The document summarizes the findings of a 2004 study on the GEF International Waters Programme. Some key points: - The study assessed impacts of projects on transboundary waters, approaches used, and lessons learned to improve operations. - There were 95 full-sized projects totaling $691.59 million in GEF funding and $1.46 billion in co-financing, indicating a leverage ratio of 1:2. - The study evaluated projects in regions like the Black Sea, La Plata River, African Great Lakes, and East Asian seas to identify lessons learned and make recommendations to strengthen the program.

1. GEF International
Waters Programme
Study – 2004
Findings relevant to the
GEF IW Conference
Prof. Laurence Mee
IW Study Team Leader

2. Main objectives of the study
• An assessment of the impacts and results of the
IW focal area to the protection of transboundary
water ecosystems,
• An assessment of the approaches, strategies and
tools by which results were achieved, and
• Identification of lessons learned and formulation
of recommendations to improve GEF IW
operations.
The Study is a key input to the
independent Overall Program Study of
the GEF

3. Status of the portfolio in 2004
• 95 Full-sized
projects
distributed
globally
• Total GEF
investment of
$691.59
millions
Total GEF and co-financed funding
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Million US$
Cofinance
GEF
• Total co-financing estimated at $1466.84 millions
(leverage 1:2)

4. Case study regions
• The Black Sea basin (including the Danube and
Dnipro River basins),.
• The La Plata River basin (including the adjacent
Patagonia shelf),
• The African lakes and their catchments (Tanganyika,
Malawi and Victoria),
• The East Asian seas (including the Gulf of Thailand,
the South China Sea).

5. The biggest
single
investment in
the GEF IW
Focal Area

6. The highest
level of co-funding

7. Criteria used for measuring
success
• Coherent, transparent and practicable
design;
• Achievement of global benefits;
• Country ownership and stakeholder
involvement;
• Replication and catalysis;
• Cost effectiveness and leverage;
• Institutional sustainability; and
• Incorporation of monitoring and evaluation
procedures.

8. Overall achievement
“The study revealed an impressive portfolio of
well-managed GEF-IW interventions and there is
increasing success at leveraging collateral
funding, including investments. The leveraging
ratio is currently 1:2 and the total portfolio
exceeds US$2 billions, evincing the largest effort
in history to support sustainable use and
protection of transboundary waters.”

9. “… it is the vital ‘groundwork’ behind
sustainable development: providing evidence,
developing strategies and innovative solutions,
improving awareness, promoting stakeholder
dialogue, helping to build new institutions,
testing new approaches through demonstration
projects and creating opportunities for
investment. This is a gradual process of
stepwise change towards shared goals, and
progress is often difficult to assess”.

10. An important advance in
emphasis in overall rationale
“The GEF international waters operational
strategy aims at assisting countries to
jointly undertake a series of processes with
progressive commitments to action and
instilling a philosophy of adaptive
management. Further, it seeks to simplify
complex situations into manageable
components for action”

11. Adaptive management
Adaptive management is a process by which agreed
long-term goals are achieved in a series of pragmatic
action-based steps.
•Adaptive management is a participatory process of
‘learning by doing’. It requires full stakeholder
involvement.
This approach fits
well with major policy
initiatives such as the
•Adaptive management cannot be achieved without
continuous monitoring Millennium
of status, stress reduction and
process indicators and Development a firm commitment Goals
by
governments to maintain monitoring beyond the GEF
project cycle.

12. Implementing adaptive Management
Periodic Assessment (TDA, joint fact-finding)
•System boundaries (space and time)
•Scoping of environmental & social impacts
•Research on causality
•Review of institutions, laws, policies, economic instruments
EcoQOs
Baseline
studies
(typically valid for 1
decade)
Robust quantitative
system state indicators
to measure levels of impact
Regular monitoring (all indicators)
Regulations and compliance
Slow
feedback
loop
Status and trends
Operational
targets
(typically valid 3-5 yrs)
Operational indicators:
process, stress
reduction, societal (&
project performance)
Fast feedback
loop

13. Main problems with implementing
adaptive management
• Insufficient understanding of the
process at all levels
• Insufficient development of
common status, stress reduction
and process indicators
• Insufficient commitment and
capacity for long term
monitoring
• Continued lack of transparency
or bureaucratic delays in
releasing key information

14. Importance of Strategic Partnerships
• SAP implementation is a costly long-term
commitment by governments
• The partnership is an opportunity to focus
the efforts of governments, donors and
financing institutions on key SAP
recommendations and demonstrate how
change can be achieved.
• The Danube/Black Sea Strategic
Partnership is the first test case of this new
GEF strategy.
• We are satisfied that difficulties identified
in the study have now been addressed and
this key partnership is making good
progress.

