Catalysing Ocean Finance Volume II

7/27/2019 Catalysing Ocean Finance Volume II

1/82

Catalysing Ocean FinanceVolume IIMethodologies and Case Studies

United Nations Development Programme

Empowered lives.Resilient nations.


2/82

September 2012Catalysing Ocean Finance Volume II Methodologies and Case StudiesCopyright 2012 United Nations Development Programme

United Nations Development Programme Global Environment FacilityBureau o Development Policy GEF Secretariat304 East 45 th Street , 1818 H Street, NW9th Floor MSN P4-400New York, NY 10017, USA Washington CD 20433, USAwww.undp.org www.thege .org

All right reserved. This publication or parts o it may not be reproduced, stored by means o any system or transmitted, in any orm or by anymedium, whether electronic, mechanical, photocopied, recorded or o any other type, without the prior permission o the United NationsDevelopment Programme.

Catalysing Ocean Finance Methodologies and Case Studies was written and edited by the ollowing individuals:Editor: Andrew Hudson, UNDP-GEF; Authors: Al red Duda, Global Environment Facility (Chap 1.1); Yihang Jiang, UNDP-GEF Yellow Sea LME Project (Chap 1.2; Chap 1.3: Case Study #2); Andrew Hudson, UNDP-GEF (Chap 1.3: Case Study #1; Chap 3.1, 3.2); Percy Nugent, UNDP-GEF FrePlata Project,(Chap 1.3: Case Study #3); Adrian Ross, UNDP-GEF PEMSEA Programme (Chap 2.1, 2.2, 2.3: Case Study #4); Barbara Hanchard, UNDP-GEF-FFA Pacifc Oceanic Fisheries Project (Chap 3.3: Case Study #5); Jose Matheickal, UNDP-GEF-IMO GloBallast Programme (Chap 3.3: Case Study #6).

The authors would like to thank the ollowing individuals or their generous support in providing in ormal peer review o Catalysing Ocean Finance

Dandu Pughiuc, Head, Marine Biosa ety Section, International Maritime Organization; Carol Turley, Senior Scientist, Plymouth Marine Laboratory;Paul Holthus, Executive Director, World Ocean Council; Ned Cyr, Director, O ce o Science and Technology, US National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA); Peter Whalley, Independent Consultant; Robert Diaz, Pro essor o Marine Science, Virginia Institute o Marine Science; Chua Thia-Eng, Chair, PEMSEA Partnership Council

Designer: Kimberly Koserowski, First Kiss Creative LLC

Cover Photo: Richard Unsworth/Marine Photobank .

Caption: Indonesia: Hardy head silversides (Atherinomorus lacunosus) are abundant shoals o sh living in shallow water ree at seagrassmeadows throughout the Indo-Paci c. These sh species that eed primarily on zooplankton and small benthic invertebrates are an importantpart o the seagrass ood web. They make an excellent ood source or larger sh species.

Production: Graphics Service Bureau, Inc., New York, USA

This publication was printed on recycled paper.


UNDP partners with people at all levels o society to help build nations that can withstand crisis, and drive and sustain the kind o growth thatimproves the quality o li e or everyone. On the ground in 177 countries and territories, we ofer global perspective and local insight to help

empower lives and build resilient nations. www.undp.org

The GEF unites 182 countries in partnership with international institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector toaddress global environmental issues while supporting national sustainable development initiatives. Today the GEF is the largest public undero projects to improve the global environment. An independently operating nancial organization, the GEF provides grants or projects relatedto biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants. Since 1991, GEFhas achieved a strong track record with developing countries and countries with economies in transition, providing $9.2 billion in grants andleveraging $40 billion in co- nancing or over 2,700 projects in over 168 countries. www.thege .org


3/82


Catalysing Ocean FinanceVolume IIMethodologies and Case Studies

United Nations Development Programme


4/82


5/82

Catalysing Ocean Finance Volum

FIGURES, TABLES AND B

Figures

Figure 1 5 LME Modules or Ecosystem-Based Monitoring, Assessment and Management 8

Figure 2 Warming Clusters o LMEs in relation to SSTs: 1982-2006 9

Figure 3 LMEs that have received GEF nancing 10

Figure 4 GEF IW Project TDA and SAP development and implementation 14

Figure 5 Steps carried out during the TDA development process 15

Figure 6 Outline o sample causal chain diagram 16

Figure 7 Steps carried out during the SAP ormulation process 17

Figure 8 Summary o TDA/SAP Methodology 20Figure 9 The Black Sea Drainage Basin 23

Figure 10 Total Danube Pollution Reduction Investment Costs (millions o Euros) as o 2006,projects per country and sector 25

Figure 11 Number o completed Danube pollution reduction investments per sector by country,as o 2006 25

Figures 12, 13 Danube River annual inorganic nitrogen (N-NO3) and inorganic phosphorus (P-PO4) loadsto the Black Sea (1988-2008) 27

Figure 14 Reversal o eutrophication and hypoxia in the NW shel o the Black Sea as re ected inoxygen concentrations (umol/l) o Constanta, Romania 28

Figure 15 Long-term trends in average phytoplankton biomass and cell density, NW Shel Black Sea,re ecting reduction in eutrophication rom late 1980s peaks to present day 28

