Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 3 September 2000 21570 September 2000 Multicountry Project Arrangements Report of a Thematic Review Petri Ollila Juha 1. Uitto Christophe Crepin Alfred M. Duda GEF Multicountry Project Arrangements Report of a Thematic Review Petri Ollila Juha I. Uitto Christophe Crepin Alfred M. Duda Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 3 September 2000 Authors Petri Ollila, Consultant Juha I. Uitto, GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Team Christophe Crepin, The World Bank Alfred M. Duda, GEF Secretariat, Land and Water Team Published 2000 Global Environment Facility This paper may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or nonprofit uses, without special permission, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. The Global Environment Facility secretariat would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this paper as a source. Copies may be sent to GEF secretariat, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433. No use of this paper may be made for resale or other commercial purpose without prior written consent of the Global Environment Facility secretariat. The designations of geographic entities in this document, and the presentation of materials, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the GEF concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of the GEF or its associated agencies. ISBN 1-884122-85-X ISSN 1020-0894 ii Preface The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) team is tasked with analyzing and documenting GEF results. Until now, conclusions of these efforts have been in the form of evaluation and study reports, annual Project Performance Reports, and GEF Lessons Notes. With the introduction of the M&E Working Papers series, we are publishing reports that are not full-fledged evaluations, but nevertheless deserve attention. Many of the issues and early results that these reports identify will be pursued later in broader evaluations to arrive at more definite conclusions. We expect the M&E working papers to be a valuable catalyst for promoting dialogue on issues and results of importance within GEF's operational areas and efforts. We therefore look forward to your feedback and suggestions. Please contact us through the coordinates listed below and visit the GEF Web site to find out more about the Monitoring and Evaluation program. The Multicountry Project Arrangements study is the result of a thematic review carried out in 1999-2000. Thematic reviews are not comprehensive evaluations - when many projects in a portfolio are relatively new, such evaluations would be premature. Rather, such reviews are more modest attempts to take stock of progress to date and identify lead indicators of achievements, if any. Additionally, reviewers may identify issues related to project design and implementation, thereby enabling discussion and reexamination of strategic issues within the GEF operational programs. This review was carried out as a collaborative activity between the GEF Corporate Monitoring and Evaluation Team and the World Bank. The review was based on data and information collected from a variety of sources: (a) desk reviews of project documents, project completion reports, evaluation reports, and other relevant documents; (b) annual project implementation reports; (c) interviews with project managers in the implement- ing agencies; (d) a questionnaire sent to all projects; and, (e) visits to project offices and field sites around the Danube River (Austria, Hungary and Slovak Republic), the Mediterranean Sea (Greece), Lake Malawi (Malawi), Lake Victoria (Kenya, Tanzania), and the Baltic Sea (Finland). Jarle Harstad Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator GEF Corporate Monitoring and Evaluation Team 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, USA Telephone: (202) 458-2548 Fax: (202) 522-3240 E-mail: geflessons@gefweb.org Web: http://www.gefweb.org/html/monitoring evaluation.html iii Acknowledgements This thematic review would not have been possible without the support and valuable contribution of several individuals and organizations. During the review, several colleagues in the GEF Secretariat and implementing agencies shared with us their valuable experiences in project design and implementation, and facilitated country visits to review projects. They include: Andrew Hudson, Bill Lane, Andrea Merla, John Pernetta, and Francisco Pichon. Maria C.J. Cruz carried out the field visit to the East Asian Seas project. We would like to thank the Governments of, in particular, Kenya, Malawi, Philippines and Tanzania for facilitating country visits. We are particularly grateful to the following project managers who organized project reviews during country visits: * Joachim Bendow, Executive Secretary, International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River * Lucien Chabason, Mediterranean Action Plan Coordinator * Chua Thia-Eng, Project Director, Regional Program on Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas * Kjell Grip, Environment Secretary, Helsinki Commission (Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission) * Christopher M. Nyirabu, Regional Executive Secretary, Lake Victoria Environment Management Project We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of our colleagues at the GEF Secretariat, Elizabeth Mook and William Faries, for assisting in the report's production. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to the Government of Finland, which provided a trust fund for carrying out the review. Juha I. Uitto GEF Task Manager Multicountry Project Arrangements Thematic Review iv Contents Executive Summary ...............................................................1 Summary of Lessons and Considerations ...............................................................1 Background and Introduction ..............................................................5 The Issue. 5 The Approach of the Review ..............................................................7 The Review. 9 Site Visits. 9 Danube River Basin Projects: Pilot Phase, Bridging Project, and Preparation of the Regional Implementation Project .......................... ...............................9 Determination of the Priority Actions for the Further Elaboration and Implementation of the Strategic Action Program for the Mediterranean Sea ............. 11 Lake Victoria Environmental Management Project ........................................................ 13 Lake Malawi/Nyasa Biodiversity Conservation Project .................................................. 16 Baltic Sea Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM) ........................................ 18 Program on Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas ... 20 Desk Studies ........................................................... 23 Rio de la Plata ........................................................... 23 Rio Bermejo ........................................................... 24 Aral Sea Basin ........................................................... 25 Red Sea and Gulf of Aden ........................................................... 25 Lake Tanganyika ........................................................... 26 Portfolio Survey ........................................................... 27 Survey Design ........................................................... 27 v Inventory of Projects Subject to the Review .......................... ........................... 27 Summary of the Survey ..................................................... 30 Organizational Structures ...................................................... 32 Lessons and Considerations ..................................................... 35 Complex Multicountry Issues Require Facilitation .......................................... ........... 35 Need for Shared Vision for Addressing the Issues .......................................... ............ 35 Ecosystem Approach as Key to Transboundary Resource Management ............................... 36 Need for Broad-Based Participation ..................................................... 37 Involve Multiple Levels of Institutions ..................................................... 38 Policy and Legislative Implications ..................................................... 38 Financial Issues ...................................................... 39 Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................................... 39 Acronyms ...................................................... 41 Annexes ..................................................... 43 1. Terms of Reference ..................................................... 43 2. Survey Questionnaire ...................................................... 47 vi Executive Summary A sizable portion of the GEF portfolio-all but a hand- preparation time and the resources required for ful of international waters projects and about two implementation without sacrificing project quality dozen biodiversity projects-involves more than one and sustainability. Answers to these questions will be country. The 1998 Project Implementation Review fed into the design of future GEF projects as well as (PIR) identified several advantages that multicountry help guide projects already under way. approaches can offer. However, these projects are frequently more complex than those carried out in a The review focused on multicountry projects in the single country and present a number of preparation GEF portfolio that address transboundary issues and implementation challenges to GEF and its imple- within a common ecosystem or other geographical menting agencies. One of these challenges, in fact, is area requiring joint action by participating countries. the greater importance for collaboration among The focus of the review was on intemational waters implementing agencies, both in activities carried out projects, but selected biodiversity projects addressing with GEF funding and in their own assistance programs. transboundary issues were also included in the re- view. It encompassed a total of 36 projects: 28 inter- A thematic review was undertaken to explore experi- national waters and 8 biodiversity projects. Basic data ences with multicountry projects. The review's ob- were collected through a desk study of project docu- jective was to identify emerging lessons about what ments, PIR reports, evaluation reports and other kinds of multicountry approaches have worked, what available materials, as well as a questionnaire sent to have not, why, and under what circumstances. For all projects included in the review. Unfortunately, activities that require joint efforts and commitments only 20 of the 36 questionnaires were returned and by more than one country, what characteristics of several had missing information. The desk study was project design and inter-institutional collaboration supplemented by a more in-depth study of selected processes and structures facilitate effective decision representative projects. The review team visited six making and implementation on transboundary issues? projects; a further five were covered in a more de- tailed analysis of available documentation. The review also looked into the issues pertaining to preparation and administration from the point of view Summary of Lessons and Considerations of the implementing agencies and the GEF Secre- tariat. Early GEF experience is showing that The review highlighted several specific lessons and multicountry projects may require more time and re- areas of consideration for GEF pertaining to sources to prepare and administer. In analyzing this multicountry transboundary project design and issue and its consequences, the review identified implementation arrangements. It must be noted, how- whether certain types of institutional and implemen- ever, that GEF's history of multicountry projects is tation arrangements can be used to reduce project still short and few projects have been completed. 1 Therefore, these conclusions should be treated as pre- nents of implementation projects that often follow the liminary. Furthermore, they are applicable mostly to strategic first project. The succession of interventions international waters projects, as few biodiversity constitutes a pragmatic way of incorporating an eco- projects actively participated in the review. system approach into management decision-making through a logical series of steps that help to simplify Facilitation in Complex Multicountry Issues. The re- complex situations. view demonstrates that GEF can play an important role in facilitating multicountry approaches and help- Importance of Broad-Based Participation. Politi- ing countries deal with transboundary environmental cal commitment at the highest level is essential for problems. Complex multicountry and multi-imple- ensuring efficient operation of multicountry institu- menting agency structures require careful prepara- tions and on-the-ground implementation of the ac- tion, which often leads to longer preparation periods tions identified in strategic projects. Where the only and greater cost than single-country settings. The demonstrated political commitment has been the process of developing a shared vision and a frame- agreement to proceed with a GEF-financed project, work for action among countries sharing a commitments for policy, institutional, and/or legal transboundary resource requires political commit- reforms and investments have been slow to emerge. ment and public awareness. GEF could play a more The presence of a regional agreement or convention proactive role in promoting regional implementation with progressively more specific commitments is and leadership through programmatic approaches highly beneficial. The involvement of relevant exist- based on careful and scientifically solid analyses of ing organizations has also clearly improved the com- the causes of environmental problems and threats to mitment of stakeholders and facilitated project sustainability. implementation. Because project actions often fall within the jurisdiction of several ministries, the for- Addressing Issues through Shared Vision. Achiev- mation of country interministerial committees has ing a shared vision and commitment among countries helped induce dialogue and communication. can be facilitated by initial strategic projects, compa- rable to enabling activities, that can break down the All relevant stakeholders in the countries-including barriers among countries and enable them to focus the public and private sectors, the scientific commu- jointly on priority setting. This process allows com- nity, and civil society-need to be involved in the plex situations to be broken down into more manage- project. The inclusion of relevant non-governmental able, agreed-upon priority issues, which often have organizations (NGOs) has been useful for involving specific geographical implications. Joint fact finding local stakeholders. NGOs can play an important role and sharing of information in producing a to ensure transparency and political support. They Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) can help can also support subnational implementation of the countries move toward producing a Strategic Ac- project activities. The scientific community can en- tion Program (SAP) of country-specific and regional sure that sound science is used to improve manage- actions needed to address the identified ment and decisionmaking. transboundary priorities. The TDA-SAP approach may be most efficiently uti- Utilizing the Ecosystem Approach. Harnessing the lized if all implementing agencies are involved in the scientific community as part of identifying the link- processes. Collaboration among the implementing ages in a TDA among components of transboundary agencies according to their respective comparative ecosystems is a necessary step toward incoporating advantages is important in overcoming barriers to an ecosystem approach into development of a SAP. multicountry action, especially in the international While these analysis and priority-setting processes waters field. take time in multicountry arrangements, it is often useful to complement strategic work with on-the- Coordination with other donors is similarly impor- ground demonstration components that help create tant. This coordination can best take place in a coun- commitment at national and local levels. These com- try-driven context that provides a framework for the ponents also help underpin application of the ecosys- different interventions. Such a framework may be tem approach to practical situations that may be based on a TDA-SAP process developed with GEF replicated as part of more comprehensive compo- support or may be part of an emerging programmatic 2 approach. Often GEF projects leverage funding and Financial Issues. The implications for preparation prompt complementary actions by other actors that funding and administrative resources stemming from operate in the same region. the higher transaction costs associated with multicountry projects must be addressed. Evidence Involving Multiple Levels of Institutions. Action shows that Block-B preparation grants can be effec- involving multiple levels of institutions is essential in tive in producing a TDA-SAP for preventive actions addressing environmental problems facing such as those in Operational Program 9. In some transboundary water bodies and basins. A three-level cases, however, the funding limit has been too low. In strategy from regional to national and from national those cases, a full project may need to be used to to local has broad applicability in multicountry prepare a TDA-SAP. projects. A regional agreement or convention may facilitate countries in reaching binding agreements to The threat to the global and regional environment harmonize their legislation. At the national level, often stems from local actions caused by social and country-specific interministerial committees are key economic conditions. It is therefore important to di- to ensuring coordination and desired implementation agnose and address these root causes in order to im- outputs. At the subnational level, local commitment prove the transboundary environmental conditions. can be strengthened through changed incentive struc- Creating financing packages in which a GEF project tures, national empowerment/support, and enforce- is combined with projects by the implementing agen- ment. Information dissemination and public cies addressing development issues and national ben- awareness building are essential in this process. efits appears to be important to ensuring that a spectrum of domestic and global benefits may accrue When it is not possible to start the regional process to the environment. through a convention or another multicountry body, it may be appropriate to channel projects through na- Monitoring and Evaluation Sytems. Monitoring tional entities. Even in these cases, however, a spe- and evaluation (M&E) plays a central role in manag- cific regional component that is clearly spelled out ing complex multicountry projects. Effective M&E and that has sufficient resources should be included. systems ensure transparency regarding project progress and results. They can also identify areas The sustainability of regional bodies needs to be con- where problems and delays are typically experienced. sidered in project designs. Specifically, it is essential Although GEF can help countries set up the M&E to ensure their continued funding beyond the project system, data collection and analysis ultimately should period. This will require that the multicountry institu- be handled by the countries themselves. tion be integrated into the participating countries' organizational structures. All multicountry projects should include clear provi- sions for indicators at three levels: (1) process indica- Policy and Legislative Implications. The institu- tors (focusing on the processes that are likely to lead tional structures among participating countries vary toward a desirable outcome), (2) stress reduction in- considerably. Therefore, establishing a common in- dicators (concrete actions that will reduce the envi- centive and enforcement structure for the entire ronmental stress on the shared ecosystem), and (3) multicountry project is at times difficult. Due to po- environmental status indicators (actual improvement litical sensitivity, past GEF projects may not have had of ecosystem quality). As the time scale for achieving explicit components addressing policy and legislative actual environmental benefits is long and usually be- implications and reform. Multicountry coordination yond the duration of the project, it is important to of policy reforms requires mutual trust which often ensure the sustainability of the M&E system; this is can only be created over a long time span. A relatively being done in several GEF international waters powerful regional coordinating unit, perhaps backed by projects. Experience demonstrates that the M&E sys- a convention, has been helpful in supporting the process tem can be integrated into the regular functions of the of political and legislative harmonization. participating countries or a regional mechanism. 