance model which takes into account the various hydrological components developed.

Sampling plan for Lake Tana prepared and the first sampling camping was conducted in 2009 and the first batch of water samples from Lake Tana were analysed in Addis Ababa.

Second sampling campaign is underway. Isotope hydrological report of Lake Tana is under preparation as part of graduate research paper.

Second sampling campain conducted. Graduate thesis on isotope hydrology of the Lake basin completed.

Ethiopia like Egypt and Sudan have undertaken 3 campaigns each.

One week technical meeting on operation and data interpretation of ADCP (flow measurement) and Radon detector for to 12 participants from Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia and Uganda. ADCP and Radon detectors were donated to these countries in 2011. Implementation completed.

Sampling and data analysis plan prepared Routine sampling completed Estimation of fraction of groundwater contribution to river flow through a scaled water balanced model

Integrated and consistent assessment of water balance of the Nile basin and sub basins are lacking.

Estimation of groundwater component of river flows in the Nile system.

Project work plan revised. Ethiopia collected and analysed the fist batch of water samples from the Blue Nile basin. Samples collected from Lake Nasser were analysed in Egypt. Reconnaissance visit by Sudan to prospective sampling locations on the White Nile

Uganda and Tanzania have conducted the first sampling campaign. Ethiopia has conducted the second sampling campaign. Most counterparts have received sampling equipment. Large pertinent data sets have been collected from global data bases.

Monthly distributed water balance modeling of the Nile basin is underway.

Counterparts to use knowledge and hand -on experience gain from the training held in Cairo in 20110 and Vienna in 2011 in water balance modelling approach and technique to develop hydrological models of the Nile basis.

Ongoing in all regions especially South Sudan

Summary report on findings from outputs 1.1 to 1.8 prepared including implications for water

Integrated and consistent assessment of water balance of the Nile basin and sub

Report on groundwater fraction and age in lakes and rivers sub basins of the

Report preparation awaits results of Outputs 1.1

Report preparation awaits results of Outputs 1.1

Report preparation awaits results of Outputs 1.1 through

All nine participating countries have compiled intepreted data from sampling

Implication for ecosystem not yet assessed.

May 20, 2023 Page 6 of 34

management and ecosystem protection

basins are lacking. Nile basin. through 1.8. through 1.8. 1.8. campaigns undertaken and prepared preliminary technical reports which have been evaluated and found acceptable by the IAEA.

Report on the groundwater balances in the ecosystems investigated prepared including recommendations

Preliminary and patchy studies on groundwater water study exist.

Summary report complete. Report preparation awaits results of Output 1.9.

Report preparation awaits results of Output 1.9.

Report preparation awaits results of Output 1.9.

All nine participating countries have compiled intepreted data from sampling campaigns undertaken and prepared preliminary technical reports which have been evaluated and found acceptable by the IAEA.

Ongoing activities. Final report after the regional ground water report is completed.

Map indicating areas of notable groundwater impact on lake and wetland systems made.

No map exists. Detailed maps supported by GIS database showing spatial distribution of groundwater lake and wetlands.


Source documents, maps, and data being compiled.

Source documents, maps, and data are being compiled.


Isotope sata may yield information on lakes and wetlands. This is ongoing.

Enhanced capacity in national and regional institutions to assess the

Model tests. training of local experts

Model non-existent. Continued investigation by national and regional institutions to use

Project start-up activities including:

Coordination meeting conducted

Groundwater sampling campaigns are now being

Additional IAEA TC funds were provided to all the

Interaction of IAEA and US expert with the modelling experts from

May 20, 2023 Page 7 of 34

contribution of groundwater in sustaining wetlands in selected areas of the Nile basin, particularly where groundwater is important for ecosystem protection

traditional and isotopic techniques to assess and monitor groundwater / surface water interactions.

Inception meeting conducted (Vienna, January 2009) and work on sampling plans completed in several countries; equipment ordered and obtained in several countries.

(Kenya, July 2009); initial sampling campaigns completed in several countries; work started on compiling archival climatic, hydrologic, and isotopic data for mass-balance modelling.

augmented by river and lake sampling campaigns. Modeling activities are targeted to synthesize these data to assess surface water and groundwater interactions.

participating countries for the recruitment of the professional national experts to assist with the collection, compilation of data and preparation of country technical reports. To-date nine preliminary hydrological reports have been produced, reviewed by the IAEA and found to be technically acceptable.

the Nile Basin initiative (2 or 3) to further develop and finalize the on-going water balance model for the Nile Basin.Implementation completed.

Findings integrated into water planning and management activities.

Activities await completion of initial reports.




Please refer to the June 30 2013 level at outcome 2. The information given is the same.

Reports on the water balance of the Sudd wetlands and selected riparian and riverine wetlands in the Nile basin.

Reconnaissance visit by Sudan to sampling locations in the Sudd wetlands.

