GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY

Project Brief Cover Page

Project Title:				Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA)

GEF Implementing Agency:		United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Executing Agencies:			UNEP in collaboration with GESAMP, SCOPE, ACOPS, WWC, ICSU, Regional Intergovernmental Bodies and National Institutions
Country:						Global
GEF Focal Area:					International Waters, with relevance to aquatic biological diversity
Operational Programs:			Operational Programs 8, 9 & 10 (with particular relevance to the Regional/Global Technical support component of OP 10) and relevance to Operational Program 2

Summary of Expected Outcomes:
The overall objective is to develop a comprehensive, strategic framework for the identification of priorities for remedial and mitigatory actions in international waters, designed to achieve significant environmental benefits, at national, regional and global levels.
Strategic information for GEF use at a programmatic level through the provision of a framework for: the identification of regional and global priority areas for the consideration of the GEF and its partners in the focal area of international waters, and decision making concerning appropriate management interventions, including identification of more sustainable approaches to the use of water and its associated resources. Preparation of approaches for the elucidation of incremental cost analyses, and protocols for the conduct of causal chain and transboundary diagnostic analyses in GEF-IW projects. Increase in leveraged co-financing.

GEF Financing and Leverage 			(US $ million)
GEF Financing (inc. PDF B):	US $	6,785,000
PDF Alloction:		US $	290,000
Cofinancing:		US $  	7,334,000
Total Project Costs:	US $  14,119,000

Associated Financing	US $	12,000,000
	US $	200,000,000

IA Contacts:	Senior Programme Officer, International Waters, UNEP/GEF Coordination Office.

1.	Background

1.1 	A GEF objective in the International Waters focal area is "to contribute primarily as a catalyst to the implementation of a more comprehensive, ecosystem-based approach to managing international waters and their drainage basins as a means to achieve global environmental benefits". The present proposal addresses the issues of priority setting within the context of the International Waters Portfolio of the GEF and seeks to elucidate the societal causes of water-related issues and problems. 

1.2 	The GEF Operational Strategy identifies four major areas of concern relating to International Waters, including: degradation of the quality of transboundary water resources; physical habitat degradation; introduction of non-indigenous species; and excessive exploitation of living and non-living resources. Whilst these major concerns are, if not universal then at least widespread, their extent and relative importance varies considerably from geographic region to region. The Operational Strategy states that "GEF's activities will focus on seriously threatened waterbodies and the most imminent transboundary threats to their ecosystems". It also identifies certain problems including persistent organic pollutants (POPS), thought to be of global significance but requiring further assessment. Deciding on which waterbodies and which threats should receive priority attention is difficult in the absence of a comprehensive assessment of the ecological status of international waters and related causes of degradation.

1.3	At its fourth meeting in Nairobi, 15-17 February 1996, the GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) noted that: “Lack of an International Waters Assessment comparable with that of the IPCC, the Global Biodiversity Assessment, and the Stratospheric Ozone Assessment, was a unique and serious impediment to the implementation of the International Waters Component of the GEF”. STAP further noted that “While there exist a number of assessments of separate aspects of International Waters, there is no holistic assessment of the kind needed to develop an intergovernmental consensus on priorities for action by the GEF”. Subsequently during the sixth STAP session, in Amsterdam, 9-12 September 1996, it was agreed that there is a necessity for a region by region assessment of water systems which, taken together, would place these issues within a global context. In the absence of an overall, comprehensive, global assessment of the nature, extent, and distribution of particular issues and problems affecting international waters, and their societal causes, the strategy for GEF in the International Waters portfolio lacks adequate criteria for priority setting. Selection of projects in this portfolio to date has been undertaken in the absence of a clear understanding of the global priorities for action and information concerning the optimum sites for maximising global environmental benefits.

1.4	The urgent need for an assessment of the causes of environmental degradation has been highlighted in recent international fora such as the UN Special Session on the Environment (UNGASS) 23 June 1997, where commitments were made regarding the work of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) on freshwater in 1998 and seas in 1999. In two recent international Declarations, the Potomac Declaration on Oceans and Security (Washington, D.C., May 21, 1997), and the Stockholm Statement on Interaction of Land Activities, Freshwater and Enclosed Seas (Stockholm, August 14, 1997), specific emphasis was placed on the need for a assessment which examines the root causes of degradation of the transboundary aquatic environment and options for addressing them. In his recent speech to the UN General Assembly, the Secretary General, Mr. Koffi Anan noted the achievements of GEF and the need to replenish the fund. He also stressed the importance of UNEP's role "as the forum for development of international policy, law and negotiation and implementation of cooperative arrangements to deal with environmental issues, as a bridge between science and policy-making". In the light of all of these developments, this assessment would appear to be both appropriate and timely.

1.5	The GEF is in a unique position to facilitate such an assessment by assembling groups of specialists at a regional level following compatible methodologies to investigate the ecological status of international waters and the causes of degradation. From the different regional and sub-regional assessments a global picture will emerge. The challenge faced by GIWA though timely, is onerous. In effect, GIWA, through the GEF should be in a position to provide technical information necessary to support much of the political dialogue undertaken within the forum of the UNCSD as a follow-up to initiatives such as UNGASS.

2.	Project Rationale and Objective

2.1		Lack of an International Waters Assessment comparable with that of the IPCC, the Global Biodiversity Assessment, and the Stratospheric Ozone Assessment, is a unique and serious impediment to the implementation of the International Waters (IW) Component of the GEF, since there exist no basis on which to identify areas of global priority for GEF intervention. There is a need for a globally coherent incremental study of transboundary water issues, based on the many existing, but thematically narrow studies at national, regional and global levels.

2.2	The overall objective is to develop a comprehensive strategic assessment that may be used by GEF and its partners to identify priorities for remedial and mitigatory actions in international waters, designed to achieve significant environmental benefits, at national, regional and global levels.

2.3	To meet this objective the project aims to produce a fully comprehensive and integrated Global International Waters Assessment, encompassing the ecological status of and causes of environmental problems of transboundary freshwater basins and their associated coastal and ocean systems. The GIWA will undertake this from the perspectives of: water quality and quantity; associated biodiversity and habitats; their use by society; the societal causes of the regionally identified issues and problems; and scenarios of future conditions based on projections of demographic, economic and social changes associated with the process of human development.

3.		Baseline Course of Action

3.1.	The most recent comprehensive global assessment of the environmental problems of the Oceans is that published by GESAMP in 1990. The recently completed Comprehensive Freshwater Assessment (1997), undertaken by relevant UN organisations and the Stockholm Environment Institute at the request of the UNCSD, provides an overview of freshwater resources and their present use. This assessment provides scenarios of the probable situation in 2025, based on existing driving forces of change and as such is the first assessment in this area to take a forward looking approach. However it is inadequate in the assessment of transboundary freshwater basins and associated transboundary groundwaters.

3.2	Several thematic assessments and compilations of data relevant to the GEF International Waters portfolio are available or planned by the FAO, IOC, IUCN, WWF, UNEP, World Bank, SCOPE, GESAMP, GEMS, IGBP/LOICZ, and World Water Council, amongst others, whilst numerous regional and sub-regional assessments of freshwater and marine problems are available, including the transboundary diagnostic analyses completed to date within the framework of GEF project activities. On-going regional assessments of the impact of land-based activities on the marine environment are also being conducted within the framework of the GPA/LBA. A preliminary bibliography prepared during the PDF-B phase lists several hundred relevant assessments and access points for meta-data catalogues and holdings, providing a substantial basis on which to build a comprehensive global assessment of International Waters issues and problems.

3.3	Past assessments have generally lacked the holistic, systems approach advocated by the GEF, since they have concentrated on specific issues such as biodiversity, or have treated freshwater independently of the associated marine and coastal systems. Assessments tend to be sectorial and it has been difficult to achieve a holistic approach with the existing international institutional structures. Such activities will continue in the absence of the overarching framework that will result from this project which is itself an incremental activity that is unlikely to be initiated without the intervention of the GEF.

4.	Alternative Course of Action

4.1	Description of the GEF Intervention

4.1.1	The geographic scope of the project is global with a defined regional focus. It is anticipated that governments having interests in transboundary fresh waters (both surface and subsurface) and marine waters and their dependent resources will participate through involvement of national scientific and technical experts, managers and policy makers.

4.1.2	The scientific and technical scope of the project is primarily defined by the linkage between transboundary freshwater and marine systems, but encompasses other issues relating to freshwater and marine systems separately. The substantive scope of the project includes an integrated assessment of the environmental, managerial, scientific, legal, social and economic aspects of water related environmental problems.

4.1.3	GIWA is not foreseen as primarily a data gathering exercise. It will gather only that information required to complete a stepwise, iterative analysis of transboundary water-related problems and their causes. This information will be used to generate scenarios reflecting continuation of current practices, and adoption of environmentally sustainable alternatives. The analysis requires a broad base of information from the physical and social sciences, that accounts for the geographical and geopolitical peculiarities of countries and regions and reflects the different rates of change in social, cultural and economic practices characterising the process of “human development”. 