Figure 16 Number o macrozoobenthos taxa near Constanta, Romania, 1990 2009 29

Figure 17 Mean annual Yellow Sea Primary Production (mg C/m2/day) 30

Figure 18 Fish landings in Yellow Sea LME by species 30

Figure 19 Status o Yellow Sea sh stocks 30

Figure 20 Rio de la Plata and Maritime Front satellite image 36

Figure 21 Pollution sources and hot spots in the Rio de la Plata/Maritime Front 37

Figure 22 PEMSEA ICM Demonstration and Parallel Sites, East Asian Seas 4

Figure 23 Process-oriented Common Framework or Sustainable Development o Coastal Areas(SDCA) through ICM Implementation 45

Figure 24 ICM Development and Implementation Cycle 46

Figure 25 ICM Environmental Investment Process 49

Figure 26 Generic approach to building on global or regional legal ramework to put in placeenabling environment or catalytic ocean nance 62

Figure 27 Paci c Islands Small Islands Developing States showing Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) 6


6/82

2Catalysing Ocean Finance Volume II

Figure 28 Annual catches o tuna in the Western and Central Paci c Ocean, 1972-2003 64Figure 29 Annual tuna catch by Paci c SIDS Fleets, 1997-2010 68Figure 30 $ value Paci c SIDS eet tuna catch, 1997-2010 68Figure 31 Cross section o ship showing ballast tanks and ballast water cycle 69Figure 32 GloBallast Partnerships project strategy 72Figure 33 Globallast catalyses progress on new international ballast water instrument 73

Tables

Table 1 UNDP-GEF LME projects, GEF Financing and Co-Implementing Agencies 1Table 2 Identi ed barriers to restoring and protecting the Danube River and Black Sea ecosystems 21Table 3 Danube/Black Sea Basin Nutrient Reduction Investments and associated nutrient

pollution reduction, through 2005 27Table 4 Identi ed barriers to sustainable management o the Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosystem 31Table 5 Breakdown o YSLME SAP Implementation Commitments by Country and Activity ($) 3Table 6 Identi ed barriers to sustainable management o the Rio de la Plata/Maritime Front 38Table 7 Removal o Matanza- Riachuelo basin pollutants a ter primary treatment 40Table 8 FrePlata Strategic Action Programme - Project Investment Port olio in Rio de la Plata and

Maritime Front to reduce and prevent pollution 41Table 9 ICM Scaling up Programmes across the East Asian Seas Region 47Table 10 Common barriers to coastal and ocean sustainability in the East Asian Seas region 51Table 11 Summary o GEF grants, co- nance and public and private investments leveraged by

PEMSEA, 1994-2008 59Table 12 Summary o public and private sector investments catalysed with support rom

UNDP-GEF PEMSEA Programme, 1999-2008 60Table 13 Principal barriers to sustainable management o sh stocks in the W/C Paci c 65Table 14 Key barriers to reducing risks rom invasive species in ship ballast water 70

Boxes

Box 1 Danube/Black Sea Basin Policy, Planning and Regulatory Drivers or Investments inNutrient Pollution Reduction 24

Box 2 Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosystem Policy, Planning and Regulatory Drivers orEnvironmental Investments in Pollution Reduction, Sustainable Fisheries and Habitat Restoration 33

Box 3 Rio de la Plata and Maritime Front Strategic Action Programme Policy, Planning andRegulatory Drivers or Investments in Pollution Reduction and Habitat Protection 39

Box 4 East Asian Seas/PEMSEA SDS/SEA and ICM Policy, Planning and Regulatory Drivers orEnvironmental Protection Investments 52

Box 5 Lessons Learned in the Development and Implementation o Public-Private Partnerships inEnvironmental Investments or the East Asian Seas 57

Box 6 Western and Central Paci c Fisheries Convention: Policy and Regulatory Drivers orSustainable Fisheries 66

Box 7 GloBallast and the Convention on Ships' Ballast Water Policy, Planning and RegulatoryDrivers or Improved Ballast Water Management and Industry Trans ormation 73


7/82


The worlds oceans and coastal areas are an integral part o li eon earth. They are the source o a variety o essential goods andservices including ood, transport, oil, gas, and minerals, toname but a ew, and also deliver vital ecosystem services suchas climate regulation and oxygen production.

It is there ore o tremendous concern that our oceans are undersigni cant threat, whether that be rom pollution, overexploita-tion, habitat loss, invasive species, or climate change.

While a number o important commitments have been madeto the protection and restoration o oceans, their health is stillin decline. This underscores the need to take decisive actionwithout delay.

This publication -Catalysing Ocean Finance - demonstrates that,ar rom being an intractable problem, sustainable ocean management could become a success ul legacy o todays generation o

decision-makers. It shows how the challenges acing the ocean stem rom widely understood market and policy ailures - ailuwhich can be addressed through the application o appropriate mixes o market and policy instruments.