Uganda and Tanzania have collected water samples from Lake Victoria. Source documents and data from the Sudd wetlands,

A sampling campaign in the Sudd Wetlands has been completed and a second Sudd campaign is being planned for 2011. Sampling campaigns for other wetlands have been planned

Counterparts to use the knowledge and hands on experience gain from the two weeks training in hydrological water balance modelling in water balance modelling provided


May 20, 2023 Page 8 of 34

Lake Tana, and Lake Victoria have been collected.

and are now being implemented.

on the approach and technique of modelling to develop hydrological models of the Nile basis.

Regional atmospheric data evaluated

Regional atmospheric data not evaluated.

Compilation, synthesis, and interpretation of Regional atmospheric data included in Sudd wetlands report.


Work initiated as part of IAEA-funded development of global climate model for Sudan / Ethiopia region.

Regional atmospheric data for Sudan and Ethiopia have been compiled to support an atmospheric modeling study.

Counterparts to use the knowledge and hands on experience gain from the two weeks training in hydrological water balance modelling in water balance modelling provided on the approach and technique of modelling to develop hydrological models of the Nile basis.


Isotope data to quantify moisture sources in the Ethiopian Highland Precipitation integrated

Some data exist, but have yet to be compiled and interpreted.

Compilation, synthesis, and interpretation of isotopic data of moisture sources included in Sudd wetlands report.


Datasets are being compiled from historical sources. Precipitation monitoring included in Ethiopia sampling campaigns.

Regional isotopic data for Sudan and Ethiopia have been compiled to support an atmospheric modeling study.

counterparts to use the knowledge and hands on experience gain from the two weeks training in hydrological water balance modelling in water balance modelling provided on the approach and technique of modelling to develop hydrological models of the Nile basis.


Potential changes in the Sudd Swamps on regional precipitation evaluated

Changes not yet evaluated.

Effects of Sudd wetlands on regional precipitation included in Sudd wetlands report.


Work underway as part of IAEA-funded development of

Atmospheric moisture study of Sudd region has been completed by IAEA

Counterparts to use the knowledge and hands on experience gain from the two

Please refer to the June 30 2013 level at outcome 2. The information given is

May 20, 2023 Page 9 of 34

global climate model for Sudan / Ethiopia region.

and is being reviewed by an international expert in atmospheric modeling using isotopic tracers.

weeks training in hydrological water balance modelling in water balance modelling provided on the approach and technique of modelling to develop hydrological models of the Nile basis.

the same.

Enhanced capacity in national and regional institutions to use water balance models that incorporate physical, chemical and isotope data to estimate annual and monthly water balance information that is essential for sustained management of wetlands and lakes in the Nile basin

No of new persons trained No water balance models

Continued application by national and regional institutions of the models. Findings incorporated into planning and management decisionmaking, both nationally and regionally, including at NBI.


Activities in identifying data sources and compiling historical data underway. Initial selection of models underway.

Development of monthly distributed water balance modeling is underway. This model has the capability for monthly or daily water balances applied at local or regional scales.

Two weeks training in hydrological water balance modelling given to all participating countries' counterparts in water balance modelling provided hands on experience on use of the approach and technique of modelling and enhanced capacity in participating countries to develop hydrological models of the Nile basis.

Regional training workshop on the final water balance model which includes the newly implementted calibration tool and on two finalized sub basins (Victoria and Upper Blue Nile). Implementation completed.

No of persons trained No Calibration tools and water balance models non-existent

Report on sub-basin and basin models prepared.

International consultant for modelling is advising Agency on modelling strategies.

Model development underway.

Model development continues. Report on model methodology will be prepared in late 2011.

Two weeks training in hydrological water balance modelling given to all participating countries' counterparts in water balance modelling provided

Regional workshop on the final water balance model which includes the newly implemented calibration tool on the two finalized sub basins (Victoria and Upper Blue Nile). This

May 20, 2023 Page 10 of 34

hands on experience on use of the approach and technique of modelling and enhanced capacity in participating countries to develop hydrological models of the Nile basis.

training is open to up to 21 participants from the 9 Nile basin and NBI. Implementation underway.

Report prepared which reviews model applications, identifies modelling methodology, assesses available data and gaps, and identifies other data sources.


Compilation of databases and assessment of existing data underway. Data assessment will provide information necessary to define data gaps.

Model development continues. Report on model methodology will be prepared in late 2011.

Two weeks training in hydrological water balance modelling given to all participating countries' counterparts in water balance modelling provided hands on experience on use of the approach and technique of modelling and enhanced capacity in participating countries to develop hydrological models of the Nile basis.

A staff travel mission was carried out by 2 IAEA staff (for ground water hydrology in July 2012)

Verified regional hydrological model developed. Regional model applied to develop interpretations and implications of management alternatives.


Work underway on basin-scale model by international consultant.

Work underway on basin scale mdel development by international and regional consultant.

Two weeks training in hydrological water balance modelling given to all participating countries' counterparts in water balance modelling provided

A 2-week expert mission was completed in Vienna to finalize the ongoing water balance modelling (for ground water hydrology from April to Mai 2013) .