4.1.4	On the one hand, GIWA must conduct a globally coherent assessment of the ecological status of transboundary waters. On the other, it will probe societal causes of the identified issues whether or not these are geographically located on the rivers or seas themselves. It will quantify some of the hidden environmental costs or externalities of existing domestic, industrial, agricultural and transport practices and compare prevailing practices with more environmentally, socially and economically, sustainable approaches.

4.1.5	Specifically, the scope of the project will encompass the completion of: a regional (region by region) assessment of the ecological status and causes of degradation of transboundary water systems, including cross-cutting elements of widespread practices; assessment of societal causes of identified major concerns and principal issues; up-to-date, issue-related global reviews of selected issues of relevance to International Waters; a global overview of inter-regional transboundary issues in the area of international waters; and scenarios of future trends and state of the aquatic environment and resources under various planning bounds of social and economic change and development 

4.2	GIWA Activities Leading to Expected Outcomes and Results

4.2.1	The pre-project preparatory phase

This phase, already completed, had the main objectives of defining the thematic analytical scope of GIWA and establishing the operational geographic units of assessment. An extract from the tabular results of this exercise, conducted by two international, multidisciplinary expert groups, is presented in annex III and the full analyses are available on request. The first expert group examined internationally recognised water-related environmental issues with transboundary consequences at the regional or global levels. The group was able to evaluate suitable approaches for examining the status and causes of the identified problems through a "causal chain approach" and demonstrate how alternatives and options for subsequent action involving the GEF may be identified. The approach is applicable, with small variants, to all types of international waters: seas; rivers; lakes; and groundwaters. It needs to be extended to examine uncertainties, policy options and barriers to addressing the causes, but the power and utility of the methodology are amply illustrated.

The second expert group developed the geographical framework for GIWA. The task was to divide the world into a series of areas, based upon a mix of environmental, biogeographical and geopolitical factors which seemed the most appropriate for the purposes of this project. The main determining factor was the integrity of each unit in terms of encompassing the major causes and effects of environmental problems associated with each transboundary water area, whether river basin, groundwater, lake or sea. In many cases a drainage area and associated marine basin (often a Large Marine Ecosystem) were the most appropriate units. Sixty six of these sub-regions were identified and grouped into nine Regions, for the convenience of project management only. The 66 sub-regions will be the basic units of assessment of GIWA. 

In order to illustrate the plausible utility of GIWA’s analytical approach, a preliminary table was developed as an indication of the potential regional importance of each of the major water-related environmental concerns and principal issues identified by the first expert group. This table provides a means of scoping the full assessment and will be further developed during execution of GIWA, through the iterative analysis of quantitative information and scientific reviews, gradually becoming more objective and detailed in its geographical coverage.

4.2.2	The Establishment of the GIWA network and development of an assessment protocol

The network established to accomplish the work of GIWA (the GIWA network) will consist of national experts and institutions, regional and global collaborating bodies organised around the geographic units of assessment and grouped into nine major regions. Wherever and whenever possible existing regional and thematic networks will be used. Overall co-ordination of the work of the participating individuals and institutions will take place through focal points for each of the sub-regions who will participate in the work of Nine Regional Task Teams, of (between 10 and 15 members) supported and assisted by a Core Team of (between 4 and 6) full-time specialists covering both regional and thematic concerns. The core team will be advised by, and report to, a Steering Group of (between 12 and 15) senior scientists and representatives of the major co-sponsoring organisations (see, Annex IV). Individual members of the core team will function as links to, and focal points for, one or more of the regional task teams. During the first three months, the primary task of the core team will be to build upon the work undertaken during the preparatory phase, establish the major components of the network and prepare recommendations concerning the establishment of the components of the GIWA network, for consideration by the Steering Group. 

The first meeting of the Steering Group, will be convened within four months from commencement of the project to agree upon the principal components of the GIWA Network, namely the composition of the regional task teams, and the regional organisations hosting the task teams. The network is intended to be "open-ended", to consist, at least in part of a network of networks and is expected to grow according to the needs and in-kind contributions of sponsors and participants. During the subsequent six months, the core team will convene the necessary expert consultations for the completion of a preliminary GIWA Assessment Protocol and will convene first meetings of all regional task teams to review the protocol. They shall also draw upon the experience of the regional teams in order to design an approved methodology for conducting causal chain analyses to examine societal root causes of water related environmental problems and guidelines for the conduct of transboundary diagnostic analyses - a primary GIWA product applicable to GEF IW projects particularly in the GEF Operational Programme 8. In addition, the expert consultations will identify the needs for establishment of Thematic Task Teams and should also identify needs for case studies where strictly necessary, particularly in the socio-economic domain. The thematic task teams may need to meet twice during the first year in order to assist the core team with the development and finalisation of the assessment protocols. The regional task teams, will convene once during the first year and working closely with the core team shall complete the initial products of GIWA by the end of project year one. 

The anticipated products at the end of year one are: a global network of collaborating institutions/organisations and individuals in governmental and non-governmental organisations; a meta-data catalogue of existing/completed projects in all regions; a GIWA assessment protocol including an agreed methodology for conducting causal chain analyses to examine societal root causes of water related environmental problems, an agreed methodology for conducting transboundary diagnostic analyses at regional scales; detailed approaches to the application of incremental cost analysis in International Waters projects; a preliminary analytical tool for the analysis of the ecological status of water-related environmental issues and their societal causes (this will subsequently be a component of all TDAs). 

4.2.3	The analytical phase of GIWA

During the second twelve months the national experts and institutions shall gather and analyze the information, necessary for applying the GIWA assessment protocol at the sub-regional level. They will be assisted in this task by the regional task teams, the core team and where necessary the thematic task teams. Based on the products of the sub-regional assessments, the thematic and regional task teams, together with the core team shall commence, and as far as possible complete the regional level assessments. This process will be designed in an iterative manner in order to review the quality and relevance of the information gathered and to ensure comparability and compatibility of the analyses. There will be differences in the approach required in each region as some regional studies have already consolidated the information required by GIWA, whereas others have very scarce and fragmented information.

GIWA products resulting from these activities will include: regional meta databases and bibliographies to be issued on CD ROM; contributions to the Internet site prepared by IW-learn; approximately 66 sub-regional reviews of the transboundary ecological status and major water related concerns and principal issues, including analyses of their causes; published guidelines for preparation of a causal chain analysis for use in GEF regional level transboundary diagnostic analyses; guidelines for the application of transboundary diagnostic analyses in GEF IW projects particularly in the GEF Operational Programme 8; and regional reviews of issues and their societal causes for widespread dissemination.

Of particular concern during this phase will be the information requirements for socio-economic analyses as these will be the major driving forces built into the possible scenarios. A major task will be to dis-aggregate existing data (generally assembled on the basis of geopolitical divisions and without regard to their relationship to the environment and the distribution of natural resources) and regroup it according to environmentally relevant geographical areas describing transboundary systems. A thematic economic task team will be established to: oversee this work; provide advice and assistance to some regions; and to ensure consistency in the application of the GIWA assessment protocol. Simultaneously the core team, assisted by the thematic task teams will develop the draft methods and approaches to be used during the predictive and policy options analysis phase.

It is anticipated that the regional task teams will need to meet an average of two times during the analytical phase. Much of the work will depend on day-to-day electronic mail communications established by the regional task team members and the individual experts working at national level. It is hoped that some of the GIWA donors may be prepared to establish scholarships at relevant postgraduate research departments in order to provide additional dedicated intellectual input to the GIWA process. In addition to the meetings of the regional task teams, there will be a number of thematic task team meetings in which experts from the regional groups, and outside specialists will meet together, in order to: discuss progress with implementation; facilitate improved quality of GIWA products; and to bring peer pressure to bear on any team that is performing inadequately. The participation of experts from established international bodies such as ICSU and GESAMP will be essential in this work. The expertise needed to cover transboundary freshwater, marine, coastal and groundwater issues as well as societal causes of degradation and driving forces of change, cannot presently be found within any single international body.

The GIWA core team shall ensure that the necessary support is provided to the regional and thematic task teams during this phase of the project. They shall facilitate the provision of additional expertise to regions requiring such support and actively promote GIWA to additional potential donors.

The thematic task teams in collaboration with the core team, shall begin the elaboration of a series of global reviews based on the outcomes of the work of the UNCSD. These will be developed through integration of information from the regional studies and historical information and will be completed and published in the third year of GIWA. In some cases, these reviews will be based upon existing programmes/reviews conducted by the contributors to GIWA. The work of existing bodies will not be duplicated and GIWA will serve to provide added value where possible.

4.2.4	The predictive/policy options analysis phase

During the third year of GIWA, dedicated to scenario development and policy options analysis, the work of the task teams and the core team will be focused upon the evaluation of alternative scenarios. The analyses will incorporate a number of scenarios developed on the basis of projected actions taken to address the identified societal causes of environmental degradation. The initial starting point for these scenarios will be “current trends". In effect, from an economic perspective, the analyses will consider the implications of measures to internalize environmental externalities in the evaluation of alternative options for water use. Different alternative approaches will be considered in order to reach a given objective (alternative scenarios, policy changes, investment in technological solutions, etc.). From a social perspective, the analysis will consider the incremental cost of measures to encourage the modification of unsustainable social and economic development trends. The uncertainties in the scenarios must also be identified and clearly stated.