3 4 Background and Introduction The nature of global environmental issues often re- and commitments by more than one country, what quires a holistic approach across sectors and political characteristics of project design and inter-institu- boundaries. Sustainable management of trans- tional collaboration processes and structures facilitate boundary natural resources, to be effective, requires effective decisionmaking and implementation of that all parties sharing the resource address the issues. transboundary issues? The review also looks into the In the GEF portfolio, multicountry projects are still a issues pertaining to the preparation and administra- minority. Yet a sizable portion of that portfolio- tion of multicountry projects from the point of view notably most of the international waters projects, but of the implementing agencies and the GEF Secre- also several biodiversity projects-consists of tariat.2 projects involving two or more countries working together to managea transboundary resource. There The Issues are numerous advantages to multicountry ap- proaches, but these projects also tend to be more Countries often have varying, sometimes even con- complex than single-country projects. flicting, interests regarding a shared resource. For instance, an international water body may be used as The GEF 1998 Project Implementation Review (PIR) a freshwater source by one country and for sewage recommended a more systematic in-depth examina- disposal by another. Sometimes the development of tion of multicountry implementation arrangements in fisheries or agriculture may be in conflict with GEF projects, including their requirements for col- biodiversity conservation, water quality, or tourism. laboration among implementing agencies and with These varying uses of a particular environmental re- other organizations.' This thematic review is intended source can cause complex problems between coun- to address this recommendation. The review focuses tries, as well as between community groups within on project arrangements for multicountry projects countries. that focus on a water body shared between several countries. Experience in the North in addressing these transboundary water and environmental problems has The review's objective is to identify emerging les- demonstrated that their solution takes a great deal of sons about what kinds of multicountry approaches time. The North American Great Lakes and the Rhine have worked, what have not, why, and under what River Basin countries each used multicountry com- circumstances. For activities that require joint efforts missions in the 1950s to study the shared environ- I GEF, Project Performance Report (Washington, DC, 1998), pp. 35-37. 2 See Annex 1, Terms of Reference. 5 mental problems; these studies and subsequent imple- try levels is generally needed to facilitate the de- mentation of significant actions took some 20 to 25 sired change. years to facilitate-and, in fact, continues to this day. For the North Sea, Baltic, and Mediterranean, about * What are the difficulties in a multicountry setting ? 25 years have elapsed since regional conventions Multicountry arrangements require joint action were signed to promote improved environmental that, if not wanted or considered a priority by a management of the shared waters; significant imple- given country, may lead to unwillingness to ad- mentation actions have still to be undertaken. It re- dress the problem by one or more countries. Even mains to be seen whether application of the lessons under the most favorable circumstances, from establishment of these early multicountry ar- multicountry arrangements need organizational rangements can deliver similar results in developing solutions specially designed for multicountry pur- countries and those in economic transition in a similar poses. Most international organizations histori- time frame. cally have not been well equipped to address re- gional activities. GEF is fostering the development As a result of these early lessons, GEF has formulated of such capabilities. its international waters strategy as follows: Ultimately, these issues relate to the following The overall strategic thrust of GEF-funded inter- questions: national waters activities is to meet the agreed incremental costs of: (a) assisting groups of * Will action by several countries be needed to solve countries to better understand the environmental the transboundary question, or will action be concerns of their international waters and work needed in a country other than that experiencing collaboratively to address them; (b) building the the problem? capacity of existing institutions (or, if appropri- ate, developing the capacity through new institu- * Will countries working individually have enough tional arrangements) to utilize a more commitment to necessary actions to solve the comprehensive approach for addressing problem, or will joint multicountry collaboration transboundary water-related environmental con- be needed? cems; and (c) implementing measures that ad- dress the priority transboundary environmental * Are the transaction costs to facilitate multicountry concerns.3 cooperation reasonable? The specific issues that form the starting point of this The utility of the multicountry approach essentially review include the following: boils down to the question: Is it possible to achieve project objectives at a lower cost and in a shorter time Why do we need multicountrv projects? Environ- by facilitating multicountry arrangements compared mental problems addressed under the GEF port- to the overall cost of countries acting individually? folio often include externalities that require a Furthermore, it may be difficult to analyze the root larger perspective than that of a single country. A causes of transboundary environmental problems and shared vision or joint agreement regarding the identify the best course of action through a single- priority of various issues and common strategies country approach. Advantages and disadvantages of on how to address them at the regional and coun- single- and multicountry settings are presented in the following table. 3 GEF, Operational Strategy (Washington, DC, 1996). p. 48. 6 Single-Country Setting Multicountry Setting Low transaction costs if countries agree; Possibly shorter time to on-the-ground higher transaction costs if not results Easier to implement Helps to foster multicountry dialogue and Advantages prevent free-riding externalities Allows countries with different economic Serves to feed problems into legal conditions and pace of implementation to find processes in a neutral way their preferred way of implementation Difficulty in streamlining activities in various Higher preparation cost countries; streamlining absorbs more time Possible impediments to new multicountry Varying priority settingin various countries Disadvantages agreements Difficulty in getting comparable data Difficulty in streamlining local, national, and international activities Despite higher transaction costs, a multicountry set- multicountry approaches than on making a final judg- ting may lead to shared-and thus lower-costs for ment about "what has worked, what has not, why, and project implementation activities. A shared vision under what circumstances," as stated in the Terms of expressed in an action program and interaction Reference (Annex 1). among countries may lead to improved results. How- ever, regional organizations sometimes need a sub- A total of 36 GEF projects was included in the re- stantial amount of strengthening in order to be view. All 28 relevant projects in the international sustainable, especially if donors do not take a re- waters portfolio, Operational Programs (OPs) 8 and gional approach into account in their financing 9, were included. In addition, eight projects from the schemes. biodiversity portfolio were included, as they focused on biodiversity protection in the context of Review Approach transboundary water bodies. This thematic review has analyzed experience in It was decided during the discussions to extend the greater depth than is possible during PIRs, but is not review with an in-depth study of 10 projects. The in- intended to be a full, field-level program evaluation. depth study included the review of available project It is based on document and literature reviews, inter- documentation (i.e., project briefs, project docu- views, and limited field visits. ments, supervision reports, evaluation reports, and completion reports). It was further decided to make The review began with a series of discussions with on-site visits to selected project sites. Visits to the the GEF secretariat and representatives of the imple- Danube Basin and Mediterranean area were made in menting agencies. In these discussions, mutual under- November 1999. In January 2000, missions to Lake standing about the scope of this review was reached. Malawi and Lake Victoria were conducted. In Febru- A key point made was that most of the projects in the ary-March 2000, the Baltic Sea Environment Protec- GEF portfolio are still just beginning or are in the tion Commission (HELCOM) was visited. Finally, in preparation stage. Thus, it will be difficult to make April 2000, the East Asian Seas project was visited by judgments about the final performance of each a GEF Secretariat staff member who was not part of multicountry approach because it is not yet known the core review team. whether in fact the project will succeed. The review consequently concentrated more on assessing organi- Some limitations were observed during the review's zational and implementation arrangements in conduct. The present status of the GEF portfolio pro- 7 vided only a limited opportunity to analyze projects at tion was the relative scarcity of material for the analy- various stages of implementation and make conclu- sis. It was possible to get sufficient materials from sions about their multicountry implementation ar- only half of the projects chosen for the survey. Only rangements. Most projects under implementation 20 of the 36 projects returned the questionnaires, and were developed during the pilot phase; many newer only a few were complete (see Volume II of this projects are still at very early stages. Another limita- report). 8 The Review Site Visits * The quality of water: pollutants (hot spots), waste- water, agricultural practices, toxic substances This section presents the main lessons learned and future considerations with respect to the projects that * The quantity of water: dams, flood control were visited during the review. Detailed reports of the project visits are included in Volume II of this report, * River navigation: dams, regulation available from GEF's Monitoring and Evaluation Team. * Fisheries. Danube River Basin Projects: Pilot Phase, Even though the problems of the Danube River have Bridging Project, and Preparation of the been recognized for decades, it was not certain as of Regional Implementation Project the beginning of the 1990s that there would be a Danube program. In September 1991, however, a Project Background planning meeting was held in Sofia. The Environ- mental Program for the Danube River Basin The Danube River Basin is in the heartland of South (EPDRB), Phase I, was launched in 1992. A Strategic Central and Southeastern Europe. The river flows for Action Plan (SAP) was prepared during 1994. The a distance of 2,857 kilometers and drains an area of second phase of the EPDRB started with the SAP 817,000 square kilometers. The area includes all of Implementation Program (SIP) in 1996. The SIP Hungary and Romania, most of Austria, Croatia and switched the program's emphasis from planning to Slovenia, nearly half of Czech Republic and doing. In this, it was a forward-looking program of Slovakia, a third of Bulgaria, and significant areas of projects designed to take the EPDRB to the year Germany and Ukraine. Land use in this large basin is 2000. Since 1996, the SIP has intensified technical highly diversified, including a wide range of agricul- assistance to continue and introduce new demonstra- tural practices, forestry, mining, natural areas, settle- tion projects and activities for transboundary issues. ments and industries. The critical interdependence of At a 1994 meeting in Bucharest, participants agreed upstream and downstream neighbors for managing upon a progress review after three years (1997); this the environmental quality of the Danube can be seen review resulted in a revised SAP in 1999. at all levels of the basin. In addition, there are impor- tant linkages with the Danube River, its delta, and the In summary, then, the EPDRB Phase I came to an end environmental quality of the Black Sea. by 1996. A bridging project was implemented during 1996-99, culminating in a revised SAP. The EPDRB Among the transboundary issues of the Danube River was initiated by GEF/United Nations Development Basin are the following: Programme (UNDP). 9 Organizational Structure sensus on their shared environmental problems. It demonstrated that donor funding and donor collabo- The Convention on Cooperation for the Protection ration were essential to begin such work and that a and Sustainable Use of the Danube River serves as project coordination unit was critical in facilitating the legal base for the Danube River Program. The country involvement from the beginning. The pilot convention has its own permanent secretariat in phase project was begun before the GEF Operational Vienna to support the International Water Commis- Strategy was adopted by the GEF Council; because sion and other bodies established within its frame- other unscheduled outputs were needed for GEF pur- work. The convention also has established permanent poses, a second modest GEF project-known as the expert groups for specific tasks. bridging project and conducted with additional EU funding-was implemented. The EPDRB Project Coordination Unit (PCU) was initially established by the EU PHARE program in During these interventions, the multicountry pro- Brussels in 1991. GEF thus came, in a way, to partici- cesses grew more in line with the GEF Operational pate in an ongoing project. In 1994, the PCU moved Strategy as the countries undertook processes to to Vienna; it dealt with the daily coordination of jointly agree on a few transboundary priorities program activities and financial matters, arranged through the production of a TDA based on existing meetings, and acted as a technical advisory body. The information; identified hotspots contributing to the PCU's main task was to assist the Project Manage- priority issues, and formulated an SAP delineating ment Task Force (PMTF), a body of about 30 mem- what policy, institutional, and legal reforms and in- bers including representatives from the Danube vestments they intended to implement to address the countries, various donors, experts, and non-govern- priority issues. Experience dictated that if all environ- mental organizations (NGOs). The PCU became the mental issues were to be addressed, very little convention secretariat in 1999. The transformation of progress would result in a defined time. By focusing the PCU to a secretariat supported by the countries is on selected transboundary issues, there was a better a key element for ensuring verification and transpar- chance of success. ency among all stakeholders and for information dis- semination through a website for the public. Interministerial committees were formed by neces- sity in each country to provide input to the There are three principal actors in the EPDRB: the multicountry deliberations in producing the TDA and European Union (EU), GEF, and the Danube River SAP. This was evident when the mission visited Hun- Protection Convention. EU implements its activities gary where such an interministerial system was criti- through the PHARE program and GEF through cal to the country's input. The Danube projects also UNDP. The convention joins the other stakeholders demonstrated the importance of working at multiple in the project though the PMTF. The UNDP-PHARE institutional levels to address complex transboundary PCU helps the PMTF work with the expert groups, water issues. Country capacity for joint work at the which are sometimes divided into subgroups. The multicountry level was facilitated by the PCU, and other GEF implementing agencies, the World Bank decisions were made at this level in the PMTF. All and United Nations Environment Programme three GEF implementing agencies participated in the (UNEP), are assisting in the development of the final PMTF, along with major donors and NGOs. Dialogue GEF-funded regional project and in the implementa- occurred at the national level through the tion of investments. interministerial coordinating arrangements in each country; this enhanced both information flow and Observations collaboration among sectors that might not otherwise have typically interacted. Such committees are essen- The succession of regional projects in the Danube tial to (1) provide input to the multicountry activities, Basin and similar ones in the six Black Sea countries (2) lead the national planning workshops and pro- represent the most mature of GEF's strategic inter- cesses of reforming national policy/legal arrange- ventions in this focal area. With EU and GEF support, ments and promoting needed investments; and (3) the pilot phase project aimed to facilitate the Danube dialogue with subnational units of government and Basin countries' learning to work together and begin- stakeholders for on-the-ground implementation, es- ning to develop a common understanding of and con- pecially in hotspot cleanup. The interministerial com- 10 mittee then becomes the key element in implementa- processes and EU directives in accelerating imple- tion. It can also help provide visibility and empower- mentation. The Danube SAP implementation project ment to newly established environment ministries currently under preparation includes all three GEF when they chair the interministerial committee. implementing agencies according to their compara- tive advantages in assisting the Danube client coun- The existence of the Danube convention and its po- tries. This collaborative approach has resulted from litical mandate was critical in sustaining positive eight years of GEF support as countries focus on country participation. During the course of the first implementing the necessary policy, legal, and institu- two projects, the use of international consultants was tional reforms; demonstration activities; and priority gradually reduced and more local consultants were investments in the SAP. Flexible EU support was used. Over time, theconflicting priorities of various essential during the gaps in GEF funding. donors that had been experienced initially were sorted out through production of the SAP, so that Through the implementing agencies' support for an some donors might help with certain priorities and array of projects in the 17-country Black Sea-Danube others would assist with different interventions. Basin region-support that is provided by three basin Along with this evolution, the PCU gradually was projects and embodied in a draft GEF Programmatic transformed into the Danube convention secretariat in Approach for the area-the downstream needs for 1999 under direct control of the countries rather than the Black Sea restoration were incorporated into the up- donors. This is a model for other multicountry arrange- stream Danube and Dnieper Basin GEF projects. ments to ensure sustainability in finances and political Around the globe, pollution of coastal seas can only commitment following the end of GEF support. be reversed by measures in the basins draining to them, and they remain virtually unaddressed. NGO program involvement and support was also Completion of the needed strategic work and initia- very important and was encouraged by GEF through tion of implementation was able to encompass prior- support for a Danube Environmental Forum. At each ity Black Sea environmental needs in the six years PMTF meeting as well as through a small grants since the convention (eight years since the first GEF program, NGO participation in subnational activities intervention)-a relatively rapid pace compared to was stimulated. This harnessing of stakeholders to the other transboundary water programs in developed participate in implementation is being expanded as countries mentioned earlier. The EU accession pro- part of current preparation of the SAP implementa- cess and availability of grant funding have stimulated tion project. this progress. If implementation proceeds as noted in the programmatic approach, the time to implementation The Danube database that has been established can from first political commitment would have been re- provide an important M&E function at the end of duced to perhaps one-half that of some of the earlier GEF support. Each country can then report to the transboundary programs of North America and Europe. convention the status of interventions it is to imple- ment under the SAP. Each country will then report Determination of Priority Actions for Further progress through performance indicators in undertak- Elaboration and Implementation of the ing necessary reforms (process indicators), pollution Mediterranean Sea SAP reduction measures (stress reduction indicators), and subsequent improvement in environmental status of Project Background the river. The last element is based on the jointly agreed, harmonized, and executed monitoring pro- The semi-enclosed Mediterranean Sea occupies a gram to confirm ecosystem improvements. Perhaps major portion of the total basin area, with large rivers the most significant lessons relate to collaboration such as the Ebro, Rhone, Po, and Nile draining into it. among GEF implementing agencies and donors ac- The 20 Mediterranean countries have a history of cording to their comparative advantages, the use of thousands of years of working together. Despite this GEF implementing agencies to facilitate the coordi- long history, the variety of countries and their mutual nated grouping of related projects in a geographic tensions characterize the region: rich North versus area to address downstream environmental problems poorer South; EU countries versus non-EU; Arab of the coastal seas (which have been unaddressed countries against Israel; Greece against Turkey; a across the world), and the influence of EU accession divided Cyprus, Libya, Algeria, and so on. 11 On the other hand, the driving force in making the points). These focal points consist of representatives Mediterranean countries work together is tourism. As of the countries' appropriate ministries (environment, early as the 1960s, countries around the Mediterra- foreign affairs, etc.) and exist in areas such as nean felt they had to do something to protect the sea. biodiversity and emerging protocols. The focal points The Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) was adopted meet before the Meeting of the Contracting Parties to by 16 countries and the European Commission meet- the Convention to discuss upcoming issues. Such ing under the auspices of UNEP in 1975. MAP en- meetings are held every two years. tered into force in 1978. Its objective is the protection of the Mediterranean environment, particularly the MEDU is housed in a UN office; MED POL is lo- marine environment, against various forms of pollu- cated in the same building, which has proven to be a tion. Another program, the Program for Pollution good arrangement since it provides a good basis for Monitoring and Research in the Mediterranean Sea coordinating activities. NGOs have also participated (MED POL), was also approved in 1975. in MEDU meetings almost from the very beginning. They are invited to the focal point meetings, technical In 1976, the Convention for the Protection of the meetings, and action plan meetings. Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution (the Barcelona Convention) was signed by 20 countries; this conven- Through protocols and legal agreements on such is- tion became the legal basis for MAP, previously an ad sues as dumping at sea, MAP pioneered the idea that hoc program. In the same year, the convention's first the basin's pollution and degradation was a regional two protocols were signed, those regarding hazardous problem that should be tackled regionally. METAP wastes and marine pollution). On behalf of the con- was funded by the Commission of the European tracting parties of the Barcelona Convention (includ- Communities, the European Investment Bank, ing the EU), UNEP made an application to GEF for a UNDP, and the World Bank. METAP helps the Medi- Block-B grant in order to complete the formulation of terranean countries-individually and collectively- a Strategic Action Program for the Mediterranean Sea design and implement environmental projects and (SAP MED). The preparation process was imple- strengthen or build environmental institutions by de- mented during 1997 and 1998. SAP MED is derived veloping appropriate policy options and mobilizing from the earlier MAP. resources. METAP is also a vehicle to raise public awareness about the environment. During the SAP MED process, transboundary issues were addressed. Past experience, together with the Observations findings of the draft TDA prepared with a GEF project development facility grant, suggested that a The Mediterranean Program was found to have a major constraint to the protection of the Mediterra- quite complex institutional structure that reflects its nean marine and coastal environment results from long history and the complexities of the relationships inappropriate management of the coastal zone. among the 20 participating nations. An outsider would have difficulty comprehending the myriad The Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assis- agreements and arrangements ranging from MAP, tance Program (METAP), which is a partnership be- created 25 years ago, to MED POL, MAP MEDU, the tween donors and the 18 Mediterranean countries Blue Plan, METAP, the Barcelona Convention, the with a coastline, is part of a wider and older process coordinating unit, the many protocols including the of collaboration and cooperation which began with series of land-based pollution protocols, and now the MAP in 1975. two GEF-supported SAPs-one of which has already been completed and another that is being formulated Organizational Structure under the recently initiated GEF international waters project. The MAP Coordinating Unit (MEDU) was estab- lished in Athens in 1982 in order to act as a facilitator, The MAP-sponsored monitoring, assessments, and i.e., a secretariat, to overcome the unavoidable research have been the focus of activities for the last discontinuities in program implementation. Specifi- quarter century, perhaps as a means of finding ways cally, MEDU enables daily contact with the national to work cooperatively and build capacity to share ministries and project units (i.e., the project focal common knowledge about the shared resource. The 12 MAP publications list contains 126 monitoring- and well as 54 sensitive areas (areas of concern) that may assessment-related reports produced over the years. relate to habitat and living resources. The MAP coor- Needless to say, involving 20 such diverse countries dinating unit in Athens, which is also the Barcelona in building a common vision of the Mediterranean Convention secretariat, has facilitated this process environment has been an enormously difficult task. with national consultants, funding to countries, and One impediment has certainly been the marine nature involvement of NGOs. Thus, the Mediterranean of the Barcelona Convention, which did not specifi- countries have moved forward rapidly with political cally involve the river basin drainage area to the commitment and priorities for action with GEF sup- Mediterranean; this has hindered political commit- port. One other itemrelates to the extension of MAP ment to address pollution sources from these river activities up to the river basins as part of the GEF- basins. The process of building support for reversing supported SAP. Countries will now focus not only on the degradation of the Mediterranean dates back to the marine water but also on the river basins and the 1960s. During the intervening years and with the upstream pollution sources that were not covered in intervening studies, the realization dawned that a new the original convention. approachbased on implementation of policy, institu- tional, and legal reforms and investments was needed Another catalytic role for GEF relates to consolidat- to accelerate progress. Consequently, when GEF as- ing divergent activities under the rubric of the sistance was requested in 1997, the climate was ripe Barcelona Convention. The example is METAP, for governments to commit to a cleanup. The key which was a separate program and had separate pri- factor was the revised Protocol to the Convention on orities. Now, through the joint GEF international wa- Land-Based Sources of Marine Pollution adopted in ters project with UNEP and the World Bank, the Syracuse in 1996 in response to the 1995 Washington Bank's support for METAP is institutionally being Program for Action on the subject. This political coordinated through the convention for prefeasibility commitment seems to have been essential in the drive studies of priority investments. Working with for quick results in 1997 and 1998 utilizing GEF METAP, UNEP is using its comparative advantage preparation funding to adopt a SAP for reducing land- under GEF-and the Bank is doing likewise in the based pollution sources. The SAP is the best example investment process. This coordination and coopera- of a GEF catalytic action involving political commit- tion fosters a more productive and logical approach ment. As a way of operationalizing their revised con- that may be taken by the countries under the conven- vention protocol, all countries, both developing and tion to address convention-priority investments. developed, that share the Mediterranean are commit- ted through the SAP to reduce the releases of a large Lake Victoria Environmental Management number of pollutants by specific amounts and spe- Project cific deadlines.This is an excellent example of a best practice in the international waters focal area. Project Background The GEF project currently under implementation in- Lake Victoria and its basin contain five countries: cludes development of a SAP to operationalize the Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, and Kenya. biodiversity-related protocol to the Barcelona Con- Each country has access to the basin's natural re- vention to include human' impacts (pollution, loss of sources, and each country has an impact on the lake's habitat, overexploitation) on the living resources of environmental condition. The Lake Victoria Environ- the Mediterranean. It will also support the production mental Management Project (LVEMP) is a compre- of national action programs that identify the country- hensive program aimed at rehabilitation of the lake driven priorities for investments and policy/institu- ecosystem for the benefit of the people who live in the tional/legal reforms addressing land-based sources catchment, the national economies of which they are and human-induced degradation of the sea's living a part, and the global community. The project objec- resources. This also seemsto be an example of a best tives are to (1) maximize the sustainable benefits to practice in utilizing national interministerial commit- riparian communities using resources within the ba- tees to translate political imperatives on the sin to generate food, employment, and income; sup- multicountry level into national reforms. These may ply safe water; and sustain a disease-free then be implemented on the subnational level-with environment and (2) conserve biodiversity and ge- priorities already set in the TDA for 111 hotspots as netic resources for the benefit of riparian communi- 13 ties and the global community. The project was de- sewage contribute to the lake's eutrophication. The signed for and by the three participating countries- dense population concentrations, urbanization, and Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda-with help from GEF. industrialization in Kenya and Uganda are major con- Given the political situation, Rwanda and Burundi tributors to the lake's environmental problems of the have not been able to participate in the project. lake. In Kenya, Kisumu and other major towns re- lease virtually untreated sewage into the lake, A pa- The LVEMP Tripartite Agreement was signed in per mill, breweries, and industrial-level production of 1994 by all three countries. The agreement served as sugar in multiple mills are major sources of nutrient the basis for further preparation of the project. A inflows into the lake as is the application of subsi- regional task force was created, and each of the three dized fertilizer on sugar and tea estates. Other con- countries formed national working groups. In each tributors to pollution include government-sponsored country, national reports were prepared through drainage of critical wetlands, such as the Yala workshops and discussions at the grassroots level Swamp, which reduce their nutrient-trapping ability. involving relevant stakeholders as well as the scien- tific community. The preparation lasted about two Organizational Structure years at the national level; the end product was a report from each country. The reports identified very The project started at the regional level. However, the similar priorities and formed the basis for the applica- project design reflects country-driven activities in tion for World Bank funding submitted in 1996. The three different national programs. The World Bank application was handed over to GEF and approved in has made one individual credit agreement (IDA) and 1997. one grant agreement (to GEF) for each of the three countries, and a regional contract also exists. Each The project was designed to last 5.5 years. At present, country implements project components on a national project implementation is in its third year. Mid-term basis, with regional meetings held at several levels. reviews in each country were conducted in the first For example, attempts have been made to harmonize half of 1999. The preparation used two Block-B the fisheries legislation and water quality standards, preparation grants as part of the preparation phase, which differ considerably among the countries. totaling US$1.8 million. It was mutually agreed to locate the regional secre- Lake Victoria is relatively shallow. The Nile perch tariat in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, where the develop- fishery, which was introduced in the 1960s, has ment of an environmental project had been going on evolved into the largest freshwater fishery in the with help from FAO since 1988. Each country also world with an approximate value of $200 million per has a national secretariat. The Regional Policy and year. The introduction of the Nile perch into the lake Steering Committee, consisting of three members had a significant impact on biodiversity as the new from each country at a high political level, acts as the species largely replaced those previously found in the project's coordinating body. The committee is sup- lake. The basis of this fishery is in a changed environ- posed to meet two to three times a year. ment that has resulted from the increased level of nutrients and sediment in the lake. Later develop- A Convention for the Establishment of the Lake ments have demonstrated the negative effects of ex- Victoria Fisheries Organization (LVFO), drafted with cessive eutrophication, however. An infestation with FAO assistance, was discussed in the three countries water hyacinth and other weeds (e.g., hippo grass, in late 1993 and early 1994, and signed by all three on papyrus) could threaten not only the fishery. but also June 30, 1994. LVFO was to be presided over by a the economic viability of all lacustrine communities, Council of Ministers responsible for fisheries. It was and toxic algal blooms are now being recorded. to have an Executive Committee made up of Direc- tors of Fisheries Research, a Fisheries Management The root causes of the changes in the lake environ- Committee, a Scientific Committee, such other sub- ment are in the surrounding land areas, but these vary committees and working groups as might be needed from country to country. In Tanzania, population from time to time, and a Permanent Secretariat lo- densities and urbanization levels are not as high as in cated in Entebbe, Uganda. the other countries, but livestock and one urban area's 14 Observations Benefits of a Comprehensive Funding Package. In a region such as the Lake Victoria Basin where real Involvement of Basin Countries and Regional Co- development and natural resource management prob- ordination. LVEMP is very much three separate lems affect people's day-to-day life, it is important country projects located under a common umbrella. that global environmental benefits accruing from a These projects have advanced at very different paces. project be coupled with national and local benefits. In Although a detailed tripartite agreement was signed the case of LVEMP, the GEF grant is matched by at the time of the launching of the preparation process concessional IDA loan financing in each country for in August 1994, an integrated approach to project productive activities with direct local and national implementation has not been pursued. In this regard, benefits. This combination has had beneficial impacts an emphasis was originally placed upon working on the project's perception in the region. For other through LVFO. Currently, however, LVFO's role is international waters projects that must address land mainly focused on fisheries. management issues, this experience is quite impor- tant in illustrating the need to produce financing The multicountry activities of the project are the re- packages so basin development needs may be met sponsibility of the Regional Executive Coordinator's along with global considerations. office located in Dar es Salaam. The same office acts as the national secretariat for Tanzania, which is an In the LVEMP umbrella multicountry setting, arrangement that has been found to be a source of microprojects have proven to be a flexible approach concern. It is felt, especially in the other participating in decreasing the startup transaction costs of joint countries, that this arrangement results in certain con- activities. They have had a demonstration effect flicts of interest and lack of attention to multicountry whereby microprojects in a basin country or area issues. With this in mind, it is advisable to separate have enabled the implementation of LVEMP to move these two functions and to provide a secretariat that into concrete, field-level activities with local ben- has only one responsibility to enhance harmonization efits. The success of community-based rearing of and coordination among the countries. This separa- weevils for water hyacinth control is a good example. tion of functions has already been agreed upon by the project participants. Execution of Project Components Nationally and Regionally. Regional cooperation among the project A unique achievement has been the establishment of components is vital in ensuring development of a regional Tender Board to service the entire project. shared understanding, shared commitments, and har- This feature is intended to provide economies of scale monized actions that do not place countries at eco- and to smooth purchasing under the project; in prac- nomic disadvantage. This cooperation will require tice, however, it has been somewhat hampered by sufficient funding for regional activities. The national increased bureaucracy. Nevertheless, the concept is secretariats have an important role in coordinating the perceived as highly beneficial. domestic components' cooperation and for providing their country's input to the regional dialogue. The It has proven to be important to have an effective importance of unhindered flow of information, coop- system for coordinating the activities between not eration in component design, and sometimes even only the sectoral authorities involved in the project joint implementation is apparent. In addition to com- but also between the countries. A key element of the prehensive problem solving, close cooperation may project is the control of water hyacinth infestation. To lead to economizing in data collection, monitoring, this end, the project is testing various methods for and sampling; avoidance of duplication of effort; and water hyacinth control, including biological and me- improved utilization of experiences. chanical means, and the utilization of harvesters. One of the major drawbacks in this and other respects in It appears to be essential that the national project the project is that not all basin countries are party to it. executing authorities be located close to where the For example, much of the water hyacinth reaches the activities need to be executed. In Tanzania, the 1999 lake through the Kagera River, meaning that it would move of the project office from Dar es Salaam to be essential to engage Rwanda and Burundi in the Mwanza resulted in accelerated project progress. In project as soon as this is politically possible. Kenya, while the project offices are now located in Kisumu and other basin towns, the slow release of 15 funds from the treasury continues to hamper project forns they identify. This strategic work still needs to implementation. Most of the heads of the project be accomplished. components are also still based in Nairobi. These implementation differences contribute to the dispari- Similarly, for complex and politically sensitive ties among the countries and are likely to slow down multicountry projects dealing with transboundary re- overall project progress. sources, such as LVEMP, the implementing agencies must provide appropriate incentives and sufficient One aspect of the project is its large number of com- administrative resources for project supervision. In ponents and the fact that their implementation status the LVEMP case, the World Bank is already on its vis-a-vis each other and the different participating third task manager during the project life time. The countries varies significantly. Each of the compo- supervision resources only allow one supervision nents is encouraged to have regular meetings with mission to each country annually. More emphasis their counterparts in the other participating countries. should be given to continuity and effectiveness of These efforts at harmonization have not been evalu- project supervision to ensure results on the ground. ated, but ad hoc meetings cannot substitute for an independent, dedicated facilitating organization that Lake Malawi/Nyasa Biodiversity Conservation can establish a sense of trust and joint equivalent Project action among all countries. Project Background Need for M&E and Indicators. The lack of process indicators as well as comprehensive M&E at the re- The emphasis of this GEF pilot phase project has gional level make it difficult to assess progress. It will been on establishing the scientific, educational, and be important to better coordinate the activities of the policy basis for the sustainable conservation and sectoral or thematic components within each country management of the lake's globally important as well as among the three. A joint, shared manage- biodiversity. A major objective is strengthening ca- ment information system for the entire project might pacity among the participating countries-Malawi, help so countries could report progress in reduced Mozambique and Tanzania-in freshwater manage- stress on Lake Victoria, but this has yet to be put in ment. research, and environmental education. The place. project has provided baseline biological and water quality information for future scientific monitoring Institutional and Legal Harmonization. There is and lake resource management. These outputs to- also a need to make a stronger link to policy formula- gether with the initiatives to harmonize policy and tion, legal and institutional reforms, and harmoniza- legislation are expected to strengthen trinational lake tion at both the national and regional levels. Only research and management and provide the capacity such linkages could result in the required institutional and information necessary for maintaining developments that would guarantee the project's biodiversity in the lake. sustainability. Although the Lake Malawi/Nyasa project encom- Resources for Supervision and Donor Coordina- passes all three countries sharing the lake, its activi- tion. It seems evident that there will be a second ties are heavily concentrated in Malawi. This fact is phase to LVEMP, which has had a slow start. There is largely due to the original driving force for the project significant donor interest in the region. It is therefore being the Malawi govemment. The physiography of important that other donors, including bilaterals, the lake is such that only its southern part in Malawi working in the same geographical area need to be provides a shallow shelf which allows for small-scale coopted to a broader