As early as the mid-1990s, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and its partners recognised and began to address threats to marineecosystems and associated livelihoods and economies. In so doing, the GEF acknowledged that the sheer size and multi-countrynature o most o these marine systems, and their linked river basins, as well as the global nature o some o the threats they ar

aced with, called or coordinated, multi-country approaches. With its ocus on transboundary waters, this positioned the GEF aspotential catalyst to demonstrate and scale up e ective strategies to address ocean challenges.

Over the past twenty years, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the GEF have success ully developed a rango strategic planning tools aimed at assisting governments to put in place enabling policy environments to catalyse investment orrestoring and protecting the marine environment. In several cases, catalysed public and private nancial ows have exceeded theinitial GEF investment several hundred- old. In some cases, these instruments have helped to shi t sizeable ocean industries, such ashipping and tuna sheries, to a more environmentally sustainable path.

Catalysing Ocean Finance takes stock o how e ective these instruments have been in helping countries to address challenges acingthe oceans and explores how they could be success ully scaled up. It estimates that an initial public investment on the order o $5billion over the next ten to twenty years could be su cient to catalyse several hundred billion dollars o public and private invest-ment, and thereby oster global trans ormation o ocean markets towards sustainability.

The Global Environment Facility and the United Nations Development Programme, working in partnership with partner countriesand initiatives, such as the recently launched World Bank Global Partnership or Oceans and the UN Secretary Generals OceanCompact, look orward to building on the success ul approaches demonstrated inCatalysing Ocean Finance to sustainably utilise ouroceans, or the bene t o present and uture generations.

Sincerely,

Helen Clark Naoko IshiiAdministrator Chie Executive O cer

United Nations Development Programme Global Environment Facility

FOREWORD


8/82

4Chapter #: Chapter titleCatalysing Ocean Finance Volume II

$ US dollar

ABNJ Areas Beyond National JurisdictionACUMAR Autoridad de Cuenca Matansa RiachueloBOD/COD Biochemical Oxygen Demand/Chemical

Oxygen DemandBSERP Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery ProjectBWM Ballast Water ManagementCARP Comisin Administradora del Ro de la

PlataCBD Convention on Biological DiversityChl a Chlorophyll aCO2 Carbon DioxideCP Cleaner ProductionCTMFM Comisin Tcnica Mixta del Frente

MartimoDDT DichlorodiphenyltrichloroethaneDIN Dissolved Inorganic NitrogenDRP Danube Regional ProjectEBRD European Bank or Reconstruction and

DevelopmentEcoQOs Ecosystem Quality ObjectivesEcoQWROs Ecosystem Quality or Water Resource

ObjectivesEEDI Energy E ciency Design Index ( or ships)EEZs Exclusive Economic ZonesEIB European Investment Bank EU European UnionFAO Food and Agriculture Organization o the

United NationsFFA Forum Fisheries AgencyFSA United Nations Fish Stocks AgreementGBP GloBallast PartnershipsGEF Global Environment FacilityGHG Greenhouse gasGIA Global Industry Alliance or Marine

BiosecurityGloBallast Global Ballast Water ProgrammeGPA-LBA Global Programme Action to Protect the

Marine Environment rom Land-basedActivities

HCFC Hydrochloro uorocarbonsICM Integrated Coastal Management

ICPDR International Commission or the

Protection o the Danube RiverIOC/UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic

Commission o UNESCOIFNR Investment Fund or Nutrient ReductionIMC Inter-Ministerial CommitteesIMO International Maritime OrganizationIMTA Integrated Multi-Trophic AquacultureIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

ChangeITQs Individual Trans erable QuotasIUCN World Conservation Union

IW International WatersIWRMP Integrated Water Resource ManagementPlan

JAP Joint Action ProgrammeJPOA Johannesburg Plan o ActionLME Large Marine EcosystemLPC/PC Lead Partner Country/Partner CountryM&E Monitoring and EvaluationMARPOL International Convention or the

Prevention o Pollution From ShipsMDG Millennium Development GoalMEPC Marine Environment Protection

Committee (o the IMO)MHLC Multilateral High Level Con erenceMPA Marine Protected AreaMRV Measurement, Reporting and Veri cationMSC Marine Sa ety CommitteeMSY Maximum Sustainable YieldMt Metric TonsN NitrogenNAP National Action Plan or ProgrammeNGO Non-governmental organisationNIMRD National Institute or Marine Research

and Development (Romania)NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric

AdministrationODI Overseas Development InstituteODS Ozone Depleting SubstancesOECD Organisation or Economic Co-operation

and Development

ACRONYMS


9/82


OFMP Oceanic Fisheries Management Project

OPRC International Convention on OilPollution Preparedness, Response andCooperation

P PhosphorusPA Precautionary approachPCB Polychlorinated BiphenylsPEMSEA Partnerships in Environmental

Management or the Seas o East AsiaPIC Paci c Island CountriesPOPs Persistent Organic PollutantsPPPs Public Private Partnerships

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality ControlR&D Research and DevelopmentREDD Reducing Emissions rom De orestation

and Forest DegradationRFMO Regional Fisheries Management

OrganisationRPMF Rio de la Plata & its Maritime FrontSAP Strategic Action ProgrammeSDCA Sustainable Development o Coastal

AreasSDS-SEA Sustainable Development Strategy or

the seas o East AsiaSEEMP Ship Energy E ciency Management PlanSIDS Small Island Developing StatesSOC State o the Coasts

