1. Production and use of an accessible GEF International Waters Focal Area Manual. 2. To develop a comprehensive M & E System for IW Projects. 3. Incorporation of a regional level co-ordination mechanism. 4. Redefinition of the GEF International Waters Task Force.

1. WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG
GEF PROGRAM STUDY ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS
LESSONS LEARNED
1 Project Cycle: UNREALISTIC DONOR EXPECTATIONS
Development of SCS project considered by GEF
Secretariat too slow – 6 years, However this allowed:
• consolidation of government commitments
• more detailed elaboration of operational documents
• clear understanding of the management framework
• trust and confidence building
SLOW DEVELOPMENT CAN BE ADVANTAGEOUS

2. WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG
GEF PROGRAM STUDY ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS
LESSONS LEARNED
2 Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis: PERIODIC UP-DATES; ALL
ENCOMPASSING STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS; IDENTIFIED
CAPABILITIES AND DEFINED RESPONSIBILITIES.
• SCS TDA & outline SAP completed 1998;
• Preparatory phase 2002 – 2004 revised components of the TDA in
greater depth;
• Foci of operational phase 2005 – 2007 are:
SAP and NAP elaboration;
Demonstration site operation: and,
Regional exchange and site networking
TDA REVISION EVERY TEN YEARS ?

3. WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG
GEF PROGRAM STUDY ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS
LESSONS LEARNED
3. Value of Demonstration Projects BUILD CONFIDENCE
THROUGH TANGIBLE LOCAL BENEFITS; MULTI-DISCIPLINARY
APPROACHES.
SCS experience suggests:
• National interlocutor vital to ensure full engagement
of local stakeholders
• Sites strengthen regional networks
• Sites build network components at levels below
Federal/National Government level
• Sites strengthen South-South Exchange and enhances
self-reliance
THE ONLY WAY TO ENGAGE PROVINCIAL, & LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS IN REGIONAL PROJECTS ?

4. WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG
GEF PROGRAM STUDY ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS
LESSONS LEARNED
4. Selection of appropriate scales for assessment and
management: CONFLICT BETWEEN SYSTEM
BOUNDARIES AND POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS;
SCS experience indicates necessity for
• Separation of S & T issues from Political decision
making
• S & T advice should come from neutral sources
• Experts and consultants should preferably be from the
region
• Political decision making in the project should be the
sole prerogative of the governments without IA, GEF or
donor influence
KEEP SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MATTERS
SEPARATE FROM POLITICAL DECISION MAKING

5. WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG
GEF PROGRAM STUDY ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS
LESSONS LEARNED
4. Selection of appropriate scales for assessment and
management: SITE SELECTION PROCESS
Site Selection in SCS involved building from ground up regional and
national consensus on:
a. biological, environmental, transboundary and socio-economic
indicators
b. assembling maximum number of site related data sets
c. conducting a cluster analysis to group the sites
d. agreeing the scale or scores for criteria and indicators
e. ranking sites within clusters
f. Deciding on the sites
PROCESS DISCUSSED AND AGREED AT ALL STAGES AND
ALL LEVELS; ONCE COMPLETE NO DISAGREEMENT

6. WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG
GEF PROGRAM STUDY ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS
LESSONS LEARNED
5 Value of Strategic Planning: DECLARATORY APPROACH
DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT; COMBINATION OF SAP AND NAPS
SCS approach to:
• Develop NAP’s as TDA data are refined;
• Review framework SAP targets regionally;
• Feed regional targets into national level NAP discussions
• Regional discussion of NAP’s prior to individual government
approval
• Take NAP drafts as inputs to Regional SAP
• Consolidation of SAP and initiation of intergovernmental approval
STEPS 1, AND 2 COMPLETED; STEP 3 ONGOING;
STEPS 4 & 5 NOV. 2005; STEP 6 2006/2007

7. WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG
GEF PROGRAM STUDY ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS
LESSONS LEARNED
6. The Inter-Ministry Process: POLITICAL MOMENTUM,
SENIORITY OF REPRESENTATION
SCS Inter-Ministry Committee’s:
• Work well in some countries, not in others
• Concerned only with cross sectoral matters not with scientific or
technical issues
When Chaired by Senior Officials or Ministers/Deputy Minister’s
IMC attracts higher level representation from other sectors
SUCCESS OR FAILURE REFLECTS INDIVIDUAL’S
COMMITMENTS AND EFFORTS RATHER THAN THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GOVERNMENT CONCERNED

8. WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG
GEF PROGRAM STUDY ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS
LESSONS LEARNED
7. Project Operational Arrangements and Support: INTER-PROJECT
CO-ORDINATION AD HOC AND DEFICIENT;
SCS Inter-project Co-ordination, with PEMSEA
• SCS collaboration with PEMSEA, must remain superficial
since the organisational structures, participating countries
and mode of management are different in each project.
• The purposes and functions of the demonstration sites are
fundamentally different. SCS focuses on rural, local
community based management of sites; PEMSEA
generally focuses on integrated management of
urbanised areas with multiple use conflicts
COLLABORATION NOT POSSIBLE JUST BECAUSE
PROJECTS ARE IN THE SAME REGION;
COMPLEMENTARITY MAY BE OF GREATER IMPORTANCE

9. WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG
GEF PROGRAM STUDY ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS
LESSONS LEARNED
7. Project Operational Arrangements and Support: FORMAL
ACCOUNTING OF COUNTERPART CONTRIBUTIONS;
SCS Procedures
• 1st Project Steering Committee meeting, October 2001,
agreed the full project document including:
• A Cost Coefficient of US$ 70/day inclusive of office
support costs, salary, and benefits to be used in
estimating in-kind co-financing;
• A commitment of 25% of the time of each Focal Point
from each Executing Agency to the project;
• A time estimate for in-kind contributions during the
preparatory phase;
• Complete budgetary transparency (Full budget on the web).
AGREE THE ESTIMATES UP FRONT

10. WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG
GEF PROGRAM STUDY ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS
LESSONS LEARNED
7. Project Operational Arrangements and Support: FORMAL
ACCOUNTING OF COUNTERPART CONTRIBUTIONS;
SCS Procedures for verifying co-financing
• Each six month report lists the meetings, their duration,
agenda, report, and list of participants. Possible to calculate
the actual in-kind co-financing, realised through participation
of individuals in national level meetings.
• A second verifiable element is the costs of time of members
participation in the regional scientific and technical committee
(RSTC) and project steering committee (PSC) meetings.
• The estimated in-kind co-financing for these elements from
January 2002 to June 2004 that can be verified is 1,086,225
(29%) of the total 3,751,038 million US$.
VERIFICATION BECOMES A ROUTINE MANAGEMENT TASK

11. WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG
GEF PROGRAM STUDY ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS
LESSONS LEARNED
7. Project Operational Arrangements and Support: FORMAL
ACCOUNTING OF COUNTERPART IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS;
Total Components
Estimate
VERIFICATION ENCOURAGES BACKSLIDERS TO
IMPROVE
Actual US $
Cambodia 123,200 140,420
China 86,100 62,790
Indonesia 123,200 174,475
Malaysia 123,200 10,150
Philippines 123,200 180,670
Thailand 123,200 348,705
Viet Nam 123,200 159,040
Total 825,300 1,076,250
Percentage 130

12. WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG
GEF PROGRAM STUDY ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Production and use of an accessible GEF International
Waters Focal Area Manual
2. To develop a comprehensive M & E System for IW Projects
3. Incorporation of a regional level co-ordination mechanism
4. Redefinition of the GEF International Waters Task Force.
WE FORSEE THAT ALL THESE RECOMMENDATIONS
WILL RESULT IN AN INCREASED WORK LOAD FOR
PROJECT MANAGERS BUT WITH LITTLE
COMENSURATE BENEFIT