programmatic context. The GEF coastal fisheries. In other parts of the lake, this shelf is Operational Strategy recommends a process for coun- missing and the shores are steeper. Furthermore, tries jointly producing a SAP through country-spe- Mozambique and Tanzania both have a long coast to cific interministerial committees as an instrument for the Indian Ocean, which has resulted in more empha- ensuring country ownership of reforms needed; this sis on oceanic fisheries. For these reasons, the pres- can then produce a logical framework for donors that sures on the lake fishery in Mozambique and wish to help countries make the country-driven re- Tanzania are significantly less severe than in Malawi, 16 where intensive small-scale fisheriesin the southern mental management of Lake Malawi/Nyasa thus re- part of the lake has caused a noticeable decrease in quires an integrated approach to land and water man- fish yields and stocks in response to the rapid popula- agement. Developing such an approach requires a tion growth in the country. Lake Malawi is not as longer term perspective in which coordination be- important a resource for the other tow countries, nor tween the various components, sectoral ministries, do they pose the main threats to the lake. This situa- and activities in the different countries is essential. A tion, however, is beginning to change as more people focus should also be on harmonization among project move to the shores of the lake in Tanzania and, espe- components where there is potential overlap or where cially. Mozambique where the extended civil war is cooperation could lead to economies of scale and now over and displaced people are being resettled on complementarities. a large scale. There is a risk that projects of this type become too Organizational Structure complex, with the result that the overall goal may be lost. It is also harder to monitor and evaluate the The project is supervised by a tripartite Steering overall success of a project when the different com- Committee involving all three countries in the basin. ponents and different countries involved progress at The Steering Committee is chaired by the principal varying paces. secretary of the Malawi Ministry of Natural Re- sources and Environmental Affairs. The funds for Developing a Shared Vision and Establishing project activities are channeled through Malawi; this Long-Term Monitoring. Analysis of the Lake country also dominates most project decisions. There Malawi/Nyasa and the Lake Victoria projects demon- was only one GEF legal grant agreement with the strates how differences in physical environment and government of Malawi. The legal framework is being socioeconomic conditions and development set the implemented through an agreement of technical co- challenges for achieving sustainable development in operation that the three countries signed with FAO in a specific context. Consequently, proposed actions in 1997. a basin need to be based on a scientific analysis of the transboundary problems facing the lake in question. Observations Similarly, long-term scientific M&E is needed that should continue beyond the project's lifetime in order Political Commitment and Shared Long-Term to ensure its impacts. This may require searching for Vision to Support Integrated Approach. The Lake alternative and innovative funding mechanisms that Malawi/Nyasa Basin case demonstrates the need to would guarantee the sustainability of M&E efforts. develop political commitment among sectoral minis- Furthermore, M&E should focus on outcomes rather tries in each country and among countries, as well as than outputs, and process indicators should be a shared vision of action to reverse land degradation identified. and reduce fishing pressures where it is adversely affecting biodiversity. This commitment must incor- Need to Incorporate All Participating Countries. porate environmental management with the require- The present project focused almost exclusively on ment of improving the livelihood of the stakeholder fisheries and on one of the countries-Malawi- communities in which poverty is still prevalent. As which also reaped most of the benefits. Although the many threats to the lake's biodiversity and environ- implementation of all project components was guided ment as a whole are related to management of land- by a tripartite Steering Committee, the participation based resources and the growing population that of the Mozambique and Tanzanian governments has intensively farms the land or extracts fish from near- been very limited. Tanzania and Mozambique have shore areas, it is important to assume an approach that throughout the project expressed their desire for a integrates land and water management and engages more formal agreement that would guarantee a more all relevant agencies and stakeholders in the three equal sharing of project resources among the three countries. Apart from overfishing, the lake environ- countries for future monitoring and management ment is threatened by sedimentation. Intensive small- activities. holder agriculture, deforestation, and erosion in the watersheds surrounding the lake create strains on the One of the main lessons of the project is that, in order lake environment that need to be addressed. Environ- to engage countries effectively in a multicountry 17 project around a shared resource, all participating and principles of the Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive countries must be fully incorporated as equal partners Environmental Action Program (JCP). As a result of in the management of the shared resource. A regional these meetings, a new Convention on the Protection cooperation mechanism with sufficient resources is of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area- needed. Regional coordination should be the respon- the 1992 Helsinki Convention-was signed by all sibility of an entity that is seen as independent from nine countries involved as well as by the European national mechanisms in any participating country. Economic Community. The new convention came Regional activities should be identified as specific into force in January 2000. outputs and outcomes of multicountry projects, and should be monitored and evaluated as such. In re- Two other international conventions have jurisdiction gions such as the present one where the history of over the Baltic Sea large marine ecosystem. The In- cooperation around the shared resource is short and ternational Council for the Exploration of the Sea has where the countries have differing levels of interest in been involved since 1901 in developing international the lake, a phased approach could be adopted cooperation and advice for the North Atlantic and whereby the level of cooperation is increased as more adjacent seas such as the Baltic. Governments have experiences are gained. used the council's scientific advice for management purposes. In addition, the International Baltic Sea Need for Continuity in Project Management. Suf- Fisheries Commission manages the fisheries of the ficient administrative resources and appropriate in- cooperating Baltic nations. centives for the management of complex multicountry projects are needed both in countries as Observations well as in the implementing agencies. In the case of the Lake Malawi/Nyasa project, the World Bank is Political Commitment and Public Support. The already on its fourth task manager-a situation that is success achieved to date in implementation of the not ideal for continuity in managing a project. Simi- JCP is directly related to sustained political commit- larly, sufficient resources are needed for adequate ment and broad-based public support. This success supervision. can be attributed to the exceptionally effective devel- opment of a strong series of partnerships between In the countries concerned, frontline supervisors re- HELCOM, the European Union, regional organiza- sponsible for the important work may have much tions, cooperating countries, local governments, in- lower pay than the middle managers to whom they ternational financing institutions, bilateral donors, report. Consequently, the GEF project may lose key academic and applied research institutions, NGOs, country frontline supervisors to other higher paying and a large number of individual citizens. Further- jobs, often after sending them for advanced degrees more, the relatively favorable economic situation and training with little long-term benefit to the around the Baltic also contributes to the success of project. This disruptive element should be addressed cooperative activities. by the implementing agencies in fees through the adoption of premiums, and by countries in proper The successful incorporation of legal, policy, and remuneration for frontline supervisors. regulatory reforms into the HELCOM project has been exceptional. Thus a major lesson learned from Baltic Sea Environment Protection HELCOM is the necessity of emphasizing institu- Commission (HELCOM) tional development as well as biological and techni- cal activities. Another key element of the project has Project Background been public awareness, which has helped create the needed commitment at the individual as well as Baltic Sea environmental protection has a rather long policymaking levels. Note, however, that HELCOM tradition, stretching at least as far back as the 1974 has addressed pollution issues, while the other two Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environ- commissions address mainly living resources. The ment of the Baltic Sea. The diplomatic conference on three commissions have traditionally worked sepa- the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Bal- rately. The GEF project currently under development tic Sea adopted the Baltic Sea Environmental Decla- will contribute to implementation of the JCP through ration in 1992, which endorsed the strategic approach support for high-priority complementary activities to 18 be defined in detail under the GEF Project Develop- Dealing with Transboundary Pollution. An impor- ment Facility (PDF)-supported process, including In- tant share of Baltic Sea pollution is of transboundary terrelationship of Living Marine Resources to the origin. The major guideline for most Western coun- Baltic Sea Environment and Ecosystem and Reduc- tries in such matters is the "polluter pays" principle. It tion of Non-Point Source Pollution for Agriculture. It is understood, however, that this cannot be the sole will also support Strengthening Monitoring and As- regulator in the Baltic Sea. First, the countries with sessment of the Ecosystem and Development of Eco- reforming economies within the region do not yet system Indicators. These activities have been selected have the necessary capital or human resources to for support by GEF based on their importance to provide the required pollution control investments transboundary environmental management of the during their period of restructuring. Second, the Baltic Sea ecosystem and high potential for develop- higher income countries in the region are experienc- ment of model activities whose experience could be ing steeply rising unit costs of pollution control. transferred by GEF to other locations that share simi- Third, all the countries are subject to transboundary lar challenges. The project is intended to provide an pollution. Therefore, a case can be made for comple- important mechanism for fuller integration of the menting this principle with a transboundary approach ecological dimension through increasing emphasis on to environmental investments for domestic pollution the sustainability of living marine resources. It also reduction and by providing support for cost-effective aims to accelerate the rate at which actions will be action in other countries to reduce transboundary undertaken at the farm level to reduce non-point pollution.4 source pollution from agriculture in a cost-effective manner. Through GEF catalytic action, all three com- Organizational Issues. GEF funds are ordinarily di- missions with jurisdiction will work together for inte- rected to projects; HELCOM is a commission. GEF grated management of the Baltic Sea large marine was able, however, to fund HELCOM, as it and its ecosystem. secretariat are intergovernmental bodies. GEF's role is financing incremental environmental costs, while Links to Economic Development. Baltic Sea envi- the World Bank finances economic activities. In a ronmental protection has gone hand in hand with situation like this, there is a danger that the commis- economic development programs that have also been sion consisting of countries will be bypassed by the beneficial to the JCP. The alteration of pricing struc- implementing agencies dealing directly with the tures and attempts to better define property rights HELCOM Project Implementation Task Force. have contributed to the results. However, domestic priorities-especially in countries with economies in A major question with respect to HELCOM is its transition-have often hindered those countries from active role in relation to other donors that work di- reaching the best possible results. Another lesson rectly with the countries.5 A commission such as learned from HELCOM is the necessity of transpar- HELCOM can only do what the member countries ency both with regard to the activities and among want, yet HELCOM is currently at a stage where the countries. political commitment of many member countries is in question. To maintain political commitment, public The Time Dimension. In order to achieve sustain- awareness about JCP implementation needs improve- able results, projects such as HELCOM need to be ment.. In the near future, HELCOM is hiring a full- planned for 15 to 20 years rather than 3 to 5 years. time information officer to do publicity work, collect However, HELCOM has found that there is an in- information, maintain contactswith the media, and creasing demand on the part of countries for quicker keep the commission's website updated. reaction time than previously. This has led to a re- structuring of HELCOM, with committees and work- A challenge to a commission of this nature is to ing groups being replaced by task-oriented groups define its role and obtain the requisite political and capable of responding quickly to needed activities. public support based on this definition. Closer coop- 4 HELCOM, "The Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Program," Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 48 (Helsinki. 1993). 5 This question also concerns other commissions such as the Danube and Black Sea Commissions. 19 eration with other similar arrangements, such as three levels of coordination. The first level is project HELCOM and those for the Danube, Black Sea and execution by an international organization, IMO. To Mediterranean Sea, may play a beneficial role. facilitate day-to-day operations, the project estab- lished its own regional office, the PDMO, based in Program on Prevention and Management of one of the participating countries (Manila, Philippines). Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas The second level of coordination is at the subregional Project Background level, specifically a demonstration project in the Straits of Malacca. The project focused on pollution The East Asian Seas project was approved by the prevention and management in asubregional sea area GEF Council in July 1993, under the GEF's pilot bounded by three countries. The coordinating mecha- phase, with an allocation of $8.0 million. UNDP is nism involved a steering group, comprised of senior the GEF implementing agency, and the International government representatives from Indonesia, Malay- Maritime Organization (IMO) serves as the project's sia, and Singapore, and a technical and scientific executing agency. A regional program office, the group comprised of more than 30 experts and scien- Program Development and Management Office tists from universities in each of the littoral states. (PDMO). was set up in the Department of Environ- The mechanism served to develop consensus on the ment and Natural Resources of the Philippines and goals, methodologies, and expected outputs among began operations in January 1994. By December the three countries, as well as scientific and technical 1998, the pilot project had completed all its major support to deliver and achieve concurrence on the activities and submitted its terminal report and evalu- outputs themselves. A subregional environmental ation to UNDP and GEF in October 1999. A follow- risk assessment was completed, highlighting areas of on international waters project building on the pilot concern common to the three countries related to the project was approved in July of that year. ecosystem within the Straits, human health of coastal communities along the Straits, and society as a whole The project covers a regional water body shared by 11 in the three countries. The approach will serve as a countries (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, model in other subregional sea areas of the region. DPR Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and Viet- In addition to the PDMO and demonstration sites, at nam). It represents a unique approach to multicountry the third level, the project introduced the following coordination by an international organization, utiliz- institutional mechanisms to ensure multicountry ing demonstration projects at both the subregional coordination: and local levels to develop and test management mechanisms that may then be replicated elsewhere in * Program Steering Committee (PSC) composed of the region. The project has five objectives: (1) devel- representatives of participating countries, UNDP, opment and implementation of integrated coastal and IMO, with observers from international and management (ICM) demonstration sites, (2) develop- regional organizations, donors, and NGOs-The ment and demonstration of environmental manage- PSC met annually to provide policy guidance and ment of a subregional sea area using risk assessment/ assess progress of activities, especially with re- risk management processes, (3) enhancement of par- gard to meeting the needs of countries in the re- ticipating countries' ratification to and implementa- gion. The project workplan and budget were also tion of international conventions related to the approved by the PSC, which signified endorse- prevention and management of marine pollution, (4) ment of the project's objectives and operations by development and promotion of sustainable financing the countries. mechanisms for marine pollution prevention and management programs, and (5) establishment of an Regional Network of LegalAdvisors and Regional environmental monitoring and information manage- Network on Environmental Monitoring, comprised ment network. of in-country professionals and institutions-The networks provide materials and inputs to develop Organizational Structure project training materials and related technical/ legal documentation. Workshops and training ac- The project's institutional structure makes use of tivities were designed for specialized manage- 20 ment-oriented programs, including environmen- life of the project, 29 training courses and workshops tal monitoring, strategies and techniques for imple- were attended by over 1,270 participants from the 11 menting international conventions, model legis- countries in the region. lation, etc. Similarly, such an umbrella project can induce col- * National Network of Marine Experts, comprised laborative activities with international partners. The largely of in-country professionals-The network project was successful in sponsoring and facilitating provided the materials and resource persons for the conduct of more than 30 collaborative activities capacity-building workshops designed for special- with international and regional agencies and organi- ized management-oriented programs and marine zations, such as regional training courses, publica- pollution modules, including training in ICM, oil tions, international workshops, and information pollution preparedness and response, and environ- exchange with international partners, including the mental impact assessment. The network also pro- Canadian International Development Agency, Swed- duced a good practices guide that was translated ish International Development Cooperation Agency, into nine regional languages. City University of Hong Kong, Japan International Cooperation Agency, Japan Association of Marine * Local Interagency Project Committee in the two Safety, the Norwegian government, and the British demonstration sites (Philippines and China) to pro- Council. vide a pilot model for multisectoral consultation that also involved the private sector-Although Important project-initiated activities have supported the institutional setup was at the site and commu- country ratification of international and regional con- nity levels, there are significant impacts regard- ventions through the development of, e.g., Guidelines ing its operation and structure that may be appli- on National Legislation on Marine Pollution Preven- cable to multicountry arrangements. The local tion and Management for East Asian Countries and a committees were effective in building stakeholder Model Framework of National Marine Pollution Leg- consensus on priority activities and dispute reso- islation for East Asian Countries. These products are lution. An important contribution of the local com- supplemented by a legal information database con- mittee setup was facilitation of the formulation taining over 600 materials and references, an aggres- and passage of key local legislation and regula- sive awareness and dissemination campaign, and tions on access and use of coastal and marine re- reviews of existing national marine pollution legisla- sources. tion. There have been at least 36 country-specific ratifications of conventions and protocols during the Observations project's lifetime. However, several countries still have not ratified some of the most critical interna- Utilizing an Umbrella Multicountry Approach. tional and regional marine pollution conventions. The East Asian Seas project has been based on an umbrella approach developed