SPC Secretariat o the Paci c Community

SSTs Sea Sur ace TemperaturesSTAP Scienti c and Technical Advisory PanelTDA Transboundary Diagnostic AnalysisTSC Train-Sea-CoastUN United NationsUNCED United Nations Con erence on

Environment and DevelopmentUNDP United Nations Development

ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scienti c

and Cultural OrganizationUNFCCC United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change

WCMC World Conservation Monitoring CentreW/C Western and CentralWCPFC West & Central Paci c Fisheries

CommissionWCPO West & Central Paci c OceanWHO World Health OrganizationWSSD World Summit or Sustainable

DevelopmentWTO World Trade OrganizationWWTP Wastewater Treatment PlantYSFRI Yellow Sea Fisheries Research InstituteYSLME Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosystem


10/82

6

Catalyzing ocean fnance andgovernance re orm to restore the

worlds Large Marine Ecosystems (LME

chapter 1

Catalysing Ocean Finance Volume II

Coasts and oceans are being degraded at a rate that willhave signi cant social and economic implications world-wide i allowed to continue unabated. Over the last twentyyears, UNDP-GEF has success ully developed and applied aseries o ocean and coastal market trans ormation method-ologies that have proven very e ective at removing barri-ers and putting in place an enabling policy environmentthat can catalyse sizeable quantities o public and privatesector nancial ows or ocean restoration and protection.

Volume I o this publication, titled "Trans orming Marketsto Restore and Protect the Global Ocean", summarises,through a series o six case studies, the e ectiveness o eacho these instruments in catalysing nancial ows and pres-ents options or scaling them up to address present and

uture threats to coastal and ocean resources. Volume II o this publication, titled "Methodologies and Case Studies",comprehensively reviews each o the three methodolo-gies and six case studies used to justi y several o the mainconclusions reached in Volume I.

Volume I o Catalysing Ocean Finance is divided into ourchapters. Chapter 1 explores the main causes o coastaland ocean degradation and presents a new paradigm tosustainably utilise open access resources such as the globalocean: using scarce grant unds to promote integrated,science-based ocean and coastal planning and policyre orm, remove investment barriers, and catalyse largepublic and private ows or sustainable ocean resourcemanagement.

Based on the six case studies, Chapter 2 brie y describesthe application o three major planning instruments usedto oster sustainable productive use patterns o coastal andocean resources over the past 20 years. Chapter 3 considers

the lessons learnt rom these case studies and methodolo-gies over the past 20 years that can in orm their trans erand replication in other ocean and coastal contexts. Lastly,Chapter 4 sets orth a roadmap to restore and protect ourocean over the next 20 years via the combination andscaling up o these planning instruments to address ourprincipal ocean sustainability challenges.

Volume II o Catalysing Ocean Finance is divided into threechapters. Chapter 1 provides a detailed description o theTDA/SAP methodology as a strategic planning tool ormanagement o Large Marine Ecosystems and their linkeddrainage basins. This is ollowed by three case studies Danube/Black Sea Basin, Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosys-tem, and Rio de la Plata/Maritime Front documenting howTDA/SAP created the necessary enabling environment todeliver sizeable levels o investment or ocean restorationand protection in each o these waterbodies. Chapter 2describes Integrated Coastal Management as a very e ec-tive tool or promoting sustainable use o coastal resourcesat local, municipal and provincial scales, and highlights theEast Asian Seas PEMSEA programme as a case study docu-menting how e ective ICM can be at creating an enablingenvironment that can leverage large sums o environmen-tal investment, both public and private. Lastly, Chapter 3describes how an approach involving building on emerg-ing or anticipated global or regional legal rameworks candeliver signi cant new and additional nancial ows orocean sustainability, and literally trans orm entire marketssuch as shipping and sheries.

Catalysing Ocean Finance builds on the ndings o twocompanion UNDP-GEF publications (Sherman and McGovern,2012; UNDP-GEF, 2012): The rst publicationFrontlineObservations on Climate Change and Sustainability o Large

INTRODUCTION


11/82


Marine Ecosystems reviews climate change and other threatsto ocean ecosystems, and the steps UNDP and other GEFagencies are taking to address these threats in 10 LMEs. Thesecond, International Waters Delivering Results , highlightsthe substantial progress made in addressing these threatsthrough twenty years o UNDP-GEF support to advancingthe sustainable management o 31 o the worlds mostimportant transboundary marine and reshwater ecosystems.International Waters Delivering Results documents themuch broader ongoing application o Catalysing OceanFinances three planning instruments across a wide range o waterbodies, both marine and reshwater.

Catalysing Ocean Finance and its two companion volumesare intended or government policy makers tasked withcreating incentives or the protection, restoration andsustainable development o coastal and ocean resourcesvital to the economic uture o the worlds coastal nations.Volume I endeavors to capture in as concise a manner aspossible some key lessons o the last 20 years in the eld o sustainable coast and ocean management. Volume II shouldenable decision-makers to urther explore the potential o one or several ocean planning instruments to meet theirspeci c geographic/thematic needs at local, provincial,national, regional or global scales. The two companionpublications provide a wealth o technical in ormation or

urther research and action.