The predictive phase of the assessment will build on the studies and analyses undertaken over the entire three-year period of GIWA. The products will be finalised in the third year when sufficient validated data from the sub-regional and regional analyses become available. This phase will require the participation of well-recognized regional and international experts, supported where possible from the bodies and donors contributing to GIWA itself. This phase of the work will not be treated as a merely academic exercise but will actively involve stakeholders from governments, industry and all levels of society. The principal product from the third year of GIWA will be a detailed scheme for placing priorities on transboundary environmental issues in the various sub-regions. 

Products at the end of year three will be: nine regional and 66 sub-regional scenarios of the future state of international waters based on planning bounds reflecting differing rates of change and industrialization, population and development trends; a global analysis of the societal causes of identified water-related, major concerns and principal issues; a global overview of the relative importance of the various major concerns and principal issues by region; and a significant number of global reviews of topics through the regional reviews and the work of UNCSD;

4.2.5	Dissemination of the GIWA products 

The final phase of GIWA will be dedicated to the preparation and dissemination of the global and regional GIWA products. Whilst numerous intermediate products will have been produced and disseminated during the earlier phases of the project many of these will be of a highly technical nature. During this phase emphasis will be directed towards the preparation of reviews that are easily comprehensible to various sectors of society. GIWA should not remain a desk exercise but should be made available to the public in general, to educational institutions and to national and regional authorities. The GIWA meta-data base and regional reports should be freely available through electronic communications, on CD ROM and, where strictly necessary, in hard copy. The GIWA core team and the task teams, together with specialists on public education and awareness will complete this work. Anticipated products from this phase include: popular educational and information materials concerning transboundary water-related environmental problems on a regional basis; CD-ROM’s of data and information for use in decision making; a meta-data catalogue of relevant assessments, data and information sources available via the Internet; and substantive contributions to an Internet website for international waters to be established in close cooperation with the GEF IW-Learn project implemented by UNDP.

4.3	Expected Outcomes/Results

Expected outcomes of the project will be:

•	strategic assessments of the ecological status of transboundary waters for GEF use at a programmatic level through the provision of an assessment of ecological priorities at the regional and global scales concerning issues and problems in the focal area of international waters; 
•	provision of a framework for GEF projects to decide upon appropriate management interventions including remedial and mitigatory actions in international waters, of value to the GEF, regional international organisations, and governments participating in the GEF; 
•	identification of more sustainable approaches to the use of water and its associated resources, at national regional and local levels; 
•	protocols for the conduct of causal chain and transboundary diagnostic analyses for use in GEF International Waters Projects by the Implementing Agencies; 
•	a considerable increase in leveraged co-financing as a result of improved focusing and credibility of future interventions and projects; 
•	a baseline of information at the regional and sub-regional level which will facilitate the regional task of preparation of Transboundary Diagnostic Analyses within new projects and improve the capacity to evaluate projects underway or within the existing GEF pipeline. 

5.	Project Risks and Sustainability

5.1	As noted in the LOGFRAME Annex the success of project implementation is based on the assumptions that governments will support the process of GIWA execution and will actively contribute to it and further that governments and donors will accept the results of the assessment.

5.2	Progress to project completion is dependent upon the preparation of sub-regional reviews and analyses in an orderly and timely manner to permit their aggregation to regional and global scales. It is also assumed that the sub-regional reviews and analyses will be of comparable quality permitting regional level aggregation of information and analysis at broader scales. Both these assumptions seem likely to be met through the proposed organisational structure.

5.3	One further assumption relates to the nature in which social and economic data are normally aggregated on the basis of political and administrative boundaries and without regard to environmental boundaries. Handling such data during the analytical phase will require their dis-aggregation and re-aggregation and it was the opinion of the second working group that although time consuming such a re-aggregation was possible.

6.	Participation & Sustainability

6.1	The concept of GIWA is based on a decentralised process of implementation through semiautonomous regional and thematic tasks teams working in a common framework, using the same methodologies and approaches to generate comparable and compatible sub-regional and regional products. On the basis of these products a global overview of priority areas for action, and a common understanding of the driving forces and societal causes of water-related environmental problems can be based.

6.2	The project will be organised on the basis of the 66 identified units of assessment or sub-regions. Where possible, and in the case of much of the northern and parts of the southern hemisphere, existing organisations undertaking relevant assessments will be linked to GIWA through the core team. For those sub-regions where there are no existing organisations or institutions involved in assessment activities, organisation and compilation of the required information and data will be the responsibility of identified focal points working with appropriate national experts and institutions. These focal points will be members of the regional task teams.

6.3	For the nine regions, regional task teams of government nominated experts and experts of international standing from the appropriate regional scientific community will be formed. The regional task teams shall have responsibility for oversight of the implementation of the activities within their respective regions. Each task team may establish smaller working groups if required, for detailed analysis of sub-regions or areas within the region concerned. In addition each task team will include individual scientists functioning as focal points and having responsibility for assembling the information and data required for each sub-region. 

6.4	Data and information will flow from the focal points or working groups to the regional task team for data quality assurance and control. The regional task team will coordinate the analysis, at a regional scale of the issues and problems, their societal causes, and the economic costs and effectiveness of alternative actions. Each regional task team will be electronically linked with a member of the core team to facilitate transfer of appropriate information and ideas between the regional task teams, and provide the basis for elaboration by the core team of the global scale scenarios and reviews. 

6.5	The thematic task teams will be established, by the core team in consultation with the Steering Group, in order to review on a global scale, specific issues and problems, including inter alia problems such as transboundary freshwater basin management, integrated water resources management in small islands, climate variability and change, and the societal driving forces causing water-related issues and problems. The number of such thematic task teams will be determined on the basis of initial results from the sub-regional assessments, and the findings resulting from the work of the UNCSD in freshwater and seas.

6.6	Products and outputs will be peer-reviewed for their scientific quality, before being presented to governments via appropriate intergovernmental fora and/or meetings.

7.	Dissemination of Project Results

7.1	As noted in section 4.2.5 the final phase of GIWA will be dedicated to the preparation and dissemination of the global and regional GIWA products. Throughout the life of the activity information and analyses will be produced in a variety of forms and disseminated widely by various means including internet, CD ROM’s and in print media where necessary.

8.	Incremental Costs & Budget

8.1	In accordance with the Streamlined Procedures for Incremental Cost Assessment issued by the GEF Secretariat, this proposal is deemed to be a complementary project, in which all the activities add something without changing the baseline. It complements rather than substitutes existing activities, since the existing global activities concerned with water-related assessments, are thematic or sectorial in their approach and do not take the holistic overview intended for the GIWA Project. The costs of such activities have been estimated (Annex 1) and are included, as ongoing baseline activities in the following table that includes an estimate of the value of the existing data and information upon which GIWA will be based. Estimated costs of ongoing, sub-regional and regional activities that will contribute to GIWA are listed in the table as being designed to achieve ‘domestic’ environmental benefits (see Annex 1). Since no other organisation will undertake an assessment of the scope of GIWA in the foreseeable future, and since the entire GIWA project is complementary, all costs can be considered incremental. 

Incremental costs of GIWA

	Baseline	Alternative	Increment	
Global Environmental Benefits 1998-2001	  12,500,000	26,619,000	14,119,000	
Past activities contributing to the global baseline	200,000,000	200,000,000	0	
‘Domestic’ (Regional & Sub-regional) Environmental Benefits	  50,000,000	50,000,000	0	
TOTAL	262,500,000 	276,619,000	14,119,000	

8.2	The budget is presented in the GEF format and costs of project implementation are shown in two columns: the GEF funding is primarily to support activities in those regions that are characterised by countries with developing economies or economies in transition. Global coverage of GIWA is ensured through the additional support of donors through co-financing in both developed and developing regions. The in-kind contribution of expert time to GIWA is estimated to be approximately 125 person years, amounting to some US $ 5 million in salary costs alone, this figure is not included in the above table. The following notes relate to the individual budget lines:

•	Personnel GEF finance will support three members of the core team, the remainder of the team (1-3 individuals) will be financed by co-financing and parallel contributions (e.g. through the provision of Junior Professional Officers, visiting professorship schemes, etc.). International consultants are mostly supplied by co-financing and will be employed for specific technical tasks, particularly in assisting with regional assessments as needed and for the development of common assessment protocols. Local consultants include support staff recruited to assist with programme execution.

•	Regional Focal Points and Task Teams are shown on the budget table as sub-contracts. This reflects the project management strategy based upon subsidiarity to regions and sub-regions. Contracts will be provided, where necessary, to the focal points based in the sub-regions for specific tasks related to information gathering, interpretation, and the development of regional and sub-regional information products. Donors will be encouraged to finance entire sub-regional programmes.

•	Workshops encompass all meetings related to the implementation of the project (regional review meetings, thematic task teams, and steering group meetings) and the associated travel and meeting expenses. This is a major item since one of the main modalities of implementing GIWA will be through the formation of cross-sectorial teams to examine major environmental issues.

•	Equipment purchased for the project will be minimal and will consist principally of data processing and communication support to the core team.