during the pilot phase Defining the Geographical Scope of Management which has allowed activities to be undertaken nation- and Project Boundaries. An umbrella project such ally. This approach has been used to improve man- as the present one can define the overall framework agement of identified hotspots through for managing the ecosystem within which more geo- government-sponsored demonstration sites. China graphically distinct actions can take place. An ex- and the Philippines provided significant counterpart ample of this would be Malacca Straits, where support to the Xiamen and Batangas Bay sites, re- collaboration was organized within a multicountry spectively; and the governments of Indonesia, Malay- subunit of the ecosystem covered by the project. GEF sia, and Singapore jointly produced an assessment of approved the follow-up project with the understand- environmental risks in the Malacca Straits. The um- ing that individual ecosystem-based projects, such as brella approach can facilitate multicountry collabora- the South China Sea and Yellow Sea, would comple- tion and information sharing on nationally ment the existing project. implemented actions. Maximizing Advantages of Local-Level Imple- National capacity was developed cost effectively by mentation. The GEF international waters OPs recog- coordinated multicountry training programs. Over the nize the need to focus actions on three institutional 21 levels: multicountry, national interministerial, and Strengthening National Participation. A common, subnational. This project focused on implementation yet critical, issue in any multicountry project is at the subnational level where project impacts matter strengthening national participation beyond the most. Although it can be argued that the weak link government's initial cash and in-kind counterpart may lie in scaling up the gains from localized in- contributions. Several reasons are cited for the dwin- volvement to multicountry levels, the project has dling interest of governments. One is the changing demonstrated that there are replicable aspects. Per- government agency administration and representa- haps it is in the area of expanding the improvements tion on the PSC. This lack of consistency makes in the pilot sites to national programs and regionwide coordination difficult, especially if the transition impacts where the challenge may be greatest. from one administration to another is not as smooth as desired. One way of strengthening national partici- The institutional mechanisms established in the pilot pation is by offering concrete, tested approaches to sites offer significant lessons for similar projects. For coastal and marine resource management. In fact, the example, in Xiamen, the municipality established an project has improved awareness of the lessons interagency coordinating committee and special ma- learned in ICM through its extensive publication and rine office that facilitated the passage of legislation information exchange programs. However, there is a by the Chinese Congress. The lesson in this experi- need to incorporate these more systematically into ence indicates that pressures from communities may national plans and strategies. This link to national be more effective than focusing at the top, as the plans is one of the most challenging tasks facing the project has shown in its difficulties in securing second phase of the project since most of the coun- ratification of MARPOL 73/78 by the Philippine tries in the region do not have updated or comprehen- government. sive countrywide coastal and marine resources development strategies. In other projects (e.g., the Single-country demonstrations as part of Danube), development of a SAP has helped facilitate multicountry projects may be irreplaceable in break- government commitment, and SAP implementation ing down barriers for other countries to adopt similar can lead to the incorporation of identified priorities approaches. The countries may feel more comfort- into national planning processes. able with new approaches based on the experiences of other countries in their region. Another area where improvements may be introduced is maximizing the comparative advantages of IMO as In the Batangas Bay site, the provincial government a global mechanism for the conventions and proto- set up a new office to handle environmental assess- cols. So far, the project has not shown how an interna- ments and encouraged the private sector to set up its tional organization, compared to a regional own foundation, the Batangas Bay Resources Man- mechanism like ASEAN, can offer better results for agement Foundation. The foundation, which is com- multicountry coordination so that the objective of posed of 23 local industries, serves as the counterpart reducing marine pollution and creating more effec- monitoring mechanism to the provincial government. tive coastal and marine management can be achieved. However, while the private industries surrounding The advantages may lie in the services that IMO may the bay are important stakeholders in controlling ma- offer to facilitate interregional exchange of experi- rine pollution, the project realized that fishermen's ences, especially in the areas of intercountry dispute associations and local communities had to be en- resolution. In general, existing regional mechanisms gaged proactively. Clearly, the lesson was to expand should provide an overall framework and linkages to stakeholder participation so that those who are di- other activities within which the project operates. rectly affected by the quality of the waters in the bay, and those who have the most to lose if marine pollu- At the level of national implementation, there may be tion continues unchecked, need to be involved much additional support needed to coordinate local-level earlier in the project cycle. This highlights the impor- activities with national programs of related agencies, tance of implementation at the subnational level, in such as agriculture and fisheries, infrastructure, fi- line with GEF's Operational Strategy and Public In- nance, and social services. Because most of the popu- volvement Policy. lations in affected coastal communities belong to the bottom 30 percent income bracket of countries, there 22 is the additional challenge of integrating poverty alle- national water projects is currently under discussion viation programs. The interagency setups of the within the GEF International Waters Task Force. Xiamen and Batangas Bay sites provide good ex- amples of how such coordination can be done at the Desk Studies local level. This section presents the review of projects selected One lesson on multicountry coordination from the for in-depth desk studies. Batangas Bay site is the increased use of civil society groups, especially the private sector. In fact, a com- Rio de la Plata mon observation in most multicountry projects is the importance of involving a broad base of stakeholder A variety of different views and a large number of groups as early as project preparation. During project institutions can make project preparation very com- design of the Batangas Bay site, there was a con- plex. This seemed to be the case for the project cover- scious effort to bring all concerned government agen- ing the Rio de la Plata and its Maritime Front that was cies together, but such coordination had to be done by submitted by UNDP on behalf of Uruguay and Ar- only one unit-in this case, the provincial govern- gentina ($10 million total, $6 million GEF). The area ment. Scientists from the province's universities and is part of the Patagonia Shelf Large Marine Ecosys- other professionals brought in by the project provided tem (LME) and is biologically rich from a fisheries the scientific basis for designing the pollution control standpoint. and prevention activities. But it was through the pri- vate sector where funds were mobilized and where The project's transboundary issues relate to massive concerted actions on the part of industries were made. pollution loading, continued dredging for navigation that stirs up highly toxic bottom sediments, overfish- Adopting Well-Defined Performance Indicators. ing, releases of contaminants from ships, and frag- Project impacts and sustainability were assessed mentation of institutional jurisdictions for addressing through the application of performance indicators, these issues. As evidenced by the long preparation but these were limited to the ICM sites. Four sets of time, different assumptions held about what GEF indicators were used: process indicators-measuring might support, the number of GEF Council comments achievements in the process or approach adopted for when the project proposal was submitted, the number project design and implementation, stress removal of institutions that necessarily must be involved, and indicators-measuring progress in developing ways the sheer complexity of the situation, international of reducing environmental stress in the coastal and waters projects can be institutionally and technically marine areas, sustainabilitv indicators-measuring very complex and necessarily take long periods of impacts of introducing mechanisms for ensuring and time to sort out solutions. continuing environmental management efforts be- yond the project's life, environmental stress indica- Two joint commissions between Argentina and Uru- tors-assessing the changes in the coastal and marine guay have jurisdiction depending on the area, one environment before and after the project. close in on the Plata estuary and the other extending out into the LME. They were created under the Treaty Although there are improvements to be made in mea- of the Rio de la Plata and its Maritime Front, signed suring these indicators, they have been very useful in by the countries in 1973. Both the Binational Techni- detecting progress and areas where changes need to cal Commission for the Maritime Front and the Ad- be introduced at various stages of the project. It may ministrative Commission for the Rio de la Plata were be useful to add more socioeconomic indicators, es- proposed to be involved in the project according to pecially those that relate to diversity in culture and their mandates. However, their jurisdictions begin history, govemance, and community impact. Addi- offshore and therefore have little legal jurisdiction tionally, it may be helpful to think about how these over the land-based sources of pollution that are driv- indicators can be measured and evaluated by ing degradation of that part of the Patagonia Shelf nonproject participants, and how such measurements LME. can be made by engaging affected populations and communities. A similar framework for M&E of inter- 23 Another important lesson relates to the use of a GEF Rio Bermejo project in creating a steering committee (known as the Project Coordinating Committee) that will have The Bermejo River Basin of Bolivia and Argentina all the necessary jurisdictions represented on the apex originates in the Andes and flows through the Chaco committee as well as in a Technical Advisory Group region to the Paraguay River. It is a major basin of and Intersectoral Working Groups in each country to 123,000 square kilometers, covering an area the size provide that country's input to the TDA and SAP of Hungary and Bulgaria. Excessive levels of sedi- processes. The bodies representing appropriate juris- ment, important transboundary biodiversity, and the dictions include the Argentina Secretary for Natural existence of a binational commission for develop- Resources and Sustainable Development, City of ment of the basin made the area attractive for the first Buenos Aires Secretary for Urban Planning and Envi- GEF international waters project to be undertaken ronment, Province of Buenos Aires Secretary for En- within the TDA-SAP project formulation (for consis- vironmental Policy, Argentina Navy and Coast tency with the GEF Operational Strategy). In essence, Guard, Ministry of Economy, and Argentina such a small initial project-$2 million from GEF for Undersecretary for Fisheries. In Uruguay, the repre- two years-with such strategic multicountry work sentative bodies are the Uruguay Ministry of Hous- coupled with demonstration activities in basin man- ing, Land Planning and Environment, Municipality of agement and land degradation control was a para- Montevideo, Uruguay Navy and Coast Guard, Uru- digm for OP-9 in the Operational Strategy for guay Planning and Budget Office, and National Fish- international waters and for involving stakeholder eries Institute. Together with the Administrative groups in the basin in helping determine their sustain- Commission for the Rio de la Plata and the Binational able development future. Technical Commission for the Maritime Front (in the Foreign Ministries), the three GEF implementing Consistent with the GEF Operational Strategy, a fol- agencies, and the Inter-American Development low-on international waters project is under prepara- Bank, this large group forms the Project Coordinating tion to implement the priority measures identified by Committee or apex group responsible for the project. the SAP along with expected baseline activities funded by others. This is similar to the strategy in One of the institutional issues to be addressed is other GEF focal areas where an enabling activity whether some more simple arrangement for joint grant is provided to undertake the strategic work of management of the area would make more sense in identifying priorities and producing action plans/ addressing the ecosystems concerns of the shared strategies for submittal to convention Conferences of water body. Another dimension of this fragmented the parties; this is then followed up with a number of approach is this UNDP project covering only part of country-driven projects addressing the top priorities the LME, while a complementary series of World submitted to the conventions. In this case, the SAP Bank GEF and regular program projects, a UNDP implementation projects are submitted to the GEF GEF biodiversity project, and IDB projects address Council and serve as the basis for determining coun- the remaining areas. In order to facilitate an ecosys- try-driven funding priorities of a transboundary na- tem-based analysis in this fragmented world of juris- ture. Of particular note is that the project was able to diction-based requests for GEF projects, the UNDP evoke considerable involvement and excitement from Rio de la Plata project was charged with the responsi- NGOs and subnational levels of government as well bility to produce the TDA in a coordinated manner to as from the binational commission. This lesson-that set out the linkages among environmental problems OP-9 projects can benefit from the participation of in a clear and transparent context. The GEF Intema- local stakeholders in the identification and planning tional Waters Task Force has identified this complex of both demonstration activities as well as necessary plethora of project requests and environmental prob- multicountry strategic work (TDA and SAP)-is im- lems to be a priority for a programmatic approach portant for commitment to implementation at later under the international waters focal area similar to stages as the SAP is implemented with or without that developed for the Danube-Black Sea Basin. GEF assistance. 24 Another observation from the completed SAP has corrective activities in each of the basin states. This been the use of demonstration activities to catch the commitment of state governments has led to mutual attention of stakeholders upfront and to try pilot inter- agreement regarding program activities, even where ventions to determine whether they may be scaled up countries' individual priorities vary greatly. GEF and in the implementation project. This made the basin its implementing agencies were involved in this pro- land and water management problems concrete to the cess, with the World Bank being the actual imple- wider public whose use of poor land management menting agency. practices initially created the transboundary sedimen- tation problems. These demonstrations may have Compared to the project identification and design shown that future implementation will be less risky processes used in, for example, the Danube River and that corrective actions for transboundary pur- Basin or Rio Bermejo, the method of involving all poses that depend on the cumulative impact of many relevant stakeholders into the process at an early local actions may well be successful. This raises the stage seems to have been informal. This has perhaps same issue as the Lake Victoria project: To be suc- contributed to a tension between local and interna- cessful on the broad scale needed to reverse the type tional parties, including consultants. of land degradation being experienced in the Bermejo and in the downstream Paraguay-Parana system, It is not clear whether the "GEF as coach" strategy projects warrant financing packages that address lo- could have led to another kind of project design using cal issues at the same time as stakeholders are being the strong commitment in the area as a driving force. asked to address global issues.The Bermejo is at The question about the role of local organizations about the same stage as the Black Sea-Danube, and both with respect to international consultants may be a projects may benefit from an exchange of lessons. topic requiring discussion within GEF. This discus- sion is even more relevant in regions where there is a One final observation involves the institutional struc- strong local culture with set ways of dealing with ture of the project. UNEP does not have a country situations and circumstances, as compared to the bu- presence to undertake such a project. It chose to part- reaucratic culture of a large international organization. ner with the Organization of American States (OAS), which does have such a country presence, has the The International Fund to Save Aral Sea is a high- capacity to address these difficult land and water level cooperative body with representatives from sev- resource management issues, and served as a coach to eral ministries from each basin state. The the binational commission. The commission and its organization serves as a coordinative mechanism, al- subsidiary country agencies undertook the project lowing information flow between various ministries work. While coordination meetings were explicitly and states. In this sense, it acts in a somewhat similar facilitated by OAS to involve UNDP and the World manner to the interministerial committees, such as in Bank on the project's steering committee, it does not the Danube Basin project. Even though it seems to be appear that the priorities in the SAP have been con- an appropriate mechanism in a multicountry setting, sidered by the two organizations as part of their sup- it is possible that some lower level connection that port to the two countries. Similarly, the lack of formal allows NGOs and other relevant organizations to par- interministerial committees in each country may mean ticipate could be useful. that priority needs identified by the NGOs, binational commission, and subnational governments in the SAP Red Sea and Gulf of Aden may not have been internalized in the finance, planning, agriculture, or environment ministries of the two coun- The seven countries of the Red Sea have long recog- tries to ensure that root causes of the degradation identi- nized that they experience common environmental fled in the TDA could be addressed quickly. Further problems and threats in their shared large marine insight into these dynamics would require a site visit, ecosystem. In 1982, they signed the Jeddah Conven- which was beyond budget scope. tion to affirm their commitment to cooperate in pro- tecting the Red Sea ecosystem; they also created a Aral Sea Basin Program for the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. This program was officially established in The serious environmental degradation of the Aral 1996 by the Cairo Declaration, which was signed by Sea Basin has resulted in a commitment to begin all parties. 