15. Main lessons learned – I. Project
Cycle
• Donor expectations regarding project
timeframes are often unrealistic and force
compromises that limit buy-in and eventual
sustainability (e.g. through excessive use of
external consultants)
• … sustainable mechanisms are rarely created
in less than a 10 year total timeframe.

16. Start
up
ALTERNATIVE (adequate
regional institutions)
Exit
Investment
cost
Benefits
BASELINE
(Government
investment in
regional solutions
GEF
investment
Time To Achieve
Institutional
Sustainability
Sustainable
institutions
INCREMENTAL
COST
Time
Sustainable institutions

17. Main lessons learned – I.
Project Cycle
• Some of the GEF interventions do not appear
to have established, from the outset, clearly
stated outputs and outcomes together with an
‘exit strategy’.
• This exit strategy should constitute an
agreement between all parties regarding the
actions that will be taken at the end of the
intervention or earlier if basic assumptions are
not met or if required outputs are not
achieved.

18. Main lessons learned – II. The
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
• Sometimes regarded as a bureaucratic pre-requisite
for donor funding rather than an
element of an adaptive management
strategy enabling the identification of
transboundary issues and their causes.
• TDA should be periodically updated to
reflect the changing regional situation (this
has not happened in any of the IW projects
though it is planned for the Black Sea).

19. Main lessons learned – II. The TDA
The TDA is an effective tool if it:
• sets appropriate boundaries,
• identifies all relevant stakeholders,
• conducts studies by joint fact finding (without excluding any
relevant regional expertise),
• includes an appropriate balance of disciplines,
• identifies the socio-economic causes of the transboundary
problems identified,
• evaluates the institutional capacity and
• makes all the information available to the stakeholders in a
concise and non-jargonistic manner.

20. Main lessons learned – II. The TDA
• Many IW projects have failed to conduct careful
analyses of stakeholders, institutional capacities and
responsibilities.
• This has led to difficulties in strategic planning and
effective operationalisation of projects at a later stage.
• It also risks ‘capture’ of projects by particular sectors.
• Stakeholder analysis and institutional mapping should be
an integral component of all TDAs and proposals for
demonstration sites.

21. Main lessons learned – III. The
value of demonstration projects
• Early use of demonstration projects has helped
build confidence amongst stakeholders.
• Replicability requires careful site selection,
stakeholder exchanges, capacity building and
technological transfer.
• Demonstration projects alone do not resolve
problems that exist at greater scales.

22. Main lessons learned – IV. Appropriate
scales for assessment and management
• The ‘ecosystem approach’ may be applied at a variety of
different scales within predominantly natural
boundaries.
• In some projects, political considerations have
overridden the selection of appropriate natural
boundaries, and the ecosystem-wide objectives are
unlikely to be met.
Note the importance of the ecosystem approach as a
basis for non-eligible regions as well as for the GEF

23. Main lessons learned – IV. Appropriate
scales for assessment and management
• Not all transboundary problems however,
require a common regional approach (e.g.
harmonised laws and regulations) for effective
management in order to meet agreed regional
and global objectives.
• The strategy employed at each site must be
tailored to the geographical scale of pressures
on the system, the local governance structure
and the available human capacity

24. Main lessons learned – V. The
value of strategic planning
• Projects developed to date have shown that a
great deal of pragmatism is required in order to
develop a SAP.
• The SAP should enable the achievement of the
agreed region-wide objectives through specific
national actions and, at a regional level, identify,
reinforce or create the sustainable institutions
necessary for effective regional coordination.
• The transboundary issues identified in the TDA
should be addressed according to their agreed
priorities.

25. Main lessons learned – V. The
value of strategic planning
• Well designed country-driven SAPs, together with
NAPs (National Action Programmes) provide a
benchmark to encourage and assess progress towards
commonly defined goals and milestones.
• Those focusing upon declaratory statements have
encountered greater difficulties to implement than
those with more detailed targeted and costed
operational strategies.