•	Travel costs indicated are for the core team specialists. All other travel costs are reflected in the workshop and focal point budgets.

•	Miscellaneous costs shown refer to the cost of coordinating GIWA and to production of its products. The largest single item refers to publications, including those in electronic form. A considerable emphasis is given to the wide diffusion of GIWA products, particularly in Phase 4 and 5 of implementation. Donor support will enable publication of sub-regional and multi-language versions of GIWA products.

•	Infrastructure costs: provision of facilities for the core team will be provided by Kalmar University, Sweden. 

Global International Waters Assessment - Budget

	Thousands of US $	
Budget Line	Phases 1 (PDF) & 2	Phase 3	Phase 4	Phase 5	Project Total	
	GEF	Cofinancing	GEF	Cofinancing	GEF	Cofinancing	GEF	Cofinancing	GEF	Cofinancing	Total	
												
Personnel :												
    Core Team	350	120	350	120	350	120	350	120	1400	480	1880	
    International consultants	30	100	30	375	30	75	80	275	170	825	995	
    Local consultants	70	35	70	30	70	30	70	30	280	125	405	
Regional TT, FP (Subcontracts)	150	200	870	1400	620	440	200	150	1840	2190	4030	
Workshops	350	240	850	400	240	350	80	200	1520	1190	2710	
Training												
Equipment	45		20		10				75		75	
Travel	40		55		55		55		205		205	
Miscellaneous:												
    Communications	36		36		36		36		144		144	
    Operations & Maintenance.	10	50	20	50	15	50	15	50	60	200	260	
    Publications	20	20	35	20	60	20	250	400	365	460	825	
    Other	10		10		10		10		40		40	
Infrastructure (recurrent exp.)		450		450		450		450		1800	1800	
												
Total for Phase	1111	1215	2346	2845	1496	1535	1146	1675	6099	7270	13369	
												
PDF	290	64							290	64	354	
Agency support costs	92		92		92		92		368		368	
Evaluation missions	4		10		4		10		28		28	
												
Total cost to GEF (+PDF)	1497		2448		1592		1248		6785		6785	
Total co-financing (+PDF)		1279		2845		1535		1675		7334	7334	
GRAND TOTAL (PDF + Project)											14119	

9. 	Implementation Plan

ACTIVITIES	PDF PHASE	DURATION OF PROJECT 48 MONTHS	
	3	6	9	12	3	6	9	12	15	18	21	24	27	30	33	36	39	42	45	48	
1. Pre-Project preparatory phase  PDF	
Steering Group mtgs	x	x	x																		
2 expert group meetings, & Management mtg.	x	x	x																		
Prelim. Biblio. & metadata catalogue																					
Finalisation of project brief																					
Finalisation of UNEP prodoc																					
2. Establishment of the network & development of Assessment Protocol	
2.1 Select Core Team; id Focal Pts; regional organisations; form. Regional Task Teams (RTT)																					
2.2 Steering Group (SG) Mtg.						x															
 2.3 Draft assessment protocol include: TDA & causal chain methods; approaches to incremental costs analysis.																					
2.4 Mtgs of 9 Regional Task Teams																					
Prep. of meta-data catalogue & website inputs												on-going updating of the website see 5.4 below	
2.5 Review of assessment protocol & mtgs. of Thematic Task Teams																					
3. Analytical phase	
3.1 Annual Core Team Rpt & 1999 workplan, SG Mtg									x												
3.3 Regional Task Team mtgs. 2 x 9																					
Preparation of regional reviews, TDA analysis																					
Preparation of regional causal chain analysis																					
 3.4 3 Mtgs of Economics Task Team, methods for scenario analysis 									x	x		x									
3.5 3 Mtgs of Thematic Task Teams									x	x	x										
 Preparation of draft thematic global reviews																					
3.6 Finalisation of GEF TDA guidelines																					
4. Predictive/policy options phase	
4.1 Annual Core Team Rpt & 2000 workplan, SG Mtg.												x									
4.2 Combined mtg. Economics & RTT												x									
4.3 Regional & sub-regional scenario development																					
4.4 Stakeholders meeting																x					
4.5 Preparation of the global overview																					
5. Dissemination of GIWA products	
5.1 Annual Core Team Rp & 2001 workplan, SG Mtg																	x				
5.2 Appt. of Public Information expert																					
5.3 Mtgs of Regional & Thematic TT																					
5.4 Expansion of website information, CD ROMs																					
5.5 Global & Regional Information products																					
Disbursements in US $	290,000	1,207,000	2,448,000	1,592,000	1,248,000	

10.	Monitoring & Evaluation

10.1	The causal chain analytical methodology developed during the preparatory phase and planned to be further developed during phase 1 of the project is based on experiences in developing Transboundary Diagnostic Analyses for the Black Sea, Dnieper, and Mediterranean GEF Projects. The approach used in developing the geographical framework is based on the LME and marine basin concepts together with experiences of the GEF, primarily in the Black Sea Basin, of the need to link assessments and interventions on a ‘basin scale’.

10.2	Operational monitoring of the project’s achievements of targets and milestones will be undertaken through the organisational structures established within the project. Overall monitoring of progress in achieving the implementation schedule will be the responsibility of the lead Implementing Agency, while the Core Team will monitor progress on a day to day basis, and progress in the sub-regional assessments and analyses will be the responsibility of the 9 regional task teams. The lead agency will be assisted in monitoring overall progress by the Steering Group that will meet annually to review progress and approve the subsequent years workplan.

10.3	Monitoring of the quality of the overall outputs of the project will take place via independent peer review of products and their presentation to and acceptance by regional and other intergovernmental fora as appropriate. Evaluation of product utility will be an ongoing process subject to scrutiny by the Steering Group and measured through the extent to which proposed approaches are adopted by the other Implementing Agencies and donors. Provision is made in the budget for independent evaluation that could be undertaken by STAP in collaboration with the GEF Secretariat, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit. 

10.4	Final desk evaluation of the project will be undertaken by the lead Implementing Agency according to its approved Monitoring and Evaluation procedures. Evaluation of the overall performance of the project will be undertaken within the framework of the Monitoring and Evaluation Programme of the GEF Secretariat.

ANNEX I

Incremental Costs and Benefits of GIWA

Background

The GEF Incremental Costs analysis requires a consideration of baseline and incremental costs associated with achieving ‘domestic’ and global environmental benefits. The global scope of GIWA presents methodological difficulties in assessing the baseline and incremental costs of the project which are normally calculated in a national context. This results in part from the fact that the benefits resulting from the execution of the project are seen as being primarily accruing at the global and regional scales, and in part from the fact that the GIWA project is dependent on the information and data assembled as a result of past activities undertaken at national, regional and global scales. Consequently the entire costs of the GIWA Project may be considered incremental since no other organisation will undertake such an assessment in the immediate future. 

The GIWA project is global in scope and complementary to existing national, regional and global activities related to the assessment of water-related environmental issues and concerns. In addition no other international organisation or body is at present contemplating undertaking such an assessment and hence the entire costs of GIWA may be considered ‘incremental’. Nevertheless some global thematic assessments are ongoing or planned for the immediate future and these may be considered as the existing baseline for GIWA. By developing strong synergistic links with such global efforts GIWA will build upon this existing base of activities.

At the regional and sub-regional level various assessment activities including those contemplated through the execution of the GPA/LBA and UNEP’s Regional Seas Programme may be seen as contributing directly to the achievement of GIWA goals and objectives. These have not been included in the baseline. The costs of such assessments at sub-regional and regional levels are considered as analogous to the costs of achieving ‘domestic’ environmental benefits in nationally executed GEF projects.

Whilst the entire project costs may be considered incremental, it should be noted however, that not all costs are eligible for GEF funding. To ensure a global scope the assessment requires the participation of donor countries in conducting assessments for those sub-regions outside the GEF eligible areas of the Globe. Present indications are that the support required and detailed in the budget table of the project brief will be forthcoming. 

Baseline - past activities providing the information and data upon which GIWA will be based 

GIWA is based upon the evaluation and analysis of information which, in most though not all cases, has already been gathered or is being gathered by existing country-based or international programmes. It adds value to these sets of information by facilitating a truly interdisciplinary analysis which: examines societal driving forces or causes of environmental degradation; generates regional and global scenarios for policy consideration; and recommends priority areas for developing and funding international waters projects. 

GIWA as a global project with broad scope, encompassing the analysis of environmental and societal factors in a global context will focus on - and support financially - activities that are not, covered by existing programmes or undertaken by individual countries acting unilaterally. GIWA is therefore clearly focused on undertaking and supporting incremental activities, leading to the identification of priority actions yielding maximal global benefits.