25 The countries sought GEF assistance for project tion sources so that the regional project could be preparation funds in 1995, and a Block-B grant was focused on prevention and straightforward activities issued with all three GEF implementing agencies col- with a good chance of success. laborating in project preparation. Each agency used a portion of the Block B funding to prepare its compo- Lake Tanganyika nent of the project. The resulting project was ap- proved by the GEF Council; its total cost was $37 The multicountry Lake Tanganyika project entitled million, with $19 million of that provided by GEF. Pollution Control and Other Measures to Protect Biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika was designed in a The collaboration began with preparation funding be- radically different way from the predominantly ing distributed among all three implementing single-country Lake Malawi project discussed earlier. agencies.Each agency therefore had administrative Building on early experiences in facilitating the resources with which to develop collaboration as well Danube and Black Sea Basin projects, UNDP applied as preparation resources to manage the in-country some of these project principles to assist Burundi, work. The strategic work needed for consistency with Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, and Zam- the Operational Strategy was accomplished during bia in addressing their shared lake basin. With more Block-B preparation. A simple TDA was produced as than twice the funding of the Lake Malawi project well as a SAP upon which the project was based. ($10 million), a great deal more could be accom- While this level of progress is possible during prepa- plished in building institutional commitments for ration for OP-9 preventive and simple projects, OP-8 joint multicountry collaboration. remedial projects with serious transboundary issues may take an entire project and several years to gain A PCU was established to facilitate each country's multicountry agreement. The resulting project was participation in activities independently as well as the first GEF international waters joint project among jointly. High-level officials from each nation partici- the three implementing agencies. This modality is pated in a steering committee that was responsible for being tested and replicated for remedial activities as the project. Various programs were established with part of OP-8 in the Caspian Sea project. the objective of helping the riparian countries pro- duce an effective and sustainable system for manag- The Red Sea project is based on the concept of under- ing and conserving the lake's biodiversity. By water protected areas that are not only important involving local communities in its design, the project biodiversity sites but also serve as spawning and embraced the dual needs of development and conser- nursery areas, sustaining fishery populations upon vation so that people's livelihoods can be maintained which commercial and artisanal fishers depend. Po- into the future. It covered a broad range of issues, litical commitment represented by the regional con- from biodiversity to fisheries, impacts of sedimenta- vention and Cairo Declaration is important for GEF tion and catchment degradation, pollution, socioeco- because it demonstrates a commitment to carry on nomic issues, education, and development of a joint with regional activities-sustaining interventions and geographic information system (GIS). SAP implementation-through continued financing of the program when GEF funding has ended. The original concept called for production of a strate- gic plan for the lake. Following adoption of the GEF The Red Sea has provided a unique opportunity to Operational Strategy by the GEF Council, UNDP cluster international waters and biodiversity projects, worked with the project to modify its program of enabling complex situations to be broken down into work to be more consistent with the international manageable chunks for simplicity in implementation. waters portion of the Operational Strategy. The The Red Sea project was developed with the under- project adopted the approach of joint fact-finding in standing that it would not duplicate four single-coun- compiling information so all countries could review it try integrated coastal management projects (Egypt, and update it through the GIS. The result is a TDA Yemen, Sudan, Eritrea). In addition, the Gulf of that prioritizes two or three top shared issues and Aqaba is the worst hotspot for transboundary pollu- relegates the remaining environmental problems to tion in the Red Sea. With the World Bank, a separate other efforts. Pollution discharges in Bujumbura, remedial, single-country international waters project Burundi, and Kigoma, Tanzania, were cited as (in OP-8) was developed to address the hotspot pollu- hotspots for abatement activities. Excessive sediment 26 loading from certain river basins. mostly in Burundi been made in understanding the technical issues of a and D.R. Congo, and scattered elsewhere, were iden- transboundary nature, identifying hotspots for con- tified for accelerated attention, the overfishing issue certed action, building a joint understanding, and was identified as important because of the large com- shared ownership of the lake basin, harnessing scien- mercial fishery, its economic importance to certain tific organizations and local communities, and setting nations, and the transboundary nature of the stock and the stage for building political commitments at the patterns of landings and markets. top level for joint management of the resource. The GEF project is expected to close during the latter part The program also adopted the formulation of a SAP, a of 2000. series of activities to be implemented not only jointly but also by individual countries to address the top- Portfolio Survey priority issues. Various assessments conducted under the programs built the capacity of country officials to Survey Design sample and assess environmental status in the areas of biodiversity, pollution, and sedimentation. Many of Questionnaires (see Annex 2) were sent to all 36 the publications are available on the project's sample projects. Twenty questionnaires were re- website, which also features country links and links turned-, only a few, however, were fully completed. to UNDP, GEF, and coaches from international orga- All returned questionnaires are available from the nizations. Additionally, the site facilitates dialogue GEF Secretariat M&E Team as Volume fl of this among the countries on shared issues. For those with- report. out Internet access, CD-ROMs are produced every three months. These, together with the public portion The survey had 20 questions. 9 of which concerned of the website, promote transparency among NGOs, project identification and design;, the remainder in- government officials, countries, and funding organi- volved various aspects of project implementation. zations. The following presents a brief description of the sur- vey population: As of the end of 1999. the Lake Tanganyika govern- ments had produced a fourth draft of an international * Thirteen out of 18 belong to the international wa- treaty to affirm their political support for the restora- ters focal area, and 5 belong to the biodiversity tion and protection of the Lake Tanganyika ecosys- focal area. tern (Convention on the Sustainable Management of Lake Tanganyika). The draft convention establishes a * Eight projects are implemented by UNDP. six by Lake Tanganyika authority consisting of a joint man- the World Bank, and three by UNEP. In two agement committee and a secretariat to assist the projects, all three implementing, agencies are in- nations in operationalizing sustainable management volved; in one UNDP is working together with of the lake, its biological resources, and the catch- UNEP; and in another, the World Bank has joined ment area draining to it. Various protocols and an- with UNDP. nexes will specify progressively more stringent country commitments as implementation proceeds. * Four projects are executed by UNOPS, four on a The draft SAP includes the commitment to move national or binational basis; the rest have varying, toward the convention and the lake management au- arrangements. thority. It also contains provisions for national ac- tions within the regional framework. Inventorv of Projects Despite war and unrest in D.R. Congo and Burundi- The inventory of projects covered by this review is which necessitated moving the coordination office to presented in the following table. Tanzania in the short term-important progress has 27 cDc OP or Full Funding (M $) TDA SAP Question- Other Pilot project or No. of Conven- Inter-min naire Material No. Project Title Phase PDF-B Total GEF IA EA Countries tion PCU Committee PDF-B FP Returned 1 Black Sea Environmental Pilot 23.3 9.3 UNDP UNOPS 7 X X X Management Phase . 2 Industrial Water Pollution Pilot 6.0 6.0 UNDP UNIDO 5 X Control in the Gulf ot Guinea Phase Large Marine Ecosystem 3 Pollution Control and other Pilot 10.0 10.0 UNDP UNOPS 4 X Measures to protect Biodiversity Phase in Lake Tanganyika 4 Danube River Basin Pilot 43.5 8.5 UNDP UNOPS 9 X X X TDA X X _ Environmental Management Phase 5 Prevention and Management Pilot 11.4 8.0 UNDP IMO 8 X X X of Marine pollution in the East Phase Asian Seas 6 Developing the Danube River OP-8 3.9 3.9 UNDP UNOPS 9 X X X TDA/ X X Basin Pollution Reduction SAP _ Programme 7 Developing the Implementation OP-8 8.7 1.8 UNDP UNOPS 7 X X x of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan [Program?] 8 Lake Victoria Environmental OP-8 77.6 35.0 WB National 3 X x x Management 9 Determination of the Priority OP-8 10.5 6.3 UNEP Barcelon 11 X X TDA/SA p6 X X Actions for the further Conven- P-LBS Elaboration and Implementation tion of the Strategic Action Program for the Mediterranean Sea 11 Lake Ohrid Management OP-8 4.3 3.0 WB National 2 No X X 12 Addressing Transboundary OP-8 18.3 8.4 UNDP/UN UNOPS 6 No X P X X Environmental Issues in the EP Caspian Environment Program 13 Pollution Control and Habitat OP-8 10.8 6.0 UNDP Binational 2 X X P X > Protection in the Rio de La Plata and its Maritime Front 14 Mekong River Water Utilization OP-8 17.9 11.1 WB MRC 4 X >o, 15 Reversing Degradation Trends OP-8 PDF-B UNEP P X a _ in the South China Sea 1 6 Benguela Current LME OP-8 PDF-B UNDP 3 X X TDA/SAP X 17 Bay of Bengal LME OP-8 PDF-B WB 8 P x x 18 Yellow Sea LME OP-8 PDF-B UNDP no TDA draft P 19 Strategic Action Program for OP-9 6.0 3.2 UNEP OAS 2 P X X the Binational of the Bermejo River 20 Water and Environmental OP-9 71.5 12.0 WB IFAS 5 X X X Management in the Aral Sea Basin 21 Implementation of the Strategic OP-9 45.0 19.3 UNDP/WB PERSGA 5 X SAP+TDA X X Action Program for the Red /UNEP Sea and Gulf of Aden 22 Preparation of the Strategic OP-9 10.1 5.2 UNDP UNOPS 5 X P Action Program and Trans- boundary Diagnostic Analysis for the Tumen River Area, its Coastal Regions and Northeast Asian Environs 23 Building Partnerships for OP-9 28.5 16.2 UNDP IMO 9 Environmental Protection and Management of the East Asian Seas 24 Implementation of the Strategic OP-9 20.3 12.3 UNDP SPREP 13 X Draft P X Action Program of the Pacific SAP Small Island Developing State 25 Integrated Management of the OP-9 PDF-B UNDP P Lake Chad Basin 26 Western Indian Ocean OP-9 PDF-B UNEP X Draft SAP 27 Integrated Management of the OP-9 PDF-B UNDP 3 X Okavango Basin 28 Costa Rica-Nicaragua: OP-9 PDF-B UNEP OAS P San Juan River Basin 29 Baltic Sea Regional Project OP-9 PDF-B WB/UNDP HELCOM 20 X X X 30 Conservation of Biodiversity OP-2 4.0 3.1 UNDP Bi- 2 X X X X in the Lake Titicaca Basin National 31 Lake Malawi/Nyasa OP-2 5.4 5.0 WB National 1 X X Biodiversity Conservation 32 Danube Delta Biodiversity OP-2 1.7 1.5 WB National 1 X 33 Establishment of a Programme OP-3 23.6 10.9 UNDP/ UNOPS 8 X X for the Consolidation of the Meso- UNEP American Biological Corridor 34 Forest Biodiversity Protection OP-3 3.0 3.0 WB National 1 X _ (Poland) 35 Reducing Biodiversity Loss at OP-4 18.4 12.9 UNDP 3 Cross-Border Sites in East Africa 36 Transcarpathian Biodiversity OP-4 0.6 0.5 WB National 1 X Protection (Ukraine) 37 Biodiversity Protection STRM/ 3.2 2.3 WB National 1 X (Slovac Republic) Pilot 38 Nile Basin Initiative-Basin- OP-9 Pilot PDF-B 115 15 UNDP/ UNOPS/ 10 TDA X Wide Shared Vision Program Phase WB WB Summary of the Survey Project Implementation Project Identification and Design Organization. Project organization usually consists of three levels: a regional decisionmaking body. a GEF project identification usually involves a variety regional implementing unit, and national secretariats. of multinational and national organizations, includ- ing NGOs. In one-third of the projects, the GEF Sec- In the decisionmaking body, project member coun- retariat was also involved. The GEF Secretariat's tries are usually represented by the appropriate minis- input was used mainly in more recent projects based tries. Projects like the Mediterranean and Rio de la on experience with the older ones. That is under- Plata efforts are implemented directly under the cor- standable, given GEF's rather short history. In recent responding convention. The Danube Basin pilot projects, such as the second Danube Basin project, a phase project was steered by a task force in which consultant familiar with GEF requirements was hired other stakeholders, NGOs, and international donors to assist in finalizing the project proposal. In one of were also represented.' the latest projects under preparation, the Nile Basin project, the World Bank planning philosophy starting Most projects have project implementation/coordi- from the "vision" was utilized. nating units or regional secretariats handling day-to- day operations. The role of the regional secretariat The existing regional conventions and international with respect to national secretariats varies from and multicountry agreements were recognized in the project to project. In projects such as that at Lake project preparation process. However, only seven Ohrid, both participating countries have their own projects were based on a special convention. The project implementation units. Regional secretariats interest of national governments varied: usually na- often coordinate regional expert groups. National tional governments seemed to be more active in secretariats may be independent agencies, or they projects where the number of participating countries may be directly under ministries. was relatively low, perhaps depending on the gener- ally higher amount of financing available to each The following observations about project organiza- participating country. tion can be made: NGOs were, to some extent, involved in project de- * It is important that the regional secretariat be an sign. Selected NGOs were invited to participate in independent unit not bound to a national secre- steering committees. The scientific community was tariat. usually used in project preparation. Only in three cases was the scientific community represented on * In some projects, the appointed secretariat person- the steering committee. Other commissions or secre- nel are conducting that assignment in addition to tariats were utilized in project preparation in half of other duties. This has prevented the secretariat the cases. In six projects, interministerial committees from being as efficient as it could be. Both re- were formed during project preparation. gional and national secretariats should therefore employ their personnel as full-time employees. As a general conclusion, in most cases a wide variety of organizations are involved in the project prepara- - Projects have benefited from involving stakehold- tion process. This is important in creating commit- ers such as NGOs into the decisionmaking body. ment and ownership. With respect to multicountry settings, the various stakeholders could be even more * Intergovernmental multicountry organizations involved on a regional basis than they would be if seem to be a very effective means of involving each country attempted to involve them internally. countries' sectoral ministries in addressing transboundary concerns. Multicountry organiza- 7 The Danube project now receives directions from the convention Conference of the Parties. 30 tions have been effective in enforcing national experiences and whether results could be improved political and legislative interventions because of through larger regional cooperation (e.g., Danube, the harmonization that occurs in their multicountry Black Sea, Mediterranean, or Lake Malawi, Lake processes. Tanganyika, and Nile Basin). More portfolio-wide interactions through programmatic approaches would The scientific community is usually involved in help in addressing this problem. project preparation and implementation. It seems that it is often easier for scientists to work with Project funding occurs through the implementing multicountry issues than it is for policymakers. How- agencies. On the average, 50 percent of funding was ever, the cooperation of both groups is needed to provided to governments, 15 percent was utilized by obtain sustainable results. The extent to which the the PCUs, 27 percent was used by external consult- scientific community is needed in project manage- ants, and 6 percent was used by other groups such as ment and decisionmaking remains to be analyzed. As NGOs. Based on such a small sample, it is difficult to noted, however, scientific analysis of data is critical say whether there are differences in funding alloca- in producing a TDA. tions across projects conducted by the different implementing agencies. About half of the projects had arranged interministerial committees or other groups to cope Verifiable Indicators of Political Commitment. with issues dispersed among several ministries. The most frequently mentioned verifiable indicator These arrangements have significantly improved the was the financial or in-kind support of member coun- flow of information between ministries and improved tries to project activities or project coordination. the understanding of various points of view of the Some projects followed the national budget alloca- different ministries with respect to project issues. tions for the project. Expressions of support, whether Many projects would benefit from more intensive written or oral, are also carefully noted. interministerial multicountry cooperation in the form of improved information gathering and development To achieve the political and legislative changes of ways for producing "buy-in" with regard to needed needed to guarantee sustainable development, verifi- changes. able indicators should be identified. In most projects, the involvement of the private sector Involvement of Other GEF Implementing Agen- and NGOs could be improved. The same applies to cies. The majority of the projects responding to the local governments, municipalities, and cities. The questionnaire regarded the involvement of other commitment of these groups is crucial for changing implementing agencies in the project in a positive man- the attitudes and behavior of the initial target, the ner. During project preparation, the involvement of sev- local populace. eral agencies was considered less important. The role of consultants varies in project implementa- The World Bank could be involved in projects where tion. International consultants have been used for economic development is important for environmen- tasks where regional expertise has not existed. In tal improvement. The World Bank's role could also those cases, a transfer of knowledge to regional ex- be to finance investments to model solutions directly perts has been emphasized. The experience in related to pollution reduction. projects examined shows that, for sustainable results, the use of local consultants is preferred. UNDP could use the project mechanisms and exper- tise in developing and implementing technical assis- Operational Linkages and Funding. The projects tance projects in related fields. have established operational linkages with other project activities in the area in order to avoid duplica- UNEP's role could be in the area of scientific, legal, tion of effort and reduce competition. However, only and policy issues. It could act as a coordinator of a few operational linkages between GEF-funded policy questions among countries in the region. An projects were reported. The GEF Secretariat could "honest broker" role related to other UN agencies was negotiate with the implementing agencies regarding also proposed for UNEP. how GEF projects could benefit from other project 31 Multicountry Issues That Have Required Special lem in virtually all multicountry projects. Neither Attention. There was a vast variety of responses to pure market solutions nor pure political and legisla- this question. Most answers concerned issues related tive solutions can be presented alone for resolving to communication, coordination, and data sharing. these issues; both types of solutions are needed. These issues should already be taken into account during project design. When planning a project, legal Organizational Structures and social issues should be an integral part of project implementation just as are scientific and environmen- As mentioned above, project organizational struc- tal concerns. tures vary considerably. In the following, a rough classification is made. It is impossible to place all of The free flow of data seems to be a problem in some the projects in one of these categories; rather, they are projects. This also should be taken into account in the meant as broad descriptions of the varying organiza- project design phase. One reason for limited informa- tional models. tion flow is language problems, particularly in re- gions where there is no common language. Another is Regional project organizations usually have three ba- data "protectionism" or commercialization: in some sic levels: regional, national, and project. In addition countries, organizations expect financial compensa- to this, a decisionmaking body above a regional sec- tion to release data. retariat or implementing unit exists. Perhaps the most difficult multicountry issues are Type I regional project organization is presented below. related to different and conflicting uses of a particular resource. Conflicts between industrial waste, sludge, agriculture, water use, fishing, recreation, and Type I biodiversity may occur both within and among coun- tries. Selection of hotspots has also created problems between countries. Another problem is whether an upstream country is entitled to build a dam leaving ,,' p the downstream areas without water. , Technical questions may create multicountry issues as well. This is especially common in international basins where the water flow unites all the countries in the watershed. The Lake Victoria water hyacinth problem is just one example. Most Positive Aspects in Multicountry Implemen- tation Arrangements. Most of the projects' positive This type of organization consists of relatively inde- achievements are related to increased cooperation pendent national organizations with weak linkages to and mutual trust among the riparian countries and the regional unit. This type of organization is similar various stakeholder groups involved. In complex to those used in the Lake Victoria projects and, per- multicountry settings, the establishment of a positive haps, the Lake Ohrid project. National independence atmosphere among countries must be regarded as an allows countries to proceed at varying speeds suitable important achievement. Cooperation and creation of to each country. Considering the differences between mutual trust has even been possible among groups of countries in the projects, making progress in solving project participants where there are no political con- transboundary issues may be hampered. This applies tacts between countries. to both technical and political components in project implementation. Because GEF projects are most de- Challenges with Respect to Multicountry Settings. pendent on regional activities, such activities need Most of the challenges related to a lack of commit- special attention in this kind of organizational struc- ment and involvement on the part of the various ture. The Type II structure relies