12/82


1. Applying the TDA/SAP methodology torestore and protect the worlds LargeMarine Ecosystems (LME)

1.1 Introduction

Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) are relatively large areas o ocean space o approximately 200,000 km or greater, adjacentto the continents in coastal waters where primary productiv-ity is generally higher than in open ocean areas. The physi-cal extent o an LME and its boundaries are based on ourlinked ecological, rather than political or economic, criteria:(i) bathymetry (depth), (ii) hydrography, (iii) productivity, and(iv) trophic relationships. Based on these our ecological crite-ria, 64 distinct LMEs have been delineated around the coastal

margins o the Atlantic, Paci c and Indian Oceans. The worldsLMEs produce about 80% o the worlds annual marine sheries

catch and contribute an estimated $12.6 trillion in (non-market)goods and services annually to the worlds economy. A major-ity o the worlds 64 LMEs are shared ecosystems in that theyare bordered by two or more countries, reaching as high as28 countries in the Caribbean Sea LME. This underscores theneed to take cooperative, multi-country approaches to achievetruly sustainable, ecosystem-based management o criticalLME goods and services.

Five modules (Figure 1) are typically used to characterise the LMEapproach or LME assessment and management. The modulesinclude 1) pollution and ecosystem health, 2) sh and sheries,3) productivity, 4) governance and 5) socioeconomics. Themodules in turn de ne a series o indicators to establish base-lines or monitoring the changing states o LMEs, and or takingpreventive and remedial actions toward the recovery andsustainability o degraded or threatened LME goods and services.

Figure 1: The 5 LME Modules or Ecosystem-Based Monitoring, Assessment and Management

Source: Sherman, 2005

meThODOlOgIesaND Case sTUDIes


13/82


Threats to LMEs and the International Response

Continued over- shing in the ace o scienti c warnings, shingdown ood webs, destruction o coastal habitat, and acceleratedpollution loadingespecially nitrogen exporthave resulted insigni cant degradation o LMEs adjacent to both developed anddeveloping nations. Fragmentation among institutions, inter-national agencies, and disciplines, lack o cooperation amongnations sharing marine ecosystems, and weak national policies,legislation, and en orcement all contribute to the need or a newimperative or adopting ecosystem-based approaches to chang-ing human behavior in these systems in order to avoid serioussocial and economic disruption.

To the loss o economic, environmental, and communitysecurity that accompanies the degradation and depletion o coastal and marine waters, climate change now adds even

more complexity. Together with NOAA, UNEP and partners,GEF has supported an assessment o the changing states o coastal areas and LMEs. This assessment documents warmingo sea-sur ace temperatures (SSTs) over the last 25 yearsas recorded rom satellites. One o the key ndings is thatwarming rates are much aster than scientists have suspectedas shown in the GEF- unded publication and Figure 2 (Shermanand Hempel, 2008). The dark red areas o Figure 2 are warmingon average at the most rapid rates; such rates o more than onedegree Centigrade over 25 years are unprecedented. Togetherwith the lighter red shaded LMEs, more than one-quarter o the planets LMEs are warming at a very rapid rate. Already, thewarming o LMEs is orcing sh stocks to move, o ten to coolwaters in nearby countries (Sherman and McGovern, 2012),presenting a direct threat to ood and national security orsome coastal communities, including the loss o investmentsand jobs related to sh processing.

Figure 2: Warming Clusters o LMEs in relation to SSTs: 1982-2006

Nothing less than the security o coastal communitiesand ocean states is at stake as degradation and deple-tion, ampli ed by climate change, impact coastal econo-mies, communities, and ood supplies. This trend has beenevident or decades with little coordinated response be orethe Rio Summit in 1992. With the creation o the GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF) in 1991 and the adoption o itsOperational Strategy by governments in 1995, the GEF hasresponded with speci c collaborative methodologies andsigni cant grant nancing to the myriad o stresses a ecting

coasts and oceans, to help countries commit to actions andnance aimed at ocean and coastal sustainability.

Role o the Global Environment Facility

Since the mid-1990s, developing countries have approachedthe GEF in increasing numbers or assistance in improving themanagement o Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) shared withneighboring nations. Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) serve asplace-based, ecologically de ned areas or which stakeholder


14/82


support or integrating essential national and multi-countryre orms and international agency programmes can be mobil-ises into a cost-e ective, collective response to an array o conventions and programmes. Site-speci c ocean concerns,those o adjacent coastal areas, and linked reshwater basinsare being addressed in LMEs through GEF assistance.

GEFs mandate is to provide incremental cost nance to addressglobal environment issues like climate change, biodiversity andinternational waterswhich covers both transboundary resh-water and marine systems. GEF projects were originally imple-mented by three Implementing Agencies (the World Bank,UNEP, and UNDP), later expanded to ten agencies. The onlynew unding source to emerge rom the 1992 Earth Summit, theGEF has allocated in its rst two decades $10.4 billion, supple-mented by more than $44 billion in co- nancing, or more than2,700 projects in more than 165 developing countries andcountries with economies in transition. For the International

Waters ocal area, 220 transboundary water projects have beenunded with 149 di erent cooperating countries totaling over

$8.5 billion in total cost and $1.3 billion in GEF grants. The GEFhas clearly emerged as a signi cant catalytic unding source ortransboundary systemsespecially marine ecosystems.