An illustration of the baseline costs of GIWA can be made by examining the approximate costs of some regional, and global assessment programmes as provided by the relevant co-ordinating bodies:

•	Mediterranean: The Mediterranean countries have been conducting a pollution assessment programme, MEDPOL, within the framework of UNEP's Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) since 1976. The estimated cost of this assessment to the Mediterranean Trust Fund and the cooperating UN Agencies is US $ 35 million. This cost does not include the contribution of the countries for implementing national monitoring programmes and research projects. The full cost of MEDPOL, including national and individual contributions, is estimated as US $ 180 million. A socio-economic study, designated the Blue Plan, has also been conducted within the framework of MAP and the Barcelona Convention. The estimated cost to the Mediterranean Trust Fund and the Government of France is US $ 9 million for the 1978-1996 period. The corresponding costs of developing national scenarios elevate this figure to some US $ 20 millions, which does not include the costs of socio-economic assessments conducted in the framework of the coastal area management plans and other activities of the Priority Areas Programme of the MAP.

•	Black Sea: The recently completed three-year GEF study for formulating the Black Sea Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis cost a total of approximately US $ 3 million in GEF funding and US $ 3 million in funding from other donors, notably the European Union. An additional US $ 10 million was spent on capacity building for a total cost of US $ 16 million. 

•	Arctic: The Arctic Marine Assessment Programme (AMAP) cost about US $ 4.5 million in specialist time and data analysis (some 30 person-years). The published assessment itself cost some US $ 0.5 million, for a total cost of US $ 5 million. 

•	Comprehensive Freshwater Assessment: The CFA, which focused on problems of freshwater availability, was funded in a complex manner through support to the eight Agencies involved and the total funding involved is difficult to evaluate at this stage. Funding for the Secretariat (the Stockholm Environment Institute) consisted of about US $ 1 million from the Swedish government plus US $ 0.2 million for publication, adding the other agency costs, gives an estimated total of US $ 3.2 million. 

•	GESAMP - State of the Marine Environment: GESAMP's 1985-1989 State of the Marine Environment (which did not include socio-economic studies) cost about US $ 2.5 millions. This sum does not include the cost of eleven regional studies on which the global study was based. The costs associated with the preparation of these studies is estimated as between US $ 3 and 4 million for a total cost of around US $ 6 million.

•	GEMS - Water The Global Environment Monitoring System compilations of River discharge and freshwater quality have cost approximately US $ 5 million over the last 4-5 years. 

•	Independent World Commission on the Oceans (IWCO): For the preparation of a report for the Year of the Oceans the Commission’s operating budget for the period 1996-1998 is approximately US $ 4.7 million, mainly provided by governments and private foundations. This figure does not include the in kind contributions of several governments, foundations and individuals, estimated as an additional US $ 1.4 million, for a total of US $ 6.3 million

•	GEF Regional TDA’s & SAP preparation: During the last three years GEF has funded a number of regional TDA assessments at an average cost of around US $ 350,000. 

The above are examples of the costs of different regional and thematic assessments of varying scope and this is by no means a comprehensive listing of the past assessments, the information and data from which will contribute to the execution of GIWA. On the basis of these examples however, it is apparent that the costs of the information on which GIWA is to be based will be considerable. A conservative estimate for the ‘past’ baseline costs of the GIWA would be of the order of US $ 200 million.

Baseline - ongoing and planned global activities contributing to the GIWA

Planned or ongoing global assessment activities that will contribute to the execution of the GIWA include: the GESAMP assessment of the State of the Marine Environment (1997-2002), the World Water Council’s ‘Vision for the Future’, and the GEMS/Water activities, amongst others. A conservative estimate of the costs of such activities would be approximately US $ 12.5 million over the life of the GIWA Project.

Based on the above figures a conservative estimate of the ongoing annual investment worldwide in water-related assessment activities undertaken at a regional scale (such as those outlined above and those undertaken in the context of UNEP’s Regional Seas Programme) that will provide on-going support to GIWA during its execution would be of the order of 50 million US $ per annum. Such activities may be considered as an analogue of the ‘domestic’ benefits for GEF projects conducted within a single country. The national level assessment activities that contribute to regional assessment activities such as those outlined above, may be as much as two orders of magnitude greater than this figure.

Benefits of the GIWA

GIWA adds value to international programmes, since it will provide inter-regional comparisons of the findings of individual assessments of ecological status and root causes of degradation. GIWA will, to the extent possible, incorporate the findings of past programmes related to international waters or, in the case of on-going programmes, work in close partnership with them in order to avoid duplication and optimize the overall benefit.

The incremental benefits of GIWA are harder to quantify at this stage. GIWA should reduce the scoping study costs for the GEF, partner agencies and many donors, enabling more of their funds to be applied to direct action. By focusing action on priority areas where environmental benefits may be achieved the effectiveness of limited funding will be improved.

The global and regional benefits of the GIWA project are clearly recognised by the extent of commitment to co-financing and collaboration secured during the preparatory phase (see Annex IV)

ANNEX II

Logframe Matrix

Project Structure	Indicators of Achievement	Means of Verification	Assumptions/Risks	
Goal
To contribute to improving the effectiveness of national, regional, and global level actions designed to achieve environmental benefits in the area of international waters.	Adoption of the framework by the GEF at programmatic level.
Adoption of the Framework by other donors and organisations in the selection of future international waters projects	Selection by the GEF and other donors of projects which address the priority areas identified by the GIWA	It is assumed that selection of future priority areas for interventions in International Waters will be based on rational decision making. An associated risk is that decision making is distorted by other sectorial interests or external influences	
Purpose (Immediate Objectives) 
To develop a comprehensive and strategic framework for the identification of priorities for remedial and mitigatory actions in international waters, designed to achieve significant environmental benefits, at national, regional and global levels	
Production of a detailed scheme for determining priorities between and among transboundary water-related issues and areas	Use of the GIWA framework by the GEF and the participating Governments in prioritising and selecting future IW projects 
Use of the GIWA framework by the GEF’s partner organisations, UNCSD, ACC Sub-committees on Ocean and Water Resources, in the design of future programmes
Use of the framework by other donors in project identification and appraisal	The governments will support the process of the development of GIWA and will actively contribute to it.
Governments and donors will accept the results of the assessment.	
Outputs
Strategic information for GEF use at a programmatic level in the IW focal area

Identified regional and global priority areas for action in the area of International Waters

Identified approaches for more sustainable use of water and its associated resources
GIWA Assessment Protocol including agreed methods for conducting causal chain analyses to examine societal root causes of water related environmental problems, and transboundary diagnostic analyses

Detailed approaches to the application of Incremental Cost Analyses in IW projects	A global overview of the relative importance of the various major concerns and principal issues by region
A global analysis of the societal causes of identified water-related, major concerns and principal issues
66 sub-regional reviews of the transboundary ecological status (including analyses of environmental degradation)
9 regional and 66 sub-regional scenarios of the future state of international waters

Completion and publication of methods/guidelines for the conduct of causal chain and transboundary diagnostic analyses

Provision of approaches to incremental cost analysis to the GEF family	Policy statements related to the International Waters, promoting the results of GIWA.
Periodic Reviews by the Steering Group and, the Thematic and Regional Task Teams;

Peer review and acceptance
Review and acceptance by various intergovernmental fora;

Adoption of the guidelines by the GEF Implementing Agencies , collaborating organisations/agencies and other donors.
Application of the methodology in future transboundary diagnostic and causal chain analyses
Improved Incremental Cost Analyses in future GEF projects	It is assumed that sub-regional reviews will be produced in an orderly and timely manner to permit their aggregation to a global scale 
It is assumed that sub-regional reviews and analyses will be of comparable quality permitting regional and global aggregation

It is assumed that socio-economic data are available and suitable for the development of the sub-regional scenarios. An associated risk is a failure to release data by the data holders/owners	

The activities leading to the above outputs and the means to achieve them are laid out in detail in section 4 of the project brief.
ANNEX III

Root Cause/Expected Baseline Actions

An essential component of this project involves the further development and refinement of the causal chain analysis as a mechanism for identifying societal root causes of identified water-related environmental issues and problems. The initial approach was developed during the preparatory phase and is exemplified by the four issues presented in the following table. The analysis completed by the expert consultation involved 23 issues grouped into five major concerns: Freshwater shortage; pollution; habitat loss and modification; over-exploitation of fisheries and other living marine resources; and global change.