heavily on national countries. Differing priorities, especially in regions coordinating units and both horizontal and vertical with great economic differences, is a common prob- cooperation. The Danube Basin project organization 32 was of this general type. The decisionmaking body In this model, national bodies or ministries are not consisted not only of member countries, but also of directly involved in project implementation and other relevant organizations and is now the Confer- decisionmaking. Decisionmaking occurs through a ence of Parties in conjunction with the commission. convention, although its operationalization needs to take place via decisions at the national level. Type II This structure may be especially suitable in regions where there is a large number of countries. The le- gally binding convention allocates authority to the project organization with respect to riparian coun- tries. Good coordination between project components and the regional unit allows for a good information flow from the project sites to the regional office, this would otherwise be very difficult in regions such as Mediterranean. The convention must be powerful enough to affect the riparian countries for needed institutional changes to take place. The project struc- tures reflect the principle of tasks having regional di- mensions being implemented at the regional level, tasks having national dimensions implemented at the national The Type II organization allows for tight contacts level, and tasks related to project components imple- both horizontally and vertically. Having project com- mented at the project level. Several questions remain to ponents in direct contact with each other increases the be answered with regard to these organizational struc- effectiveness of information dissemination. This tures: Is it possible to find such a division of tasks? How project structure requires special attention to connec- does this division reflect the actual situation? Are there tions with political decisionmakers; Otherwise, the other aspects to be taken into account when designing a complex network of contacts may lose its edge in project organization? catalyzing political and legislative change. The Type 1I structure requires much from cooperating parties. Among the factors affecting project organization are Thus, cultural, linguistic, and political closeness is the number and variety of countries, the resource in important, as well as geographic proximity. question, and political and economic realities. It may be that even though a project organization does not The Type III structure is presented below. In this present the "ideal" structure, it may be the only struc- structure, the regional secretariat has direct contacts ture the countries have been able to agree upon. An- to project components in various countries. Examples other issue influencing project structure may be the of this type of structure are the Mediterranean Sea existing organizational structure of various stake- project and HELCOM. holders and their preferred ways of becoming in- volved in project implementation. Type III Convention 33 34 Lessons and Considerations This final section outlines the main lessons arising work for action in a multicountry setting can take from the thematic review. It also raises some consid- more than a decade. It is evident that commitment and erations for GEF entities that may be useful for future on-the-ground results in a multifaceted multicountry development of multicountry projects. Note, how- setting take time to develop. ever, that the history of GEF multicountry projects is still short and only a few such projects have been The complex multicountry, multi-implementing completed, most of which were designed during the agency structure requires more careful-and thus pilot phase before the establishment of the Opera- longer and often more expensive-preparation than a tional Strategy. Therefore, no firm and universal con- single-country setting. It is not enough that the clusions can be claimed. Furthermore, the thematic project be technically and scientifically well pre- review has focused primarily on the international pared. The social, economic, and political aspects watersportfolio. Although selected biodiversity must also be taken into account. The inclusion of these projects were initially included, the response rate to aspects may prolong preparation time considerably. the questionnaire and participation of biodiversity project staff were very low. Consequently, only one Operations in GEF-funded multicountry projects biodiversity project was included in the field visits. could develop from (passive) consultations toward proactive regional implementation and leadership un- Facilitation in Complex Multicountry Issues der a programmatic framework. Along this develop- ment, the utilization of OP-9 might be considered a GEF can play a very important role in helping coun- tool. OP-8 project remediations are often so compli- tries address multicountry environmental problems. cated that all three implementing agencies are Multicountry projects are invariably complex in de- needed. In OP-9 projects, which are of a more preven- sign and include differing and often conflicting pref- tive type, cooperation with all implementing agencies erences by various stakeholders. This makes a may not be needed. Working in a simpler organizational multicountry setting politically sensitive-yet politi- context, quicker results might be expected. cal acceptability is essential to success. For example, international waters projects, which can involve up to Achieving a Shared Vision 15 to 20 countries that share a water body or basin, are necessarily complex in nature with a wide variety Even in cases where there is a common understanding of social, political, economic, cultural, and physi- of the problem, the various countries involved may ographic conditions that must be taken into consider- have different opinions about its importance and pri- ation depending on the nature of the priority ority. The recipient countries may perceive that they transboundary water issue to be addressed. have other more important priorities. Negative effects may be experienced in downstream countries, while The process of developing a shared vision and frame- 35 upstream countries may not feel the need to fix the For the TDA-SAP approach to be more efficient, it problem. should involve all of the implementing agencies. It should also focus broadly not only on scientific and The creation of political commitment and public technical dimensions, but also on the need to include awareness is especially difficult in regions where socio-politico-economic dimensions. It should in- economic and social problems are given priority over volve all relevant stakeholders, including the public environmental ones. These difficulties may be rein- and private sectors and civil society. forced by a powerful industry sector resisting needed changes for financial reasons. These circumstances Six projects of those reviewed had already carried out underscore the need for projects to identify and nur- either a TDA, SAP, or both. Eleven other projects are ture "win-win" approaches that involve the private planning or finalizing their TDA/SAPs. Sufficient sector. materials to collect experiences and conduct an analysis about the approach and its advantages and There is also the question of national sovereignty disadvantages as compared with other approaches, with respect to joint activities. Without a joint agree- such as the "shared vision" approach, are not yet ment, the unilateral effects of a single country's ac- available. tions may hinder solutions to environmental problems. On the other hand, the free rider problem- When faced with complex situations, the solution that is. a situation in which a party attempts to receive might be parallel components consisting of a strategic a benefit without contributing to its cost-may occur project that produces the TDA and SAP and a compo- if there is no binding agreement among countries. nent that conducts demonstration projects in each country related to the suspected top-priority As noted in the GEF Operational Strategy elements transboundary issue. This strategic approach is valu- related to international waters, initial strategic able in that it may not only gain the multicountry projects have been useful as the equivalent of en- commitments to collaboration but also energize and abling activities in other GEF focal areas by breaking involve ministries, subnational governments, com- down the barriers among countries and enabling a munities, and NGOs in the site work that precedes the joint focus on high priorities. This approach allows upcoming implementation phase. To maintain com- complex situations to be broken down into several mitment at the local and national levels, more con- more manageable priority issues as part of the analy- crete benefit-producing components should be ses to help speed understanding and implementation. present at the initial stages of the project. This could The GEF-recommended processes of joint fact find- be a pilot project or an investment in a development ing and sharing of information to produce a TDA activity. Microprojects and demonstrations have pro- helps facilitate agreement to focus on a few top- duced some positive results, although when imple- priority transboundary issues and sets the stage for mented, implications regarding incremental cost have countries' production of a SAP of country-specific to be taken into account. and regional actions regarding the policy, institu- tional, legal reforms and investments needed to ad- Implementation of activities needing immediate ac- dress the transboundary priorities. tion might start in parallel with project preparation. In most projects there are hotspots that affect the envi- A well-timed succession of GEF-financed interven- ronment and that can be assessed without extensive tions constitutes a pragmatic approach to addressing and time-consuming study. such complex international waters and multicountry institutional issues. Following an initial strategic Ecosystem Approach Key to Transboundary project, one or more multicountry and/or single- Resource Management country projects may be appropriate to implement the reforms and investments outlined by the countries in In cases where the ecosystem is regional, the SAPs. Following agreements in the SAP, such a multicountry approaches are needed to address sus- sequence might also be part of a programmatic ap- tainable development of transboundary resources proach to implementation resulting from a strategic with a specific focus on a reduction of externalities. project for particularly complex and difficult situations. The management of a shared ecosystem requires an integrated and holistic approach. 36 The ecosystem-based approaches detailed in the in- The involvement of relevant existing organizations ternational waters elements of the Operational Strat- has clearly improved the commitment of stakehold- egy strongly suggest that entire basins be considered ers, and thus made the projects easier to implement. if important transboundary linkages exist and that all There are many different ministries involved in the the linked problems such as habitat loss, pollution, same areas. Dialogue and communication have ben- overfishing, and water diversion be addressed if they efited from arrangements such as interministerial constitute priority problems. The production of the committees. The inclusion of relevant NGOs has TDA often involves the science community so that been important in involving local stakeholders into analyses of the complex linkages are available to all the project framework. There have been some good participants. It does no good to just treat symptoms of experiences in letting local NGOs coordinate local problems such as weeds when the root causes remain project activities. NGOs may also play an important unaddressed or other considerations such as overfish- role in influencing policymakers regarding needed ing still drive ecosystem degradation. An important legislative interventions. lesson involves including the drainage basin as part of the ecosystem approach to international waters and to All relevant stakeholders (regional, national, and lo- address fisheries, pollution, and habitat loss when cal governments; NGOs; the scientific community; they are linked to water body degradation as well. and the private sector) must be involved in the pro- Many of the regional projects initiated activities that cess. The motivation and ownership thereby achieved focused only on water resources without including an are crucial to producing sustainable results. explicit analysis of actions to tackle land-based sources of environmental problems. As a result of Multicountry transboundary settings include myriad past experiences, most projects have plans to address issues-technical, legal, institutional, behavioral, sci- these issues at a later stage. entific, capacity, etc.-and project designs together with critical needs for important funding resources. The inclusion of the entire catchment into the project This underscores the importance ofstrong donor coor- analysis and design from the outset could also shorten dination and cofinancing and can justify the partner- the time required for activities to begin having an ships based on comparative advantages and impact. co-implementation by GEF implementing agencies. Most of the project areas already have activities Importance of Broad-Based Participation funded and conducted by several international, re- gional, and/or bilateral agencies. Good coordination Political commitment at the highest level is necessary of activities and avoidance of duplication of work is to ensure smooth operation of multicountry institu- beneficial to all parties. Competition among the fund- tions and on-the-ground implementation of the ac- ing agencies for the projects sometimes hinders such tions identified in strategic projects. Such cooperation. Donor coordination is therefore impor- commitments have been expressed in numerous tant and should take place in a country-driven con- multicountry regional conventions that set the tone text, which can provide a framework for the different for many of the GEF projects reviewed here. Where interventions. Such a framework may be based on a no political commitment other than an agreement to TDA-SAP or within evolving programmatic ap- proceed on a GEF project was present, commitments proaches. GEF projects can and should be used to for policy. institutional, and/or legal reforms and in- leverage funding and actions by other actors operat- vestments have been slow to emerge. A series of ing in the same region. conventions that are progressively more specific re- garding commitments or a series of updated protocols With the complexity of these situations, collaboration or annexes are also proving useful to express among GEF implementing agencies according to multicountry commitments to action for their comparative advantages is proving to be a suc- transboundary issues. GEF implementing agencies cess story in overcoming barriers to multicountry have played, and are poised to continue to play, an action to restore and protect transboundary waters. important catalytic role in facilitating this evolution Similarly, involving other executing agencies has of commitments and of multicountry institutional ar- been a strength of implementing agencies in this focal rangements over time. area. Executing agencies such as OAS, FAO, UNIDO, IMO, IOC, PAHO, IDB, SPREP, EBRD, 37 and AfDB are beginning to spread the reach of GEF The three-level strategy from regional to national and implementing agencies in harnessing other compe- from national to local has applicability in tent organizations to assist countries to address their multicountry projects. Experience shows that it is shared transboundary water problems. Collaboration easier to reach a regional agreement that binds coun- with bilaterals and other donors can accelerate strate- tries to harmonize their activities, for example, at the gic work and time to implementation on the ground. convention level, than to do it the other way around. While different priorities of different donors may The legally binding regional agreement may then be create challenges and even problems, the existence of applied in the participating countries. In GEF a SAP and the development of programmatic ap- projects, this is a long stage and advances at various proaches to certain water bodies with complex situa- speeds in different countries. An active multicountry tions provide a framework for all donors to assist organization is important during that process. It main- recipient countries with the top-priority interventions tains a transparent database and provides a common detailed in their SAPs. This also provides a frame- means for countries to report their results. Alongside work within which to harness comparative advan- the national legislative activities, the third step- tages of different executing agencies. from national to local-may begin with increased local commitment emerging through a changed in- NGOs and the scientific community can play impor- centive structure and its enforcement. The role of tant roles in multicountry projects to ensure (1) trans- information dissemination and public awareness can- parency and political support, (2) that sound science not be overemphasized in this regard. is utilized to improve management decisionmaking, and (3) subnational level implementation of interven- It is not always possible, however, to begin a regional tions at hotspots and in community-based activities. initiative by providing support through a multicountry body. Channeling funds through na- Involvement of Multiple Levels of Institutions tional recipients may be appropriate, but the project design should nevertheless incorporate a truly re- Work on multiple levels of institutions is essential gional component. The intent to build the regional for, in particular. GEF international waters projects level as well as the proposed process should always addressing transboundary water bodies and basins. be clearly spelled out in project documents. The projects benefit from work on the international or multicountry level by countries that share the water The sustainability of regional bodies is the key issue body or basin: At the single-country national that should be taken into account in the project's level.interministerial committees involve the sectors preparation stage. Funding of regional arrangements that create the stress on the water bodies in producing should be ensured beyond the project cycle. Thus, the input to the multicountry processes on behalf of those organizations that will be involved over the each country and then translating the international long term should be integrated into the mainstream of political mandate down to the third institutional level, the participating countries' organizational structures. subnational governments and communities for imple- mentation on the ground. The country-specific Policy and Legislative Implications interministerial committees are key elements in en- suring expected outcomes. The long time span of project activities seems to highlight a need for institutional changes and institu- The GEF Operational Strategy for international wa- tional development. Conventions and their institu- ters suggests that GEF project design include the tions evolve over time toward more specific development of transboundary mechanisms that can commitments. This evolution has implications for harmonize national activities in order to address the project organizations, and implies that GEF's role is a root causes of environmental problems. A succession catalytic one. The institutional structures among of GEF international waters projects may be appro- countries are sometimes very different. For example, priate where the preparatory phase produces a TDA- a common incentive structure and enforcement sys- SAP. and the next phase involves implementation of tem for the project as a whole may be difficult to the SAP. It has been beneficial to projects if they have establish. Common and objective identification and been able to produce a TDA-SAP as a basis for fur- measurement of indicators may be difficult to agree ther activities. upon. Countries may or may not be sensitive to the 38 extent of environmental damage caused by their participating countries. Such packages have led to behavior. increased commitment on the part of the project par- ticipants in the projects covered by this review. Fur- Policy and legislative implications and interventions thermore, threats to the regional and global unfortunately seem to play only a minor role in the environment frequently stem from local actions and early phases of GEF involvement in the current port- are caused by social and economic conditions in the folio. Projects often do not have components for a area. There is need to address these root causes if the proper analysis of policy and behavioral implications. transboundary environmental conditions are to be im- Project activities seldom have ways of tying national proved. This suggests a package in which a GEF policymakers in as integral parts of project imple- project is combined with a project by one of the mentation. The Operational Strategy suggests a focus implementing agencies addressing the development on policy, institutional, and legal reforms in subse- issues and national benefits. quent projects. One of the factors that makes it difficult to determine Experience in GEF projects has shown that incremental costs is that those paying the cost of multicountry coordination of policy reforms requires environmentally destructive activities are often in an- mutual trust which often can be created only over a other political jurisdiction from the sources or causes long time span. A relatively powerful regional coor- of the environmental problems. The polluter may not dinating unit, preferably backed by a convention, has even be aware of the damage caused. The question of turned out to be helpful in the process of political and who