Twenty Years o GEF Support or Coasts and Oceans

The GEF Council-approved Operational Strategy in 1995recognised the sensitive international political dimensions

o assisting states in collective management o transbound-ary water systems. The Council noted that global environ-mental bene ts would accrue i countries worked togetheron priority concerns o these transboundary systems, whichas noted earlier are the dominant waters on Earth. TheGEF Council included the concept o LMEs as an appro-priate biogeographic ramework or programming in itsOperational Strategy as a vehicle to oster ecosystem-basedmanagement o coastal and marine resources in the Inter-national Waters ocal area. This geographic approach, whichincludes the coasts and adjacent river basins, represented apragmatic way to operationalise the ecosystem approachwith an area su ciently large to include GEF transboundaryconsiderations, especially mobile living resources.

Since 1995, the GEF has provided substantial unding tosupport country-driven projects or introducing multi-sector,ecosystem-based assessment and management practices or

LMEs located around the margins o the ocean. At present,110 GEF recipient countries and 21 non-recipient countriesare collaborating on 20 GEF Council approved LMEs and oneLME-equivalent (the Warm-water Pool o the Paci c) in orderto catalyse joint commitments to action and nance (Figure 3).UNDP is involved as an implementing agency in 13 LME proj-ects or 65% o the GEF LME Port olio (Table 1). UNDPs cumtive GEF programming in LMEs totals $148.2 million (Dec 2011UNDP-GEF PIMS Database).

Figure 3: LMEs that have received GEF nancing


15/82


Table 1: UNDP-GEF LME Projects, GEF Financing and Co-Implementing Agencies

UNDP-GEF LME ProjectsCumulative UNDP-GEF

Grant Financing ($)Co-Implementing & Partner

GEF Agency/ies

Benguela Current LME 20,906,910

Agulhas/Somali LME 13,923,000 UNDP, UNEP, World Bank

Guinea Current LME 18,145,985 UNEP, UNIDORed Sea LME 10,018,000 UNEP, World Bank

Humboldt Current LME 7,000,000

Sulu-Celebes Sea LME 2,975,000

W/C Paci c Warm Pool LME 16,441,085

W. Bering Sea LME 3,261,000

Black Sea LME 21,090,000 UNEP, World Bank

Yellow Sea LME 14,743,833

Caribbean Sea LME 7,726,952 UNEP, FAO

Patagonia Shel LME (via Rio de la Plata/Maritime Front) 9,310,000

N. Australia Shel LME (via Timor-Ara ura Sea) 2,650,000

TOTAL GEF GRANTS (UNDP) $148,191,765

By using a multi-scaled approach and sequenced undingtied to progressive commitments to joint action throughGEF methodologies, the achievement o a succession o milestones is rewarded by additional GEF projects. Thegoal is to catalyse joint commitments to re orms and invest-

ments in each collaborating state and to achieve develop-ment assistance coherence with coordinated programmesall working together to address priorities outlined by states.

Recommended GEF Methodologythe TDA/SAP Approach

There are many barriers to states working together on theirshared coastal and marine ecosystems. Disputes over borders,oil/gas, exclusive economic zones, sheries, continentalshelves, and maritime transport o ten cloud discussions. In

order to overcome disputes, potential jealousies, uncertain-ties, and assumptions about the intentions o neighboringstates, the GEF identi ed a methodology to help countrieslearn to work together. Known as the Transboundary Diagnos-tic Analysis and the Strategic Action Programme (TDA/SAP),this methodology is coupled with the use o national inter-ministry committees in GEF projects and a series o learningprocesses or sharing experiences known as GEF IW:LEARN.

These processes have proven to be the key to leveraging statecommitments to joint action and catalysing sizeable coastaland ocean nance as this publication illustrates.

Formulation o a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)

and a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) are all part o oneprocess undertaken by states desiring to begin to addressopportunities and concerns in their shared marine ecosys-tems. The TDA is a scienti c analysis while a SAP is a politicadocument. National inter-ministry committees should repre-sent each cooperating state in the process o ormulatingthem. The TDA begins the process as countries and partnerscompile data and actual in ormation on the transboundaryecosystem and its concerns and opportunities. This analysisis done spatially because only certain parts o larger LMEsmay be experiencing a particular transboundary issue.

This process o joint act- nding is aimed at each statebeing able to understand the situation its neighbors expe-rience to ll gaps in understanding and develop trust thatone state is not hiding in ormation rom others. Nationalinter-ministry committees provide national in ormation tothe analysis that is assembled on a multi-country basis, insome cases using GIS systems. This sharing o in ormation


16/82


builds trust and con dence in working together and llsin ormation gaps in joint understanding o how the largersystem unctions. These processes are also critical or inte-grating science into management in a practical way and orestablishing appropriate governance regimes to changehuman behavior in di erent sectors. When they are in dra t

orm, the TDA and the SAP provide a great tool or discus-sion and participation by stakeholders to garner politicalsupport or joint action.