 ISSUES	CAUSAL CHAIN				UNCERTAINTIES	
	IMMEDIATE	SECONDARY	TERTIARY	QUATERNARY		
REDUCTION IN STREAMFLOW
	a.    Increased diversion for: domestic, industrial, public,  irrigation, and recreational uses
b.    Decreased inputs from: changed rainfall-runoff  relationships, and decreased groundwater inflow,
c.    Return flows
d.    Increased evaporation
e.    Reduced peak flows	1.   Population growth (a)
2.   Life style changes (a)
3.   Industrialisation (a)
4.   Over pumping (a, b)
5.   Urbanisation (a, b)
6.   Food production (a, f)
7.   Inappropriate land-use practice (b, c)
8.   Reduced recharge (b, c)
9.   Irrigation practice (b, c) 
10. Changes in channel (b, c)
11. Increased temperature (b, d)
12. Increased water surface, including impoundments (d)
13. Increased vegetative cover	1.  Inappropriate investment policies and subsidies (a)
2.  Inappropriate water pricing (a)
3.  Lack of regulation and enforcement (a)
4.  Absence of demand-side management (a, b)
5.  Lack of water property rights (a, b)
6.  Lack of basin-wide management (a-c)
7.  Climate change (a, e)	1.  Inappropriate economic analysis and data and inadequate or unreliable data.
2.  Policy & legal problems relating to inadequate regulation, guidelines, best practices etc.
3.  Lack of capacity, both manpower &/or financial
4.  Lack of clearly defined responsibilities and poor co-ordination between government departments
5.  Inadequate scientific understanding, analysis or knowledge.	-     Future land use and development patterns
-     Future demographic patterns
-     Effects of land-use change on hydrology
-     Regional effects of climate change
-     Effectiveness of regulations
-     Future technological & institutional changes	
CHEMICAL POLLUTION	a.   Industrial and urban waste discharges
b.   Agricultural runoff
c.   Leachates from solid waste landfill
d.   Chemical releases from aquaculture
e.   Acid mine drainage
f.   Weed and pest control activities
g.   Disease vector control activities
h.   Emissions from fossil fuel combustion (electrical and vehicle)
i.   Increased combustion of natural vegetation	1.   Road safety improvement (a)
2.   Enhanced manufacture and use of chemicals in domestic applications (a, b)
3.   Mineral extraction and refining (a, b, c)
4.   Land clearance (and combustion) (a, b, c, i)
5.   Human health protection (a, b, g)
6.   Intensification of agriculture (b, f, i)
7.   Aquaculture development (d)
8.   Increased use of antifoulants (d)
9.   Intensified forest management (f)
10. Intensified fossil fuel combustion (h)	1.   Population growth (a, b)
2.   Enhancements in standards of living (a, b)
3.   Increased industrial development (a, b, e, h)
4.   Increased urbanisation (a, b, h)
5.   Increased demand for food/proteins (a, d, f, i)  
6.   Reduction of risks to human health and safety (g)
7.   Increased use of vehicles (h)
8.   Continued reliance on fossil fuels (h)	1.   Lack of internalisation of costs of environmental degradation
2.   Failure to limit population growth and migration
3.   Poor development and/or enforcement of regulations pertaining to environmental impacts of social and industrial development.
4.   Limitations in the international transport of hazardous substances
5.   Deficiencies in sectorial management approaches
6.   Policy and legal inadequacies, institutional and information failures	-     Effects on the environment, Man and aquatic organisms imprecise (both deterministic and stochastic effects regimes)
-     Dose/response relationships uncertain
-     Difficulties in quantifying relative magnitudes of sources
-     Lack of information on production rates and use of chemicals and their locations	

MODIFICATION TO MANGROVE ECOSYSTEM	a.   Subsistence wood harvest
b.   Commercial timber harvest (forestry (“sustainable”)
c.   Selection of particular species resulting in monoculture
d.   Woodchip harvest  for Rayon Production, based on clear-felled coups	1.   Subsistence/Survival needs
2.   Better economic returns
3.   Commercial exploitation for export
	1.   Poverty, lack of employment, economic opportunities
2.   Population growth and migration
3.   High economic return to foreign investor but negligible return to country when resources is exploited	1.   Government policies on foreign investment
2.   Monopoly in world woodchips market;  government policies on foreign investment; under-valuation of mangrove ecosystem
3...Policy and Legal inadequacies including lack of harmonisation, inadequate property rights and unethical transfer of goods wastes & technology between countries
4.   Institutional inadequacies in capacity, responsibilities, co-ordination, participation and use of modern information technology.
5.   Pricing issues and information failures.	-	Valuation of mangrove  ecosystem
-	Lack of ecological understanding of ecosystem structure and function
-	Recovery time after extensive harvest
-	Extent of ecological damage after harvest	
	a.   Partial conversion to aquaculture
b.   Diminished freshwater & sediment supply due to dams, diversion

c.   Sedimentation from offshore mining
d.   Movement into mangroves	1.   High economic returns

2.   Comparative value of placer minerals such as tin
3.   Population pressure	

	1.   Inadequate consideration of downstream impacts and lack of co-ordination among different government Ministries in water allocation

3,4,& 5 as above	-     Scientific basis for buffer zone and protected areas

-     Scientific information on nutrient fluxes

	
IMPACT ON BIOLOGICAL AND GENETIC DIVERSITY	a.   Increase in exotic species interferes with commercial species, competitors, predators)

b.   Reduction of the gene pool of wild stocks	1.   Accidental introductions by shipping (ballast water), aquaculture
2.   Intentional release of animals of a single genotype stock 
3.   Loss of diversity in breeding areas/ecosystems	1.   Lack of regulations regarding ballast water treatment/ failure to apply quarantine regulations to imported species
2.   High returns from aquaculture and recreational fisheries investments	1.   Lack of scientific research
2.   Poor planning (lack of consideration of inter-generational equity) when making investments
3.   Inadequate scientific understanding of uncertainty and risks
4.   Lack of capacity, budget or will to enforce policies & decisions	-     Inadequacy of controls

-     Questionable enforcement capacity	

This approach of causal chain analysis is not currently being utilised on a regional or global scale since no single existing organisation or body encompasses the full range of scientific and technical expertise required to conduct such an analysis.

Expected baseline actions include the continuing involvement of governmental and other experts in existing and/or planned local, sub-regional and regional sectorial and thematic assessments that will contribute to the data and information base required for successful completion of the GIWA Assessment. 

ANNEX IV

Public Involvement Plan Summary
Stakeholders and Potential Co-sponsors
Developing countries are the major stakeholders who will benefit from this project while the information and analyses generated will be very important for donors and policy makers at national, regional and global levels. These analyses will provide forward looking projections of change in water quality and quantity and ecological states based on current trend analysis and taking into account perceived national development goals as well as social and economic realities. They must therefore be policy relevant, be based upon the best available science, and encompass a forward-looking perspective.

The GEF Implementing Agencies, the UNCSD, the ACC Sub-Committees on Ocean and Water Resources, and the GEF participating governments are all equally interested stakeholders of GIWA. GIWA will provide its stakeholders with a global perspective of problems whose solutions may yield considerable global benefits.

Realising the relevance of GIWA, the City of Kalmar, Kalmar County and the Government of Sweden have expressed their interest and commitment to co-sponsor and participate in the project, through the provision of infrastructure and facilities to the core team and a grant of US $ 500,000. The Governments of Australia and the United Kingdom are currently considering proposals to participate in and/or cofinance the project. The US-EPA and NOAA are currently considering mechanisms through which they can support and participate in this initiative.

At GESAMP’s 27th session in Nairobi (14-18 April 1997), the establishment of co-operative arrangements between GIWA and GESAMP “was recognised as highly desirable. Establishment of joint task forces for preparation of regional reports and issue-related reports was advocated in all cases where GIWA’s and GESAMP’s objectives and interests coincide”. The organisations co-sponsoring GESAMP have agreed to support the GIWA in a variety of ways: IMO, IAEA, WMO and IOC have indicated a willingness to support the work of GIWA by providing expert advice and assistance within their technical fields of competence. UNEP has agreed to provide financial support to through the Water Branch through financial support (US $ 272,000) to participation of GESAMP experts in the GIWA Regional Task Teams and through in-kind support via the activities of the Regional Seas Networks and activities planned within the framework of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities.

A number of international non-governmental bodies have been involved in the development of this proposal and are supportive of the aims and objectives of GIWA including both ICSU and SCOPE that are ready to assist through the use of their extensive international networks of scientists. The Advisory Committee on Problems of the Seas (ACOPS) has indicated willingness to support and promote the GIWA project through its networks and via its periodic regional high level meetings.

The World Water Council has indicated its strong interest in participating in the GIWA exercise and in collaborating via the recently financed ‘Vision for the Future’ that includes analysing options for protection of coastal areas through improved management of freshwater resources. The goals of the WWC are thus complementary to those of GIWA and the WWC has expressed willingness to explore avenues of concrete co-operation between the two initiatives.

Stakeholder Involvement
The organisations and/or governments co-financing GIWA will be represented on the Steering Group, together with the GEF Implementing Agencies, STAP and appropriate representatives from international organisations and the international scientific community. The Steering Group will be chaired by the lead Implementing Agency and will be responsible for: guiding the process of implementing the assessment; endorsing the workplan prepared by the core team (but without involvement in day-to-day management); and assisting the core team in soliciting wide support for the execution of the project, dissemination and acceptance of the results.

As an integral part of project strategy, a consultation has been planned with key stakeholders during Phase 4 of implementation. This will enable the initial consultations of the policy options analysis to be assessed by discussing them with a representative group of stakeholders, including representatives of civil society. This mechanism has been established in order to avoid this assessment of options from becoming a mere academic exercise with little relevance to current society. It is hoped that co-sponsors will be able to support additional exercises of this kind in order to maintain as wide a representation as possible of civil society in the iterative process of the GIWA assessment, particularly with respect to the studies of policy options.

