Assessing Progress towards Results in International Waters

Aaron ZazuetaGEF Evaluation Office

2

Key Conclusions of OPS 4 on International Waters Focal Area

Rising challenges make GEFs IW work highly relevant.

GEF has provided important support to new and existing international agreements for the protection of International Waters

• Helped set the stage for national policies that reduce environmental stress.

GEF is contributing towards the reduction of pollution and other stresses (such as overfishing) in international water bodies.

3

Three important OPS 4 Recommendations on International Waters Focal Area IW impact analysis need to be done at the water body or catchment

level• Need to examine combined effects of phased and concurrent

projects

Focus on involving ALL countries in a catchment area before investment stage, while continuing to support all participating countries

Other Focal Areas should consider IWs Phased Approach (Foundation, Demonstration, Investment) when appropriate

4

GEF EO will undertake an IW Impact Evaluation in 2010-11 The objective of the evaluation will be to:

• More fully gauge impacts or progress towards impacts,• More fully assess the factors that contribute or hinder progress

towards impact • Derive lessons for the improvement of GEF IW projects, tools

and ways to measure results and impact.

Evaluation will be at the catchment or water body level• Current project oriented ROtI methodology does not fully

capture the combines results of phased and concurrent IW projects.

Criteria for selection of catchment:• High levels of GEF funding at the catchment/basin level.• Long-term GEF involvement in the area.

5

IW specific considerations Long-term objectives of GEF support to IW:

• Foster international, multi-state cooperation on priority transboundary water concerns through more comprehensive, ecosystem-based approaches to management.

• Play a catalytic role in addressing transboundary water concerns by assisting countries to utilize the full range of technical assistance, economic, financial, regulatory and institutional reforms that are needed.

Assessment of results and accomplishment of phased and concurrent interventions over a long period of time

Examination of the actions multiple actors involved:• Governments of participating countries including country

mechanisms in place• Other donors, civil society, etc• Agency interactions

6

Review of Outcomes to Impacts (ROtI)

.

state / condition

OutputsReduced Threat to GEB

Enhanced Status of GEB:

Outcomes

IMPACT

Assumption Assumption Assumption

state / condition

Threats Based AnalysisOutcomes-Impacts TOC AnalysisProject LogFrame Analysis

7

Foundational Projects Demonstration Projects Investment Projects

Strategy :Serve as a catalyst in 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

Output:Agreement on transboundary priorities and root

Assumption: Implementing agencies will cooperate with each other and participating

Intermediate: Reduced stress on the water resource based on policy reforms and improved regulatory measures, with plan in place for investments to significantly reduce loadings of excess nutrients and

Impact: Reduced stress on International waters, enabling intended usess to be met and contributing to human health and quality of life, sustainable development and

Outcome:national commitments made to address shared water

Assumption: Successful demonstrations will be replicated and countries will put into practice

Assumption: recipient and donor countries will commit funding for needed

Assumption: the architecture of SAP, inter-ministerial committee and national plans will result in the needed policy changes and investments to reduce stress

Intermediate:Regional and national recognition of priority water resource

Output:National actions addressing priority policy, legal and

Output:Functional national inter-ministerial

Output:investment strategies approved, funded and

Output:Knowledge tools developed with experience

Outcome:Launch of replicated efforts in sub-basins and/or adjacent water resources with national and external (non GEF) resources

Output:Demonstrations of IWRM, pollution reduction and water system management

Output:Agreement on regional structures and priority actions (SAP)

Outcome:regional institutions and mechanisms in place and funded suffi cienrtly to

Outcome:enhancd stakeholder awareness and support for measures to

Output:Development of financial strategies to address pollution abatement

Outcome:bankable projects identified for reducing pollution loading, and financing plans

Outcome:Regional and national integrated water resource management

Output:Strategies and lessons used to develop follow on projects in sub-basins and Outcome:

refinements in national and local water resource management and catalytic impact on national and other

Output:Mechanisms developed to monitor stress reduction and environmental/water resource/socio

Output:National comittments to polic, legal and institutional

Outcome:Quantifiable reductions in pollution loading and self-sustained policy, monitoring, and

Assumption: Countries will take technical, economic, financial, regulatory and institutional measures to carry out agreed actions

8

Tentative Questions for the IW Evaluation To what extent has the campaigns identified the critical

transboundary concerns and their root causes?

To what extent has the GEF catalyzed agreements among riparian countries to address the critical tansboundary concerns and their root causes?

What have been the accomplishments of the campaign so far?• Better understanding of issues, capacities strengthened, laws

and regulations adopted and enforced, demonstrations, etc.

To what extent do accomplishments signify progress towards impact? • Reduction of transboundary environmental stressed• Improvement on the ecological status and human populations

What are the factors that contribute or hinder progress towards impacts?• Lessons and recommendations

9

OPS 4 identified some factors that affect progress towards impact Relevance to national priorities (sustainable financial support)

Engagement with industrial and agricultural interests

Robust understanding of Ecosystem Services (scientifically sound TDAs)

Extent of participation of all important catchment countries

Absence of baselines and weak monitoring makes it more difficult to determine long-term impacts

10

Tentative timeline of the evaluationGEF EO is looking to partner with the Evaluation Offices of other

Agencies.

March 2010 -- Approach Paper • Selection of catchment• Gathering of background information• Identification of partner institutions

June 2010 – Methodological adjustments to ROtI

May 2011 – Data gathering

September 2011– Analysis and report writing

November 2011 – Presentation to GEF Council

THANK YOUazazueta@theGEF.org

11