The shared commitment and vision or action embodied inthe SAP has proven essential in GEF projects or develop-ing partnerships to sustain commitment to action. Statescooperate in establishing adaptive management structuresas part o GEF monitoring and evaluation requirements bymeasuring indicators and harmonising QA/QC or trust in thedata. This has led states to adopting their own LME-speci cecosystem targets and measurement systems in response tothe Johannesburg Summit and to establishing partnershipswith di erent bilateral, multilateral, and UN agencies orbetter coherence by development assistance agencies. The

rst step is development o the TDA. The main technical roleo a TDA is to identi y, quanti y, and set priorities or water-related concerns and opportunities or development thatare transboundary in nature. In particular, the TDA aims to:

Identi y and set priorities or transboundary concernsand opportunities;

Gather and interpret in ormation on the water-relatedimpacts and socio-economic consequences o eachconcern or opportunity;

Analyse the immediate, underlying, and root causes(barriers) or each concern or opportunity geographi-cally, and in particular identi y speci c practices,sources, locations, and human activity sectors romwhich water and environmental con icts arise;

Complete an analysis o institutions, laws, policies andrequired investments.

As an objective analysis, the TDA provides the actual basisor the ormulation o the SAP. The TDA should be part o

a process o engaging stakeholders through the initial TDAsteps and the subsequent development o alternative solu-tions during the ormulation o the SAP. Stakeholder identi -cation and consultation and studies o institutional capacity,governance, and investment are all essential componentso the TDA process. In order to make the analysis more

relevant to institutional re orms, it should include a detailedgovernance analysis which considers the national andtransboundary institutional, legal and policy situation andidenti es key barriers to progress in each.

An important eature o the TDA methodology is analysiso the root causes/barriers causing the con icts, degrada-

tion, social issues or opportunity; these are nearly alwaysgaps and ailures in the institutions, regulations, policies,in ormation and other components o water and oceangovernance systems. GEF projects address root causes o issues rather than only the symptoms o more deep-seatedconcerns. The TDA process allows complex transbound-ary issues to be broken up into smaller, more manageablecomponents or action as speci c sub-areas o degradationor priority hotspots are geographically identi ed (withtheir speci c problem and root cause) within the larger,complex system. Some o these may be deemed highpriority; others may not. In the case o LMEs, it is essentialto examine linkages among coastal zones, LMEs, and theircontributing reshwater basins as part o the TDA processso that necessary linkages to root causes in upstreambasins can be addressed in the subsequent SAP.

The SAP is a negotiated policy document that should beendorsed at the ministerial level o all relevant sectors ineach country to show commitments to action. As a vision-ing process with participation by key stakeholders, it estab-lishes clear priorities or action ( or example, policy, legalinstitutional re orms, and investments) to (a) resolve thepriority concerns identi ed in the TDA or (b) to pursue jointdevelopment opportunities where the basket o bene tsare larger or countries working together than individu-ally on unilateral actions. A key element o the SAP is toidenti y national re orms and investments or addressingpriority transboundary concerns (which generates globalbene ts or GEF purposes) rather than just local bene ts.Another key element involves the development o insti-tutional mechanisms at the regional and national levels

or implementing the SAP and monitoring and evaluationprocedures to measure e ectiveness o the outcomes o the process. New legal cooperative rameworks are o tensupported by GEF to acilitate state commitments tomeeting targets and actions included in the SAP.

The SAP outlines the re orms and investments countriesagree to jointly undertake to balance competing water,


17/82


18/82


a year in a very small project to several years in a major one.The main activities covered in the overall project and the

rst three phases are shown in Figure 4, below. Detailedsets o tasks or each phase are described later.

Figure 4: GEF IW Project TDA and SAP

development and implementation

1.2.3 TDA Procedure

The TDA is a scienti c and technical act- nding analysisused to scale the relative importance o sources, causesand impacts o transboundary waters problems in both

reshwater and marine ecosystems. It is intended to be an

objective assessment and not a negotiated document.

The analysis is carried out in a cross sectoral manner, ocus-ing on transboundary problems without ignoring nationalconcerns and priorities. In order to make the analysis moree ective and sustainable, it should include a detailedgovernance analysis that considers the local institutional,legal and policy environment.

Further, conduct o the TDA should be preceded by a ullconsultation with all stakeholders, and the stakeholders

should be involved throughout the subsequent process.Four key elements that underpin the TDA are:

Joint act- nding Prioritisation Participation Consensus

The TDA approach is not only a proven way o achievingprogress but, by helping to establish an environmental andsocioeconomic baseline or the waterbody in question, italso acts as a diagnostic tool or measuring the e ective-ness o SAP implementation. The TDA is meant to be aliving document that is subject to review and revision peri-odically as new issues emerge and scienti c and technicalknowledge becomes available.