May 20, 2023 Page 11 of 34

hands on experience on use of the approach and technique of modelling and enhanced capacity in participating countries to develop hydrological models of the Nile basis.

Basic and advanced training courses completed.


Training needs were identified in the coordination meeting (Kenya, July 2009). Preparation underway for basic and advanced isotope modelling courses, planned for fourth quarter, 2010.

Regional training on water balance modeling conducted (Cairo,Dec 2010) ;another similar training will be given in Vienna during 7-18 Nov 2011.

Training courses were implemented for 100 counterparts during the period being reported, mainly a workshop on integration of Isotope Data in River Basin Water Balance Models -29Nov-10 Dec-2011 in Cairo, Egypt; a Regional course in Water Balance Modelling -07-18 Nov 2011 in Vienna, Austria and Fellowships on Environmental and Artificial Tracers in Hydrology-05-16 September, UFZ Halle, Germany.

Scientific Visit of a Ugandan expert for the developpement and the Isotope-enable water balance model (start in April 2013)

Enhanced capacity on the part of national and regional institutions to integrate groundwater considerations into Nile basin planning and

Groundwater information generated in Components 1 through 3 well integrated into basin-wide projects. Existing water management networks integrate


Initial planning limited to discussion at the project Coordination Meeting (Kenya,

Wokplan preparation initiated and discussed at the Steering committee meeting in Uganda ( Entebbe, June

Revised workplan activities have been implemented as planned using IAEA TC funds under the

Revised Action plan prepared with support of an external expert recommended by UNDP. THIS HAS NOT BEEN FULLY

May 20, 2023 Page 12 of 34

management activities groundwater science and planning into their activities. A new groundwater management network exists in the region. National groundwater focal points are active and effective in sharing groundwater data, both between countries and with NBI.

July 2009). 2011). Workplan will be drafted by IAEA staff and an international consultant and presented for discussion, revision, and approval at upcoming Technical Coordination Meeting to be held in Burundi, October 2011.

project. IMPLEMENTED DUE TO SUSPENSION OF GEF/UNDP FUNDING. Lacking funds from January 2012 to February 2013. With UNDP funds now available, implementation in under processing.

Format for national reports established. National reports completed. Regional report completed. Regional stakeholder meeting conducted.

Work to be initiated at mid-point of Component 3.


Work will be initiated in late-2011.

Additional IAEA TC funds to all the participating countries for sampling for the recruitment of gage observers who assisted in collecting monthly samples from the selected locations.

Compilation of a regional groundwater report of the Nile Basin. TOR prepared.Potential experts identified. Implementation pending.

Groundwater considerations included in regional planning. Recommendations for follow-up made. Sub-regional training held.




Additional IAEA TC funds to all the participating countries for sampling for the recruitment of gage observers who assisted in collecting monthly samples from the selected locations.

Presentation of draft project outputs to the NBI governance for review and comments, Entebbe, Uganda in November 2013. Pending.

Standard package on groundwater assessment and management prepared

Standard package not prepared.

Standard package prepared. Participation in relevant national meetings.

Integration of project activities with NBI discussed

Planning for these activities initiated at Coordination


Additional IAEA TC funds to all the participating

Compilation project summary briefs based on national and

May 20, 2023 Page 13 of 34

Participation in relevant national water or economic development meetings Participation in annual meetings of NBI and Lake Victoria Basin Commission Regional meetings to review results of components 1, 2 and 3 and to determine necessary responses held Two sub-regional training/awareness workshops held

Participation in annual meetings of NBI and Lake Victoria Bason Commission. Regional meetings held to review results of Components 1-3. Sub-regional training held.

and agreed upon at Inception Meeting (Vienna, January 2009).

Meeting (Kena, July 2009)

countries for sampling for the recruitment of gage observers who assisted in collecting monthly samples from the selected locations.

regional groundwater reports for disseminating widely to Nile Basin countries and other stakeholders. Pending.

Options for information sharing and networks reviewed Assessment of the network benefits for existing projects and programmes Regional network meetings held Regional and national resource centers equipped

Options for information sharing not reviewed. Network benefits not assessed. Regional network meetings not held. Regional and national resources centers not equipped.

Options for information sharing reviewed. Network benefits assessed. Regional network meetings held. Regional and national resources centers equipped.




dditional IAEA TC funds to all the participating countries for sampling for the recruitment of gage observers who assisted in collecting monthly samples from the selected locations.

Participation in IWLearn IWC 7 workshop in the Carribean (due in October 2013, Barbados). 2 participants nominated from Uganda and Sudan.

Project components implemented effectively and efficiently accordingly; appropriate implementation of agreed monitoring and evaluation plan and subsequently completed evaluation of project based on project objectives and performance indicators

National advisory and project steering committee reports submitted promptly after meetings. Collective actions and adjustments recommended where needed. Written reviews of final summary reports prepared at the end of Components 1 to 3. Monitoring and evaluation plans prepared as required.