Use of the GIWA Products, improving the involvement of Civil Society in IW issues
The products of GIWA will represent the most objective comprehensive assessment of transboundary water issues and their societal root causes, conducted so far. The material generated will be of enormous potential use to public education programmes, including formal education. Great care will be taken to present the results of GIWA in a manner which is readily accessible and understandable to the public in general as well as through the strictly technical formal reports. This activity will be developed in synergy with a number of other programmes, notably the IW-learn Project currently being developed by UNDP for GEF funding. Consultations will be conducted with potential users of this material regarding the most appropriate manner for presenting it. By enhancing the flow of information to civil society particularly in looking beyond the symptoms of environmental problems to their societal root causes, GIWA will provide additional tools for strengthening the GEF IW Portfolio and the credibility of all donors and partners associated with it.
UNDP has indicated their desire for continued involvement in the GIWA Project and to make available the IW-Learn electronic networks for promotion and widespread dissemination of the results of the GIWA project.

ANNEX V

STAP Roster Technical Review

During the preparation of this project proposal twelve STAP roster experts have been involved in the expert working groups that developed the geographic framework for the assessment, the preliminary methodology for the ‘causal chain analysis’ and an indicative listing of societal root causes. In addition the Chair and Vice Chair of STAP were members of the Steering Group responsible for directing the preparation of this proposal and reviewing the drafts.

Two STAP Roster Expert reviews were obtained from Government Scientists in: the United Kingdom, Dr. John Portman former Deputy Director of Aquatic Environment Protection of the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food; and in China, Professor Su Jilan, Director of the State Oceanic Administration. These are attached herewith.

Both reviewers comment on the innovative approach proposed by GIWA and the fact that the activity is both timely and truly incremental, they also raise a number of technical points that have been addressed in this revision of the project brief. A number of points raised concern the precise nature of the geographic sub-regions and regions and these will be addressed during the project appraisal phase when the regional collaborating partners are identified. The issues raised by Dr. Portman in regard to the financial support required by the individual regional task teams and the sub-regional focal points are included in the full budget as presented under budget lines for sub-contracts and successful completion of GIWA will be dependent upon securing the required cofinancing. Professor Su Jilan raises the issue of the importance of climatic variability and change in the development of the GIWA scenarios and as indicated in the revised paragraph 6.5 serious consideration will be given to the early establishment of a thematic task team to provide guidance on this issue.

STAP Roster Review of the project brief "Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA)"

Reviewer: Dr. John E. Portmann. Date of the Review 16 September, 1997

This assessment addresses the various key and secondary issues set out in the Terms of Reference for Technical Reviews of GEF Project Proposals. Where appropriate some detailed assessments are provided by reference to sections or sub-sections of the main project brief document. In addition further comments are provided on more specific points of detail.

So far as the scientific and technical soundness of the project is concerned the need is clearly stated and there is no doubt the gap identified is real and worthy of attention in order to focus future remedial and preventative action and funding where it can be most effective. The proposed approach of tackling the assessment according to a common format but at a sub-regional level coordinated at a regional level and in turn by a professional core team, is in my view, the only approach that offers any prospect of success. Even so it could be difficult to achieve unless the countries involved in each sub-region are prepared to nominate appropriate experts to the project and give them the necessary time to devote to the task. Far too often nominees either exist in name only or are presented with their assignment simply as an additional duty. As a consequence they often cannot devote enough time to it and/or lack commitment. A further difficulty that is bound to be encountered is the lack of existence or availability of information on which to conduct a comprehensive assessment for each sub-region. I appreciate that the Workshops and Expert meetings have made an estimate of data availability but on the basis of my personal knowledge on the position for a number of the sub-regions I have to say that either the expectations are low or, and I suspect this is the real situation, rather optimistic.

On the basis of the details provided the common approach proposal looks feasible in principle but I think some of the sub-regions are going to need either further details, with perhaps a worked example, or considerable on-hand expert guidance before they will be able to achieve what is required. Also on the availability of experts but at the more supervisory and advisory level I wonder is it realistic to hope to continue to attract people simply by providing travel and subsistence costs, increasingly these days even State employers expect to see their staff costs covered.

I do not see any drawbacks to the project, which as I have already commented, seems timely and necessary. I did however, expect to see rather more explanation of the global benefits that are expected to result. Perhaps the organisation(s) expected to provide the funds are already fully familiar with the situation but I expected some examples of existing or potential problems to make the need more obvious. For example whilst I do not doubt there are a few marine problems of transboundary scale, e.g. over exploitation of fish stocks and ballast water issues, most of the obvious ones are inshore and locally caused. In international rivers, inland seas and major lakes it can be different and the problem of the actions of one country upstream ignoring consequences downstream are obvious. If these are the sort of problems GIWA is expected to address spelling them out may help to grab attention of the funders more effectively.

Despite the above comments, it is clear enough to me how the project falls within the GEF remit and scope and I would not expect those more familiar with GEF funding priorities to have any problems with the rationale for them supporting it.

The plan clearly has far more than simply regional objectives in that it is ultimately aimed at a global assessment. However, as it will achieve this by the progressive piecing together of regional assessments, there are clearly going to be regional and sub-regional benefits along the way. Similarly, as the aim is to do all the sub-assessments to a common plan and format, there should be no problems of lack of replication.

Subject only to the obvious proviso that the project requires funding commitment and clear allocation of time for the individuals who will be expected to contribute, to allow them to do so, I believe the project will be sustainable. So far as the funding is concerned I am not very familiar with the way these things work. However, on the basis of recent experience with the MAP, I am a little sceptical of the entries in the Table on P10 of the project brief where it is shown that large amounts of money are expected to come from co-finance organisations. Despite the bald statement in para 8.1 that global coverage is assured it is not obvious to this reader who those co-financiers are or to what extent they have made firm commitments. Equally the separation between what the GEF is expected to contribute and what will be co-financed seems arbitrary. Maybe it will be obvious to the funders, but I am left wondering to what extent the divisions reflect hope and perhaps some optimistic signs of approval from at least the GEF, of the indicative sums being forthcoming. Can this be clarified? Does it need to be? My worry, based on MAP, is that often plans for projects seem to be agreed, even though at the time no definite source of the money has been identified. The end result is it often never is and there is no action only disappointment.

I am not sure the final key issue question is really relevant to a project of GIWA proportions. However, in so far as the assessment should provide a much clearer rationale for international and inter-regional protocols and action to resolve, remedy and prevent problems arising, I am satisfied the project does meet a global need and falls within the GEF scope and interests.

As far as the secondary issues are concerned, I feel the project brief does cover the first two points adequately. There will clearly be an overall benefit which ought to be obvious, at the very least at sub-regional and some regional levels, even if it were to prove for some reason impossible to complete the full range of activities in all the regions.

At present, as commented above, I am somewhat unclear just how committed the various stakeholders are, whether they be funding organisations (cash or in-kind) or countries and institutions which are expected to participate. I have no doubt that even if funded externally the true support of countries and some of their key personnel, is vital to the success of the project. I wonder whether it might be possible to seek to get such input assured by persuading member governments to commit themselves at the outset to implementing the outcomes of the assessment. Such a measure might do much to persuade them they own the product and need to make sure it suits them. This might reduce the risk, referred to in section 5.1, and would be a valuable addition to the only other real provision of assurance I found viz. in Annex IV para 2 on stakeholder involvement.

The fact that all regions and sub-regions will be expected to operate to a common format in conducting their assessments and that, if I am correct, many will need a fair amount of Core team guidance, should provide a fair measure of capacity building along the way.

Finally in relation to the innovativeness of the project I am impressed by its ambitious nature and entirely satisfied of its value. My only concern is that there are a number of references to the GESAMP related MEA activity, with the inference that useful input might be expected of it. I expect it will be the reverse if the GIWA project is funded. I even have doubts as to whether the GESAMP activity will proceed let alone succeed. From what I have seen recently GESAMP is a pale shadow of its former self with too few members expected to do far too much and with too little support from the Agencies. That comment does not however detract from the validity, and hopefully also practicality, of the GIWA project.

Finally on these general points and in the same context of GESAMP and other related activities I note no mention is made of any formal attempt to link with the Regional Seas. I know there are reviews in progress or planned of their effectiveness and these might produce some relevant material.

Turning to specifics:

Para 3.1 Was the Freshwater Assessment referred to linked in any way to the one on water resources undertaken by the Blue Plan RAC for the Mediterranean countries? If not it should be at least for that region; unexplained differences could be embarrassing.

Section 4.2.2 sub para 1 Would it be worthwhile indicating how big the Core-team will be overall (I see elsewhere 3 full time members plus? others)? How big will the Steering group be, also the regional task teams and in sub para 2 the thematic task teams? I also suggest it should be clearer what those thematic task teams will cover and how many there will be. I found mention of only one on economic aspects (para 4.2.3 sub para. 3).

Section 4.2.3 sub para 1 I think I understand the aim of parallel activity but have doubts as to the practicality. If it really does complete regional level assessments in parallel with the conduct of the sub-regional ones I see a real danger that the former will bear only an accidental relationship to the latter. The end result could be chaos or at the very least some frantic last minute major adjustments.

The final sentence of this paragraph is I believe an honest and accurate assessment of the scarcity of information in some regions and even more so-though it is not mentioned, of inadequate or should I say disparate quality of available information. The statement does not seem to fit easily with the assessment in Table 1 of the June workshop report, which, as I comment earlier, seems to me to be optimistic in the extreme.