26. Main lessons learned – V. The value of
strategic planning
• Establishment of EcoQOs, or water use objectives, together
with a statement of ‘vision’ has not occurred in many projects
and their effective public diffusion is often ignored
• Greater care should be taken to integrate social issues in
SAP/NAP recommendations.
• Projects that have linked reforms to the provision of alternative
livelihoods, poverty alleviation and gender issues have been
particularly successful at engaging community support.
• This may result in trade-offs between measures that would
maximise economic yield, environmental benefits and social
benefits.

27. Main lessons learned – V. The value of
strategic planning
• NAPs are an essential part of the planning mechanism but we
have seen little evidence of their widespread development to
date.
• They need to give detailed information on how the regional
objectives will be operationalised.
• This should include deployment of human capacity (or
capacity-building needs), infrastructure, legal and policy
reforms, finance and investments.
• Care must be taken not to lose sight of the global benefits in
the national-scale planning process; costs, benefits and
alternatives should be fully explored

28. Main lessons learned – VI. The
inter-ministry process
• Inter-Ministry Committees (IMCs) have not
been developed in many projects but they are
crucial at a national level in order to avoid
‘capture’ of the project by a particular sector
or avoidance of difficult discussions that will
be needed in order for the project to succeed.
• The IMC should be chaired by a Minister or
Deputy Minister from the appropriate sector.
Special arrangements will be required in
highly decentralised countries in order to
ensure inclusion of relevant government
entities

29. Main lessons learned – VI. The inter-ministry
process
• The IMCs by themselves may not be sufficient to maintain the
necessary political momentum.
• Local-level actions should be included with full stakeholder
involvement and clear public participation plans but these are
currently absent from almost all SAPs.
• This may require additional inter-sectoral groupings at the
regional, national or local levels

30. Main lessons learned – VI. The inter-ministry
process
• Involvement of the private sector in IW projects
has, until recently, been rather limited.
• The emergence of the first Public/Private Sector
Partnership Investments (PPPIs) is encouraging
though this model should not be regarded as
‘one size fits all’

31. Main lessons learned – VII. Project
operational arrangements and support
• Benefits of close coordination between implementing agencies
at all levels far outweigh the transaction costs.
• The current low level of management fees that can be charged
by the IAs makes such task sharing increasingly unattractive
however.
• For co-implemented projects to be successful, there needs to
be active technical coordination between IAs at the regional
level, otherwise there is a tendency for the projects to be split
into self-standing components with a consequent danger of
fragmentation

32. Main lessons learned – VII. Project
operational arrangements and support
• Current inter-project coordination remains ad-hoc
and often deficient, particularly between
projects in different focal areas (e.g. between
International Waters and Biological Diversity or
Climate Change).
• Valuable opportunities for synergy are being lost
at the regional level

33. Main lessons learned – VII. Project
operational arrangements and support
• There is chronic over-commitment of some public officials
acting as counterparts or providing expertise as a national
contribution for project implementation. This limits their support
to projects.
• Some projects have adopted systems for formally accounting for
counterpart contributions, an approach that should be further
evaluated in the interest of transparency and future institutional
sustainability.
• In some cases, GEF support to joint implementing mechanisms
has been gradually ‘tapering down’ to ensure smooth transfer
of institutional responsibility

34. Implementation of the previous IW Study
Unique document identifier
Better document archiving (GEF Sec)
Improvements in M&E reviews
Streamlined oversight methodology
Comparable indicators
Formalise IWLearn and IW-Conferences
IA advisory function within GEF
Final evaluation after project on common format
Mid-term reviews on projects
Increase suitability assessment of EAs
Guidelines on major concepts in OPs
TDA as a basis for all SAPs
Increase OP10 emphasis on LBA
Clarify role of Ops
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Evaluation of project development in S America

35. Study recommendations
Should ensure
greater system-wide
coherence and
provide technical
guidance.
Management cost
review needed.
1. The production and use of an accessible GEF
International Waters Focal Area manual;
2. To develop a comprehensive M&E system for
IW projects ;
3. The incorporation of a regional level
coordination mechanism for IW projects ;
4. The redefinition of the GEF International
Waters Task Force
Difficult to assess
progress of projects
from current process
indicators.
Little information on
outcomes (process,
stress reduction and
status)
Crystal clear
information
targeted on
particular user
groups
Some
successes to
report here but
more work
needed