PSC reports have been prepared and distributed after meetings. National advisory committee meetings, if held, have not been reported to IAEA. Written reviews of final summary reports of Components 1-3 await completion of these components. Status of monitoring

Project Steering Committee meeting held on 27th-29th June 2011 in Entebbe, Uganda raised concern reading the delayed implementtaion of the project and made several recommenedations to the IAEA to improve the performance of the

A technical meeting of counterparts in Rwanda, Burundi and D.R.Congo with 10 participants in April 2013

May 20, 2023 Page 14 of 34

and evaluation plans is unknown.

project which has resulted in change in the management of the project and revision of the project work plan.

Project inception meeting held and inception report prepared. Project activities reviewed by project steering committee and report prepared annually.

Project inception meeting held in January 2009 (Kenya) and inception report prepared.

Project steering committee scheduled to meet in September 2010 (Addis Ababa).

Project steering committee meeting conducted in Entebbe,Uganda(27-29 June 2010)

Project Steering Committee met in June 2011 in Ugana reviewed progress of project implementtaion and made recomemndations to the implementing Agency the IAEA to improve the performance of the project including changing the management of the project.

A Project Steering Commitee (PSC) meeting was held in Vienna in February 2013 with 10 participants.

National project advisory committee meeting held annually Meeting reports submitted

No national project advisory committee meetings held. No meeting reports submitted.

National project advisory committee meeting held annually. Meeting reports submitted.

National counterparts have not reported to IAEA whether or not they have formed official national advisory committees.

Counterparts have not yet confirmed the formation of national advisory committtees in any of the partcipating countries.

Project technical coordination and steering committee meeting to review progress and draft project outputs in Mombasa Kenya (November 2013). Pending.

Annual and quarterly progress reporting Regular updating of project execution plans and project budgets, Arrangement of one independent final

No annual and quarterly progress reports. No updates of project execution plans and project budgets. No independent final

Annual and quarterly progress reports submitted. Regular updating of project execution plans and project budgets. One independent final project evaluation

Annual and quarterly reports have been submitted. Project execution plans and budgets are reviewed at technical

On the recommendation of the Project Sterring Committee a revised workplan was developed with the

The project became active after the UNDP meeting and as such activities linked to the workplan were activitated during the

May 20, 2023 Page 15 of 34

project evaluation exercise project evaluation exercise conducted.

exercise completed. coordination and project steering committee meetings. Final project evaluation awaits completion of project.

support of the an external expert identified through UNDP which was endorsed by the Project Steering Committee by rejected by the UNDP-GEF Technical Advisor who subsequently suspended the UNDP-GEF funding to the project. The Revised plan of action has still been used by the designated implementing Agency using its technical cooperation funds under the project to continue implementing the key activities included in the revised work plan.

1st quarter of 2013. The final evaluation and review of the project will start in January of 2014. We expect the expert to be in place by the 3rd week of January during the joint session of expert review meeitng in Kisumu in Kenya. The final evaluation will be completed by March 2014

May 20, 2023 Page 16 of 34

RATINGS OF PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVESDO Rating: Please review the Development Objective Progress page of this APR/PIR and then answer the questions below. A DO rating will be generated based on your answers.

1 Please rate the cumulative progress being made toward achieving the end-of-project targets as reported in the project results framework in the DO page of this APR/PIR

2 Please rate the likelihood that the project will deliver environmental and social benefits for an extended period after project completion?

3 Please rate the likelihood that social or political risks may threaten the sustainability of project outcomes

Project Manager/Coordinator: Is the person managing the day to day operations of the project.

MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for projects under implementation in one country or regional projects where appropriate.

Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. Please keep word count between 500 words minimum and 1200 words maximum.

1. Explain why you gave a specific rating.

2. Note trends, both positive and negative, in achievement of outcomes as per the updated indicators provided in the DO sheet.

3. Fully explain the critical risks that have affected progress.

4. Outline action plan to address projects with DO rating of HU, U or MU.

Overall 2009 Rating

Overall 2010 Rating

Overall 2011 Rating Satisfactory

Overall 2012 Rating Unsatisfactory

2013 Rating Satisfactory

Comments The projects development objective is still being kept in focus. There has been deviation from the projects outcome and focus. Lack of matching funds (from January 2012 to February 2013) for field logistics and other local expenses have affected the project implementation progress. With the financial support of UNDP-GEF provided and the workplan revised, the project implementation progress is expected to improve considerably. Please note that the IAEA input, is strictly technical and there are interventions in the sector by various stakeholders and therefore contribution to the DO is not exclusive to this project, therefore the rating of this projects performance is ideally suited to the overall IP as opposed to the overall DO.

UNDP Country Office Programme Officer: Is the UNDP programme officer in the UNDP country office who provides oversight and supervision support to the project.

MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for projects under implementation in one country. Not necessary for regional or global projects.

May 20, 2023 Page 17 of 34


1. Explain why you gave a specific rating, for example, if your rating differs from the rating provided by the project manager please explain why.