Section 4.2.3 sub para 4 As commented earlier I am not sure GESAMP experts and possibly also not those to be provided by ICSU will be able to make much of an impact unless they just happen to be such experts but involved in a sub regional or regional task team. Sadly I do not see much hope of GESAMP, as it is currently supported and operates, providing any meaningful input to the GIWA activity along the way and precious little even at the end.

Section 4.2.4 sub para 1 I firmly endorse the sentence and am pleased to see that in many cases an attempt has been made to identify these (though there are some odd gaps e.g. on p22 of the April workshop report in relation to radioactive and spills, perhaps they simply could not agree?) En passant I hope others will be as impressed as I by line 6 "internalise environmental externalities" but hope they can better understand it.

Section 6.3 From my earlier comments it will probably come as no surprise that I would like to see clarification of how those groups will be funded and the personnel allocated time for the specified activity.

Section 8.1 bullet 5 Does this mean the 3 permanent members or all persons associated with the core team?
Bullet 6 Should specialist be specialists or is there a word missing?

Annex I bullet 1 Does the socio-economic study refer only to that conducted by the BP/RAC or does it include those by the PAP/RAC and the CAMPs? Bullet 5 Do the costs referred to include the cost of all the expert's time? I believe much, if not all, was provided free of charge to the Agencies by the parent organisations and governments of the experts involved. Either way say.

Annex III and elsewhere I realise mangrove swamps are a very important and widespread resource frequently under threat but am a little puzzled that they have been singled out. As an example fine but what about coral systems and estuaries more generally? Also in relation to Impact on Diversity do we really have any regulations of any significance in global shipping terms?

Finally if I may be allowed one comment on a Workshop report, I can only assume that the details in the Tables in Annex VI of the June report have yet to be completed. For example for the regions I know best I find it odd that ICES and OSPARCOM are not mentioned in relation to the North Sea or Celtic/Biscay or Iberian coast. Perhaps CIEM deserves a mention for the Mediterranean? I suspect the Avon ought to read Severn and surely the Seine and Gironde rivers are worth a mention? Also are not the countries "owning" the Duoro, Teijo and Tambre mixed up?

STAP Roster Review of the GEF project brief, Global International Waters assessment (GIWA)

Professor Su Jilan, China. Date of the review 17 September 1997

1.	Scientific and Technical Basis

Water is the most important condition of life on earth, physically, chemically and biologically. Although a water planet, only less than 0.3% of earth's water is available for human use and for freshwater aquatic ecosystems. Thus freshwater availability has dominated the development of mankind throughout the history. Increasing demands, caused by both growing population and rising per capita consumption, have increased the sensitivity and vulnerability of societies to changes to changes of the available water. In addition to natural causes, human activities can seriously modify the hydrological cycle and pollute the water resources. Monitoring and assessment of the quality and quantity of the water systems are necessary for sustainable development.

Of the vast oceans the coastal ocean accounts for only eight percent of its surface but supplies ninety percent of the world's fish catch. It is also the marine domain where other human activities concentrate, including recreation, transportation, and waste discharge. Monitoring and assessment of the ecological states of the marine ecosystems in the coastal ocean are also important for the long-term sustainability of marine resources.

Most of the coastal oceans are shared by neighbouring countries and often used by other states as well. Many drainage basins in the world also straddle different countries. These international waters are already under stress. Various thematic assessments of water systems have been or are being conducted by national, regional and global programmes. However they generally lacked the holistic system approach and often treated a freshwater system independently of its associated marine and coastal systems. The proposed GIWA is designed to fill in this important gap. it is an incremental activity and will build primarily on a broad base of data and information arising from existing country-based or international programmes.

2.	Approach and Outputs

GIWA divides the world into a series of about 66 units (sub-regions), based on a mix of environmental, biogeographical, and geopolitical factors. In many cases a drainage area and the associated marine basin are incorporated as one unit. Such a grouping is not only scientifically sound but also useful for the implementation of GIWA. Water-related environmental issues and their societal causes vary widely over the world. A unit (sub-region) chosen in this way would result in the narrowing down of the range of issues as well as their causes, rendering its assessment better to carry out.

Developing countries are the major stakeholders who will benefit from GIWA. This unit-based regional approach will encourage active participation in GIWA by these stakeholders. At the same time interaction between the units (sub-region) and the task teams, regional as well as thematic , will ensure the quality and comparability of the information and analyses. These analyses will provide forward looking projections of change in water quality and quantity and ecological states. By their very nature they are therefore policy relevant and will be very important for policy makers at national levels. Integrating across all units (sub-regions) these analyses will provide important basis for regional and global policies on water-related issues.

3.	An Innovation of GIWA and its Possible Implication

Linking a drainage area and its associated marine basin is not new. For example, the global research programme LOICZ adopts such an approach. However, the adoption of such an approach in a global assessment programme as in the proposed GIWA is new and innovative. It may have some profound influence on our way of thinking. 
7
At present, except for transboundary rivers, jurisdiction over modification of the hydrological balance in a drainage basin falls strictly within the authority of that country which governs the basin. However, if this river drains into a marine basin, a major hydrological construction project in the drainage area may have significant impact on the ecological states of that marine basin. If, furthermore, the marine basin borders more than one country, it is then an international water and the river discharge has then a transboundary characteristics. By inference, any hydrological construction project in this drainage area may be regarded as a transboundary issue and not simply only of national concern.

Even for a transboundary river, presently its international river authority pays more attention to terrestrial concerns than to marine matters. The innovative concept of linking the terrestrial and marine domains in the proposed GIWA will force such an authority to consider the impact on the associated marine ecosystem by any modification of the hydrological cycle in the river basin. In the end this line of thinking will be beneficial towards the long-term sustainability of marine resources.

4.	Two suggestions

Forward looking projections of change in water quality and quantity and ecological states within each unit (sub-region) will be the essential outputs from the proposed GIWA. Such a projection must depend on the anticipated change in population, demographic distribution and standard of living of that sub-region over the next decade or more. On the other hand, recent climate research results has demonstrated the importance of climate variability over the decadal time scale. In fact, the World Climate Research Programme recently has established a programme, CLIVAR, in which the decadal time scale climate variability is one of its three focal areas. In the final analysis, hydrological balance depends critically on the climate. Although decadal time scale variability is still, to a large extent, a research topic, it is perhaps unwise to ignore any of its findings in GIWA assessment which happens to span similar time scale. 

In the proposed GIWA the 66 units (sub-regions) are grouped into 9 regions, for the convenience of project management. Mostly this grouping seems to share both geographical integrity and similar open ocean forcing. In this sense I would suggest to further divide Region VII into two separate regions, one the Southeast Asia Region and the other the South Pacific Region. The Southeast Asia Region would include Papua New Guinea and the Northern Australian shelf. It is dominated by the Pacific lower latitude western boundary currents and the Throughflow.

5.	Summary

The proposed GIWA project intends to address hydrological and ecological questions in international waters, both terrestrial and marine. The project is sound, scientifically and technically. It does not duplicate existing programmes and is an incremental activity based primarily on data and information collected in existing country-based and international programmes. Implementation of GIWA has a strong regional context, in many cases based largely on drainage area and its associated marine basin. The outputs from GIWA will be strongly policy relevant. As important stakeholders developing countries are expected to be active partners in GIWA. At the same time these outputs will be equally policy relevant at regional and international levels.

Linking a drainage area with its associated marine basin in an assessment is an innovative approach adopted in GIWA. This approach may change our present view of regarding non-transboundary river systems as distinct from international waters.

It is suggested that due attention should be paid to the effects of decadal climate variability on hydrological cycles. The preliminary grouping of Region VII is suggested to be divided into two regions, based on geographical and open-ocean forcing considerations. 

ANNEX VI

Available Reference Documents

Meeting Reports

1.	First Meeting of the Steering Group for the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA). Report of the Meeting. 24-27 February 1997. UNEP/GIWA.1/13

2.	Global International Waters Assessment Expert Workshop on Water-Related Issues of Transboundary and Global Concern. Report of the Workshop. 21-25th April 1997. UNEP(WATER)/GEF-GIWA/2.4

3.	Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) expert Workshop on the Formulation of a Geographic Framework for the Analysis of International Waters Issues of Transboundary and Global Significance. 9-13 June, 1997. UNEP(WATER)/GEF-GIWA/3.3

4.	Second Meeting of the Steering Group for the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA). 14-15 June, 1997. UNEP(WATER)/GEF-GIWA/4.2

5.	Management Meeting for the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA). 11-12 September 1997. UNEP(WATER)/GEF-GIWA/5.3

Discussion Documents

6.	Environmental and Socio-economic Impacts of Water-related Major Concerns and Principal Issues with their potential Transboundary Consequences. 10 pp.

7.	Causal Chain Analysis for Identified Water-related Major Concerns and Principal Issues. 13 pp.

8.	Marine Geographic Areas and Freshwater Basins: the Geographic framework for GIWA. 13 pp.

9.	Scoping the Global International waters Assessment: a preliminary consideration of the Regional Importance of the Major Water-related Concerns and Principal Issues.

10.	Preliminary bibliography of assessments and information sources. 100 pp.