should pay the cost of an activity having a nega- legislative harmonization. tive impact on the environment becomes a regional property rights question requiring regional political Even if countries in some projects have been able to decisions. National (societal) costs and costs of indi- alter relevant legislation, lack of enforcement and vidual behavior must be clearly defined to potentially monitoring systems hinder legislative effectiveness highlight the agreed incremental cost that might be in many cases. Similarly. the incentive structure for supported by GEF. Evidence suggests that the market changing behavior could be influenced by political, alone, operating on the "polluter pays" principle is legislative, and economic means. not always capable of solving these problems. Financial Issues Monitoring and Evaluation Systems The preparatory process of a multicountry project Monitoring and evaluation plays a central role in involves extra transaction costs (incremental costs) managing complex multicountry projects. Effective that should be taken into account in making decisions M&E systems can provide transparency among par- about the funding of multicountry project prepara- ticipating countries and project components regard- tion. Implications on PDF and administrative re- ing project progress and results. While GEF may play sources should be considered; this means that a a role in starting the system, the collection of M&E significantly higher amount of resources should be data should be internalized and taken over by the allocated to these operations. both at the preparatory participating countries. These data would ideally be and supervisory stages. posted in a regional database accessible to all stake- holders. There is evidence that Block-B money for producing a TDA-SAP has been an effective way of utilizing Each of the multicountry project designs should in- these resources. However, the maximum limit of clude indicators at three levels: (1) process indicators $350,000 may not be sufficient for that purpose. In (focusing on processes likely to lead toward a desir- such cases, a full project may be used for the prepara- able outcome-an example would be completion of a tion of a TDA-SAP. SAP); (2) stress reduction indicators (concrete ac- tions that will reduce the environmental stress on the In projects dealing with transboundary resources and shared ecosystem, such as installation of a sewage those in which GEF's role is to focus on producing treatment system); and (3) environmental status indi- global benefits, it seems important to create financing cators (measures of actual improvement of ecosystem packages that allow national benefits to accrue to the quality). Complex multicountry projects could also 39 benefit from identification of indicators for factors would likely start accruing only after the project life such as mutual trust among countries, public senti- span, it is important to ensure the sustainability of the ment, and stakeholder commitment. M&E system. The system should therefore be inte- grated into the regular mechanisms of the participat- The development of process indicators allowing the ing countries or a convention/treaty. Alternative monitoring and evaluation of trends and improve- funding sources should be explored. ments in the regional cooperation process-i.e., policy analysis and behavioral modifications-is Programmatic approaches may provide ways of de- needed. This could help shorten the time required for veloping a longer term setting through a phased ap- political and legal interventions. proach. Benchmarks, milestones, and other indicators should be developed for this purpose. As the time scale during which actual environmental benefits can be expected is lengthy and benefits 40 Acronyms AlDb African Development Bank ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EPDRB Environmental Program for Danube River Basin EU European Union GEF Global Environment Facility GIS geographic information system HELCOM Helsinki Commission ICM integrated coastal management IDA individual credit agreement IDB Inter-American Development Bank IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission IMO Intemational Maritime Organization JCP Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Program LME large marine ecosystem LVEMP Lake Victoria Environmental Management Program LVFO Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization M&E Monitoring and Evaluation 41 MAP Mediterranean Action Plan MARPOL Intemational Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships MED POL Program for Pollution Monitoring and Research in the Mediterranean Sea METAP Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program MEDU MAP Coordinating Unit NGO non-govemmental organization OAS Organization of American States OP operational program PAHO Pan American Health Organization PCU Project Coordination Unit PDF Project Development Facility PDMO Program Development and Management Office PIR Project Implementation Review PMTF Project Management Task Force PSC Program Steering Committee SAP Strategic Action Program SIP SAP Implementation Program SPREP South Pacific Regional Environment Program TDA Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis UNDP United National Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services 42 Annex 1: Terms of Reference Beginning on or around August 2. 1999, the consult- preparation and administration of the multi-country ant will provide up to 16 person weeks of services to projects from the point of view of the implementing the World Bank (Global Environment Coordination - agencies and the GEF Secretariat. Answers to these Africa Region) in close collaboration with the GEF questions will be fed back into the design of future Secretariat Monitoring and Evaluation Program to projects as well as help guide projects already under- assist in carrying out a thematic review of multi- way. country project arrangements. The review will focus on multi-country projects in the Background GEF portfolio that address transboundary issues within a common ecosystem or other geographical A sizable portion of the GEF portfolio-including all area requiring joint action by participating countries. but a handful of international waters projects-in- These include projects that deal with transboundary wa- volve more than one country. The 1998 Project ter bodies, e.g., most of the international waters portfo- Implementation Review (PIR) identified a number of lio; and projects (or sets of projects) that address issues advantages that multicountry approaches can offer. in a transboundary protected area or corridor. However, these projects can often be more complex than those carried out in a single country, and present Approach for the Review a number of challenges to GEF and its implementing agencies. One of these challenges, in fact, is the The proposed review will analyze experience in greater importance for collaboration among imple- greater depth than is possible during PIRs, but is not menting agencies, both in activities carried out with intended to be a full, field-level program evaluation. GEF funding and in their own assistance programs. It will be based on document and literature review, interviews, and limited field visits. The review will Objective catalog the variety of arrangements used in multi- country GEF projects to date, and examine their per- The objective of the review is to identify emerging formance in terms of a number of measures. These lessons from experience about what kinds of multi- measures are intended to capture the outcomes typi- country approaches have worked, what have not, cally sought from successful approaches to inter-in- why, and under what circumstances. For activities stitutional collaboration and project design and that require joint efforts and commitments by more implementation. They will be further elaborated dur- than one country, what characteristics of project de- ing the initial stages of the review itself, but are likely sign and inter-institutional collaboration processes to include the following factors: and structures facilitate effective decision making and implementation on transboundary issues? The * participating countries accept the need for joint review would also look into the issues pertaining to actions to address common problems in the eco- system 43 * decision making on transboundary issues is in- * the existence of a high-level declaration or con- formed by science and fully involves all relevant vention among participating countries stakeholders * whether implementation is directed by a special * project initiatives are internalized within partici- coordination unit created specifically for the pating countries project or integrated within existing institutional structures * more is achieved through multicountry arrange- ments than through the sum of individual country * the primary role of the project coordination unit: actions executive or advisory * there is a sufficient level of commitment of time * leadership qualities and resources by participating countries * whether an international steering committee or * implementation is on schedule similar is used * project activities are sustained following project * underlying country socio-economic factors completion * the degree of influence within their countries of a project participants learn from and share experi- those representing them in multicountry project ences mechanisms * inter-donor coordination is effective. * the extent of stakeholder involvement The review will relate performance on these mea- * the structure of collaboration among implement- sures to a number of variables. It will try to determine ing agencies, other donors whether there is evidence that the desired outcomes are affected by any of them. These variables will be * an implementing agency's own procedures, expe- further elaborated, but might include: rience, and incentives as they relate to multicountry (as opposed to individual country) * whether the project requires joint decisions and projects actions among participating countries/agencies to achieve its objectives, or whether actions are taken * whether the project is executed by an international independently by each one organization. * the urgency or immediacy of the issue being ad- It is recognized that multicountry projects may re- dressed to the participating countries quire more time and resources to prepare and admin- ister. The review will also analyze this issue and its * how the project idea originated consequences and identify whether certain types of institutional and implementation arrangements can be * the nature of the design process, including the utilized in order to reduce the project preparation time amount of time and resources devoted to it and the resources required for its implementation without sacrificing the quality and sustainability of * the number of countries and/or agencies partici- the project. pating Review Process * existing/ongoing relationships among the countries/ agencies participating (beyond project activities) The review will be carried out in six steps. It will begin with an inventory of all multicountry projects * whether or not the project builds on existing re- in the current GEF portfolio of projects that have gional agreements, institutions, or mechanisms begun implementation. This inventory will be based on the 1998 PIR reports and a review of other project 44 documents for projects not included in the 1998 PIR. cies. A workshop will be organized where it will be The databases developed of the biodiversity and cli- reviewed and revised based on an in-depth discussion mate change portfolios for the respective program and the results of the further field visits. indicators exercises could be used for the inventory. as well. A limited number of non-GEF projects sug- The results of the review will be disseminated widely gested by the secretariat and implementing agencies to all stakeholders through a variety of means. A GEF may also be included. Lessonis Notes issue will be prepared on the main findings and recommendations of the review. The second step will be to develop a series of key questions and hypotheses based on the performance Timetable measures and variables agreed upon for the review. It will be used to guide interviews with implementing The assignment would be implemented according to agency and GEF secretariat staff, including project the following timetable: managers and perhaps executing agencies. At the same time, a desk review (also based on these key Step 1: Portfolio inventory; development of detailed questions) of PIR reports, other project reports and methodology and work plan-Completed by August evaluations, and literature relevant to the subject of 8. 1999 the review will be carried out. Step 2: Desk review of project reports; selection of From the desk review, ten to twelve projects will be projects for in-depth review-Completed by August selected for more in-depth interviews with people 20, 1999 knowledgeable about project experience. These inter- views would be step 3. Step 3: In-depth review of selected projects; inter- views with key individuals in the implementing agen- Two to three projects will then be selected for field cies and GEF Secretariat-Completed by September visits in consultation with the implementing agencies. 3, 1999 The selected projects should include both interna- tional waters and biodiversity projects. The field vis- Step 4: Field visits to selected projects (possible that its would be carried out by the consultant joined by at this stage only one key project will be visited) GEF Secretariat staff. The field visits will be coordi- 1t draft report-Submitted for review by GEF nated with implementing agencies and, whenever Secretariat by October 15, 1999 possible, will be carried out in conjunction with 2nd draft report-Revised and completed taking planned supervision and other missions in order to into account GEF Secretariat comments by ensure the involvement of the implementing agency November 1, 1999, for inclusion in the PIR staff and to minimize the disturbance to the project. process These field visits may be spread over a longer period of time. Step 5: Further field visits to additional projects (probably two). Preparation of 3rd draft report- The consultant, in consultation with the GEF Secre- Completed by February 29, 2000 tariat staff member in charge of the project, will pre- pare a draft report based on the work that has been Step 6: Workshop and preparation of final report- carried out by October 15, 1999. This first draft report Completed by March 31, 2000 will be reviewed, discussed within the GEF. and re- vised for inclusion (second draft report) in the 1999 Reporting and Supervision PIR process-step 4. In providing these services, the consultant will work In step 5, the review methodology will be revisited in under the day-to-day supervision and guidance of light of the experiences gained and further field visits Christophe Crepin. World Bank Task Manager of this will be organized as deemed appropriate. This will study, Global Environment Coordinator for the Af- lead to the preparation of the third draft report. rica Region in close collaboration with Juha I. Uitto, the M&E Specialist assigned to coordinate and over- In the final step (6). the third draft report will be see this review in the GEF Secretariat. circulated to the implementing and executing agen- 45 46 Annex 2: Survey Questionnaire Name of the project Implementing Agencies Dear Project Leader, GEF is conducting a Thematic Review on multi-country implementation issues in projects within GEF involvement. For this purpose we need information from projects on their experiences in this area. We will kindly ask you to answer the questions below and return the questionnaire to your GEF Implementing Agency contact by October 22. Project relations with respect to transboundary issues Project identification and design In this section the questions concern the period prior to the actual implementation. Please, choose one or more from the given alternatives by circling the corresponding number. 1. Which organization(s) were involved in development of the proposal from concept to the stage of GEF submission? 1. The World Bank 2. UNDP 3. UNEP 4. GEF Secretariat 5. Other multinational organizations, which 6. Bilateral organizations, which 7. Multi-country body, which 8. Single country, which 9. National organizations, which 10. Private sector, which 11. Other, what 47 2. Was the project design influenced by other projects either GEF or non-GEF projects? 1. No 2. Yes. If yes, please, provide details. 3. List any conventions or international legal agreements to which this project directly relates. 4. How were the national governments involved in the project design process? 1. Were involved throughout the project design Were they involved on a steering committee for 2. Participated from time to time project preparation? 1. None 3. Were not particularly involved 2. Some 3. All 5. How were the non-governmental organizations involved in the project design process? 1. Were involved throughout the project design Were they involved on a steering committee for 2. Participated from time to time project preparation? 1. None 3. Were not particularly involved 2. Some 3. All 6. How was the scientific community involved in the project design process? 1. Were involved throughout the project design Were they involved on a steering committee for 2. Participated from time to time project preparation? I No 3. Were not particularly involved 2 Yes 7. How were sub national organizations involved in the project design process? 1. Were involved throughout the project design Were they involved on a steering committee for 2. Participated from time to time project preparation? 1. None 3. Were not particularly involved 2. Some 3. All 8. Were any relevant international Commissions or Secretariats involved in the project design? 1. Were involved throughout the project design Were they involved on a steering committee for 2. Participated from time to time project preparation? I No 3. Were not particularly involved 2 Yes 48 9. Were inter-ministerial committees formed in individual countries during the project design? 1. No 2. Yes. If yes, please, give details Please, also comment on the role of planning ministries and finance ministries from each country in the project? Did they attend meetings? Project implementation These questions concern the period starting from the actual beginning of project implementation. An indicative list of questions of interest to GEF is provided in boxes on the right column of most questions. Some points in boxes may not be equally relevant to all projects. 10. Please, give a short description about how project implementation is organized (please, supply an organigram if available). Think about the organizational setting with respect to the following items: * Is the project implemented jointly or sepa- rately in various countries? Why? * Decision making: steering committees, project management groups, etc. How of- ten meet, who attend? * Problem solving processes * Mechanism for guaranteeing each parties' commitment * How the multi-country institutional ar- rangements are projected to carry on after the GEF project ends? 49 11. How is the Project Coordination Unit or coordinating function organized (please, supply an organigram if available)? Think about the organizational set- ting with respect to the following items: * No. of persons * Location(s) and structure(s) * Independently established or re- lated to an existing structure * Participation arrangements of various stakeholders * Funding of PCU's * Capacity building for the future 12. Please, provide a brief description of the role, if any, of the following groups in project execution a. Intergovernmental Multi-country organizations b. Individual participating governments c. The scientific community - nature of involvement d. Inter-ministerial or inter-ministry groups within each country e. Private sector f. Non-governmental (including community based) organizations g. Local government (provincial, district, municipalities, cities, etc., local people) 13. How were consultants (local/international) used in the project? 50 14. Please, outline the operational linkages between the project and similar or related activities at national and regional level Think about the linkages with respect to following issues: * What kinds of meetings: How often? Who are usually attending? Who should be attending but are usually not? * Other means of communica- tion? And coordination? * What types of information are typically shared? * Are there any formal or in- formal coordination agree- ments (e.g. MOU, Cooperation agreements, etc?) 15. What percent of project funding was: a. provided to governments to undertake project activities % b. utilized by the coordinating unit % c. used by external consultants % d. other groups such as NGO's % 16. What are the verifiable indicators of political commitment from the participating countries to the project? Indicators may relate to e.g. * Legislation/policy * Budgets * Institutional arrangements * Manpower * International/ Regional Con- vention ratification * In-kind support * Investments 17. Would the involvement of other GEF implementing agencies be needed to provide follow-up investments (WB), technical assistance (UNDP) or science and legal issues (UNEP) to improve the outcome of the project? Which agencies and why? 51 18. Give three examples in your project where multi-country institutional issues have needed special attention. For the issues * Problems * Solutions * Lessons learned 19. In your opinion, what have been the most positive aspects in your project regarding multi- country implementation arrangements? 20. In your opinion, what have been the most difficult aspects in your project regarding multi- country implementation arrangements? Thank you for your effort. We hope that this valuable information will help other projects in transboundary issues. 52 Global Environment Facility 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA tel: 1(202)473-0508 fax: I (202)522-3240/3245 www.gefweb.org ;- , t \ W C _~ 00 AS.e4