Overall 2009 Rating (-) No rating submitted or requested for this year

Overall 2010 Rating (MS) Moderately Satisfactory

Overall 2011 Rating (MU) Moderately Unsatisfactory

Overall 2012 Rating (U) Unsatisfactory

2013 Rating

Comments

Project Implementing Partner: Is the representative of the executing agency (in GEF terminology). This would be Government (for NEX/NIM execution) or NGO (for CSO Execution) or an official from the Executing Agency (for example UNOPS).

RECOMMENDED but NOT MANDATORY for projects under implementation in one country and regional projects.




3. Provide recommendations for next steps.

Project Implementing Partner

Overall 2009 Rating

Overall 2010 Rating (S) Satisfactory

Overall 2011 Rating


2013 Rating

May 20, 2023 Page 18 of 34

Comments

GEF Operational Focal point: Is the government representative in the country designed as the GEF operation focal point.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED but NOT mandatory for projects under implementation in one country. Not necessary for regional or global projects.





GEF Operational Focal point

Overall 2009 Rating

Overall 2010 Rating

Overall 2011 Rating

Overall 2012 Rating

2013 Rating

Comments

Other Partners: For jointly implemented projects, a representative of the other Agency working with UNDP on project implementation (for example UNEP or the World Bank).

RECOMMENDED but NOT MANDATORY for jointly implemented projects.





Other Partners

Overall 2009 Rating

May 20, 2023 Page 19 of 34

Overall 2010 Rating

Overall 2011 Rating

Overall 2012 Rating

2013 Rating

Comments

UNDP Technical Adviser: Is the UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser.

MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for all projects.


1. Explain why you gave a specific rating (do not repeat the project objective).




UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser




Overall 2012 Rating (HU) Highly Unsatisfactory

2013 Rating (MS) Moderately Satisfactory

Comments

Highly Satisfactory (HS) Project is expected to achieve or exceed all its major global environmental objectives, and yield substantial global environmental benefits, without major shortcomings. The project can be presented as 'good practice'.

Satisfactory (S) Project is expected to achieve most of its major global environmental objectives, and yield satisfactory global environmental benefits, with only minor shortcomings.

Moderately Satisfactory (MS) Project is expected to achieve most of its major relevant objectives but with either significant shortcomings or modest

May 20, 2023 Page 20 of 34

overall relevance. Project is expected not to achieve some of its major global environmental objectives or yield some of the expected global environment benefits.

Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU) Project is expected to achieve its major global environmental objectives with major shortcomings or is expected to achieve only some of its major global environmental objectives.

Unsatisfactory (U) Project is expected not to achieve most of its major global environment objectives or to yield any satisfactory global environmental benefits.

Highly Unsatisfactory (HU) The project has failed to achieve, and is not expected to achieve, any of its major global environment objectives with no worthwhile benefits.

May 20, 2023 Page 21 of 34

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS RATINGIP rating: Please review the Implementation Progress page of this APR/PIR and then answer the questions below. An overall IP rating will be generated based on your answers.

1 Please rate the progress in delivery of outputs. For example, do the annual outputs represent sufficient progress in order to achieve the project outcomes (see DO page of this APR/PIR)?

2 Please rate the efficiency in delivery of outputs. For example, in this reporting period are budget resources being spent as planned? (i.e. is project delivery on target?)

3 Please rate the quality of risk management. For example, in this reporting period were project risks managed effectively?

4 Please rate the quality of adaptive management. For example, in this reporting period were actions taken to address implementation issue identified in the APR/PIR last year?

5 Please rate the quality of monitoring and evaluation. For example, in this reporting period were sufficient financial resources allocated to project monitoring and evaluation

Project Manager/Coordinator: Is the person managing the day to day operations of the project.

MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for projects under implementation in one country or regional projects where appropriate.



2. Summarize annual progress and address timelines of projec output/activity completion in relation to annual workplans.

3. Outline the general status of project expenditures in relation to annual budgets, the effectiveness of project management units in guiding project implementation, and the responsiveness of the project board in overseeing project implementation.

Overall 2009 Rating

Overall 2010 Rating

Overall 2011 Rating (S) Satisfactory


2013 Rating (S) Satisfactory

Comments Inspite of the cessation of the use of UNDP-GEF funds (FEB2012 - FEB2013), the project team can report a satisfactory completion of several activities, using matching/Co-financing funds from the IAEA. The project is moving steadly and so far we do not have any hitches except with the ground water repoort which may be delayed, because of short comings in receive the national reports ontime. Outcome 1:

May 20, 2023 Page 22 of 34

Sampling and analysis was significantly enhanced. Outcome 3: The development of the water balance modeling tools are completed; Training of the modeller from from the Nile Basin (NBI) completed. Outcome 4: TOR and potential experts for the Ground water regional report - ready for implementation ** It is worth noting that the IAEA\\\'s input, is strictly technical and there are interventions in the sector by various stakeholders and therefore contribution to the DO is not exclusive to this project, therefore the rating of this projects performance is ideally suited to the overall IP as opposed to the overall DO**.

UNDP Country Office Programme Officer: Is the UNDP programme officer in the UNDP country office who provides oversight and supervision support to the project.


Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. The QORs and delivery data in the ERBM portfolio project monitoring report should inform your rating. Please keep word count between 500 words minimum and 1200 words maximum.

1. Explain why you gave a specific rating. If your rating differs from the rating provided by the project manager please explain why.

2. Summarize annual progress and address timeliness of project output/activity completion in relation to annual workplans.



Overall 2010 Rating (MU) Moderately Unsatisfactory



2013 Rating

Comments

Project Implementing Partner: Is the representative of the executing agency (in GEF terminology). This would be Government (for NEX/NIM execution) or NGO (for CSO Execution) or an official from the Executing Agency (for example UNOPS).

RECOMMENDED but NOT mandatory for projects under implementation in one country or regional projects.


May 20, 2023 Page 23 of 34


2. Note trends, both positive and negative.


Overall 2009 Rating


Overall 2011 Rating


2013 Rating

Comments

GEF Operational Focal point: Is the government representative in the country designed as the GEF operation focal point.






Other Partners: For jointly implemented projects, a representative of the other Agency working with UNDP on project implementation (for example UNEP or the World Bank).

RECOMMENDED but NOT mandatory for jointly implemented projects.





Overall 2009 Rating

Overall 2010 Rating

Overall 2011 Rating

Overall 2012 Rating

May 20, 2023 Page 24 of 34

2013 Rating

Comments

UNDP Technical Adviser: Is the UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser.

MANDATORY RATING MUST BE PROVIDED for ALL projects.

Please justify your rating and address the following points in your comments. The QORs and delivery data in the ERBM portfolio project monitoring report should inform your rating. Please keep word count between 500 words minimum and 1200 words maximum.

1. Explain why you gave a specific rating. If your rating differs from the rating provided by the UNDP Country Office Programme Officer and/or the Project Manager please explain why.

2. Summarize annual progress and address timelines of project output/activity completion in relation to annual workplans.


UNDP Technical Adviser





2013 Rating (MS) Moderately Satisfactory

Comments The project, originally planned for three years, has been extended and currently is in its 5th year of implementation. After poor delivery and some misunderstandings in last reporting period and after the PSC meeting in early 2013, where representatives of all participating countries, executing and implementing agencies, agreed on the further steps and detailed work plan for 2013, the project accelerated a bit its activities. It brought positive results. On level of outcomes - 9 national assessment reports were finalized and thousands of samplings performed within the project implementation. Also, several trainings for water balance modelling, isotope hydrology and data interpretation have been prepared and tenths of specialists were trained. All countries were equipped with basic field and laboratory equipment for above mentioned ground water (GW) investigations. For outcome 2 – the on-going water balance model for Nile basin has been completed in cooperation with national and international experts and IAEA. For Outcome 3 activities in participating countries focused on development of water balance models. Compilation of a regional groundwater report of the Nile Basin and compilation of project summary briefs based on

May 20, 2023 Page 25 of 34

national and regional groundwater reports are still pending (Outcome 4), while revised action plan has been prepared. The part of project objective – to build capacities in national institutions for continuous GW observations, including monitoring and analysis of GW and its interaction with surface water and water balance modelling, was more or less achieved. The problematic remains the use of the analysis and results of investigations for further land and water planning and management on both national and regional levels, and active networking and cooperation within the countries in Nile basin. Probably, this is too ambitious goal for a medium-size project from financial and time perspective. We may state that the project is more active in this reporting period. Its financial management and delivery improved, which increased also effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation. The financial delivery in 2012 achieved 84% and in mid - 2013 reached 23%. However, the management of the project via UNDP monitoring tools (ERBM) by the leading country is equal zero. The project is not even entered into the system. Regarding risk management in Atlas system, we state the same – there is zero risk management of this project via Atlas management module. The project reported on delays in the following key milestones - abandoned mid-term evaluation, suggested delay for TE performance, extension of the project duration. The project reported also on adjustments in project on the level of activities that were agreed in the last PSC meeting. The implementation of the project in the current reporting period is rated as moderately satisfactory (MS).

Highly Satisfactory (HS) Implementation of all components is in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised implementation plan for the project. The project can be presented as 'good practice'.

Satisfactory (S) Implementation of most components is in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised plan except for only few that are subject to remedial action.

Moderately Satisfactory (MS)

Implementation of some components is in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised plan with some components requiring remedial action.

Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU)

Implementation of some components is not in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised plan with most components requiring remedial action.

Unsatisfactory (U) Implementation of most components is not in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised plan.

Highly Unsatisfactory (HU) Implementation of none of the components is in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised plan.

May 20, 2023 Page 26 of 34

PROGRESS IN PROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONOutcome 1- Key Outputs this Reporting Period: Enhanced capacity in national and regional institutions to understand extent and impact of groundwater on selected rivers systems comprising the Nile basin

-All isotope results with some remarks dispatched to counterparts. (Sampling 30 June; Shipment 31 July 2013) -Samples received from Kenya, Uganda, and DRC are being analyzed (31 August 2013) -2 parallel working sessions at Kisumu and Khartoum proposed by PSC (7-18 October 2013). As Sudanese counterpart declined to host the meeting, both will be conducted at Kisumu, Kenya -Meeting tasks defined -Potential experts identified -Implementation pending

Outcome 2- Key Outputs this Reporting Period: Enhanced capacity in national and regional institutions to assess the contribution of groundwater in sustaining wetlands in selected areas of the Nile basin, particularly where groundwater is important for ecosystem protection

-Sub contracting for Sud wetland sampling pending.TOR for the subcontract prepared .Potential expert to collect samples have been identified.300 sample bottles shipped to UNDP office at Juba -Expert mission completed from 20-24 May 2013 to assist Rwanda and Burundi counterparts in isotope and hydrogeological data processing interpretation and reporting to build on the previous missions. -One week training on the use of Radon detector and ADCP completed from 17 to 21 June 2013 ; 14 participants from Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Uganda participated the training at Bahirdar, Ethiopia.

Outcome 3- Key Outputs this Reporting Period: Enhanced capacity in national and regional institutions to use water balance models that incorporate physical, chemical and isotope data to estimate annual and monthly water balance information that is essential for sustained management of wetlands and lakes in the Nile basin

-A 2-week expert mission was completed in Vienna to finalize the ongoing water balance modelling from 22 April to 03 May 2013 -Scientific vsit of a NBI expert to IAEA for the developpement of the Isotope-enable water balance model took place from 29 April to 03 May 2013

Outcome 4- Key Outputs this Reporting Period: Enhanced capacity on the part of national and regional institutions to integrate groundwater considerations into Nile basin planning and management activities

- TOR for the preparation of a regional groundwater report of the Nile basin has been prepared, potential experts identified but implementation pending. - Revised Action plan prepared with support of an external expert recommended by UNDP. THIS HAS NOT BEEN FULLY IMPLEMENTED DUE TO SUSPENSION OF GEF/UNDP FUNDING (from January 2012 to February 2013).

Outcome 5- Key Outputs this Reporting Period: Project components implemented effectively and efficiently accordingly; appropriate implementation of agreed monitoring and evaluation plan and subsequently completed evaluation of project based on project

May 20, 2023 Page 27 of 34

objectives and performance indicators

-A staff travel mission was carried out by 2 IAEA staff (for ground water hydrology in July 2012) -A Project Steering Commitee (PSC) meeting was held in Vienna in February 2013 with 10 participants. -A technical meeting of 10 counterparts from Rwanda, Burundi and D.R.Congo was conducted in Kigali, Rwanda from 20 to 24 May 2013.

May 20, 2023 Page 28 of 34

Adjustments

Adjustments to Project Milestones, Project Strategy and Risk Management.

Key Project MilestonesHave significant delays occurred in the project start, inception workshop, Mid-term Review, Terminal Evaluation or project duration?

Yes

If yes, were these changes reported in a previous APR/PIR?

Yes

Key project milestone

Scope of delay (in months)

Briefly describe change or reason for change

Briefly describe the implications or consequences this has had on project implementation

Project Start (i.e. project document signature date)

Already reported (N/A) Already reported (N/A)

Inception Workshop

Already reported Already reported (N/A)

Mid-term Review 6 workplan review Not enough time to monitor and evaluate project in the medium. The revised workplan focused on delivery of the outputs.

Terminal Evaluation

13 Workplan review This delay provides enough time to deliver on specific outputs and outcomes.

Project Duration (i.e. project extension)

13 Cessation of funding by UNDP-GEF pending review of the workplan

Budget revisions were made from the primary donor - UNDP-GEF and the co-financing institutions the IAEA. This has also affected the renewing of contracts with the experts from the co-financier because of institutional limitations on type of contracts and duration under which these can be sustained.

Adjustments to Project StrategyHas the project made any changes to its strategy (i.e. logframe/results framework) since the Project Document was signed?

No

May 20, 2023 Page 29 of 34

If yes, were these changes reported in a previous APR/PIR?

No

Change Made to Yes/No Briefly describe the change and the reason for that change

Project Objective No The project objective is the same

Project Outcomes No The outcomes are the same

Project Outputs/Activities Yes After the PSC meeting in February 2013 the project implementation team was requested to implement project activities following a revised workplan by the PSC - Significant Change in Project Management leadership - PSC meeting for the first time held in Vienna (location of the executing agency), thus permitting the participation of technical team from the IAEA. - Technical Working Session dates readjusted to early Jan 2014 (Provide ample time for draft national and regional report preparation) - Sudd wetland sampling campaign with the support of the UNDP office at Juba. Minimum 100 samples (GW and SW) adjusted to Nov. Dec. 2013. (Hiring of Supplier and most important, lack of a Credible counterpart in South Sudan. This issue is being revisited)

Risk ManagementList number of critical risks as noted in the ATLAS risk log and briefly describe actions undertaken this reporting period to address each critical risk.

# of Critical Risks (type/description) Risk management measures undertaken this reporting period

There are no critical risks reported in this reporting period.

Adjustments general comments:

Finance: cumulative from project start to June 30 2013

DISBURSEMENT OF GEF GRANT FUNDSMay 20, 2023 Page 30 of 34

How much of the total GEF grant as noted in Project Document plus any project preparation grant has been spent so far? (e.g. PPG + MSP or FSP amount. Do not break down by PPG or project budget.)

Estimated cumulative total disbursement as of 30 June 2013. (i.e.CDR information up to 20 June 2013)

633847.00

Add any comments on GEF Grant Funds Between January 2012 and February 2013, the GEF funding for this project was suspended. The project started using the resources of UNDP- GEF after the PSC meeting in February 2013. A premise to this PSC meeting was an IAEA mission to Bratislava on the 9th of July 2012. After this meeting further communication with UNDP led to the unblocking of the UNDP funds.

DISBURSEMENT OF CO-FINANCINGHow much of the total Co-financing as noted in Project Document has been spent so far? Co-financing is the amount committed in the project document for which co-financing letters are available

Estimated cumulative total co-financing disbursed as of 30 June this year. Please breakdown by donor.

656841.00

Add any comments on co-financing including other types and amounts of additional co-financing such as in-kind, private sector, grants, credits and loans.

Co-financed amount from 2007 from IAEA Technical Cooperation Fund, at the inception of the project is: 656,841USD.

ADDITIONAL LEVERAGED RESOURCESThese additional resources can be from the same donors or new donors.

Estimated cumulative leveraged resources as of 30 June 2013

0.00

Add any comments on Leveraged Resources. N/A

Other Financial InstrumentsDoes the project provide funds to other Financial Instruments?

N

If yes, please discuss developments that occurred this reporting period only.

Communications and KM

Tell the Story of Your Project and What has been Achieved this Reporting Period

May 20, 2023 Page 31 of 34

Work on the Nile Groundwater project has focused on two areas: field campaigns and model development. All the nine participating countries conducted field campaigns. This was supported by training sampling, compliation of data, interpretation and modeling and report writing. This campaign yielded important information in understanding how groundwater interacts with the wetlands. Also this year additional training was conducted in Vienna counterpartss of all nine participating countries in numerical modeling of hydrology. Their resulting model will be used by member countries to interpret the data from their field campaigns and better understand groundwater resources in the Nile basin.

Adaptive Management this Reporting PeriodVery low delivery in 2012 because of managerial issues. Very little feedback from MS as regards the existing sampling campaigns. IAEA and UNDP decided to reviw the project with external consultant who proposed a revised action for implementation during this period the UNDP funds were suspended and a co-financing by the IAEA was used to support project activities fromJanuary 2012 to February 2013. In addition, after the PSC meeting in February, a change in project leadership eventually lead to the release of UNDP funds and continuation of implementation as per existing workplan.

Lessons LearnedInability of the project manager to frequesntly visit the project sites in the participating countries and non participation in key project oversight , monitoring and evaluation meetings affected the elevel of support provided to counterparts.

PARTNERSHIPS

Civil Society Organisations/NGOsNone

Indigenous PeoplesNone

Private SectorNone

GEF Small Grants ProgrammeNone

Other PartnersNone

PROGRESS IN ADDRESSING GENDER EQUALITY

Has a gender or social needs assessment been carried out?No

If a gender or social assessment has been carried out what where the findings?

May 20, 2023 Page 32 of 34

Does this project specifically target women or girls as direct beneficiaries?No

Have there been any changes in specifically targeting women or girls as direct beneficiaries this reporting period?No

If yes, please explain:

Please discuss any of the points above further or provide any other information on the project's work on gender equality undertaken this reporting periodSome points to consider: impact of project on daily workload of women, # of jobs created for women, impact of project on time spent by women in household activities, impact of project on primary school enrolment for girls/boys, increase in women's income etc. Be as specific as possible and provide real numbers (e.g. 100 women farmers participating in sustainable livelihoods programme).

N/A

ENVIRONMENTAL OR SOCIAL GRIEVANCE

What environmental or social issue was the grievance related to?

What is the current status of the grievance?

How would you rate the significance of the grievance?

Please describe the on-going or resolved grievance noting who was involved, what action was taken to resolve the grievance, how much time it took, and what you learned from managing the grievance process (maximum 500 words). If more than one grievance was addressed this reporting period, please explain the other grievance (s) here:

May 20, 2023 Page 33 of 34

No any grievance during reporting period.

May 20, 2023 Page 34 of 34

Documents

€¦ · Web viewProject Summary. The project will begin to fill an information gap about the role of groundwater and its contribution to water balances in lakes, rivers, and wetlands