Major Tasks o the TDA

Development o the TDA is a scienti c and technical processo act- nding (or diagnosing) the state o , and threats to,international waters. The major outputs o the TDA includethe ollowing elements:

TDA preparation: In ormation and data stock takingexercise

Identi cation and initial prioritisation o transbound-ary problems

Analysis o environmental and (i possible) socioeco-nomic impacts/consequences o each transboundaryproblem

Final prioritisation o transboundary problems Governance and barrier analysis

As much as possible, experts rom the countries involvedshould do the work, but at times international experts mayalso be needed, the emphasis being on using the best

available independent expertise.The TDA thus provides the actual basis or the ormulationo a SAP based on a reasoned and multi-sectoral consider-ation o the problems. But it also acts as a trust and con -dence builder by showing countries how to exchangein ormation and work together. This is valuable or theeventual ormulation o the SAP.

(i) TDA preparation: In ormation and data stock taking exercise

There is o ten a wealth o in ormation and data availableconcerning a given transboundary waterbody. However,it generally comes rom multiple sources, its generationand use is o ten uncoordinated, and it is requently neitheraccessible nor entirely appropriate.

Planning the TDA/SAP

Project development and implementation

TDA Development

SAP Formulation

SAP Implementation


19/82


Figure 5: Steps carried out during the TDAdevelopment process

There ore, prior to developing the TDA, a simple in ormationand data stock taking exercise should be initiated (o tentermed a meta data study). This will ascertain the sources o in ormation/data, its availability and gaps in knowledge.

(ii) Identifcation and initial prioritisation o transboundary problems

The main analytical and diagnostic work has o ten been calledScaling Scoping Screening. This means that the scale (ortimescale and geographical area) o each problem, and its scope

(magnitude) must be determined, and then the problems mustbe screened to sort out those o high priority rom low.

The rst step in the TDA process is to agree on the trans-boundary problems. The initial stakeholder consultationwill have already highlighted the main problems, but it isimportant to revisit them, agree on whether or not the listis complete, examine their transboundary relevance, deter-mine preliminary priorities and examine the scope o each.

The experts should brainstorm the list o problems withemphasis on their transboundary nature, and then conducta simple exercise to assign priorities (high-medium-low)

rom an environmental and socioeconomic standpoint.The geographical extent o the problems associated witheach problem can also be stated.

(iii) Analysis o impacts/consequences o eachtransboundary problem

The environmental impacts and socioeconomic consequenceso the relevant transboundary problems should also be identi-

ed. Some o this in ormation may have been gathered romthe stakeholder consultation process since stakeholders mayidenti y impacts or consequences and it is on this basis thatproblems are identi ed. However, the project must ensure thatthe entire range o impacts and consequences are identi edand quanti ed, and this may require additional research.

The nal reports or each problem will be quite brie (typi-cally some 5 pages per transboundary problem) but shouldcontain objective and quantitative in ormation. The work will normally be conducted by selected individual specialists.

(iv) Final prioritisation o transboundary problems

A ter the completion o the analysis o impacts/consequences,a nal prioritisation should be carried out. Final prioritisationis vital since it ensures that the causal chain analysis concen-trates on those problems that are the most signi cant to stake-holders and represent the best investment o their resources.

(v) Causal chain analysis and governance analysis

Future corrective actions can only be proposed with con -dence i the whole chain o symptoms, causes and e ects isunderstood. Such a causal chain analysis has to be carried out

or each priority problem. The completed causal chain analysisshould help to locate potential areas o intervention or theGEF, and is an important basis or the design o the practicalbarrier removal actions that will be included in the SAP.

The causal chain relates the problems to their immediatephysical causes and their social and economic underlyingcauses. However, there is a danger here o con using prob-lems and immediate causes. For example, take the ques-tion o Pollution hot spots. Should the existence o hotspots be described as the problem to be dealt with?

TDA Preparation

Development of the TDA

Identi cation and initialprioritisation of transboundaryproblems

Analysis of environmental andsocioeconomic impacts/consequences of transboundaryproblem

Final prioritisation of

transboundary problems

Causal chain analysis andgovernance analysis

Production and submission of complete draft TDA


20/82


The outline causal chain diagram o Figure 6 shows thatthis would be wrong. The hot spot is the immediate causeo the problem.

During the TDA the interaction between causes and e ectso key transboundary problems has to take into account thegeographical scale o the environmental and social impactso a problem. The problem itsel and the causes o theproblem may be di erent.

Completion o a causal chain analysis or each o the prior-ity problems requires a mixture o expertise: scienti c orthe immediate causes, and social and economic or theunderlying and root causes.

Figure 6: Outline o sample causal chain diagram

Immediate causes are usually technical in nature and should bequanti ed, prioritised and geographically located. Underlyingcauses are those that contribute to the immediate causes. Theycan broadly be de ned as sectoral resource uses, practices andpolicies, and their related social and economic causes.

Beyond the sectoral causes however, are deeper root causes o the problems, o ten macroeconomy, demography, consump-tion patterns, environmental values and access to in ormationand democratic processes. Most o these are beyond the scopeo a GEF intervention but it is necessary to document them.The reason or this is that some proposed solutions may beunworkable i the root causes o the problem in question areoverwhelming. Furthermore, actions taken nearer to the rootcauses are more likely to have a lasting impact on the problem.

(vi) Governance analysis

The term Governance is shorthand or the whole politi-cal environment: institutions, laws, policies and projectedinvestments that a ect the environmental problems. Theanalysis o these is known as governance analysis.

The existence o a problem implies that some parts o thecurrent governance mechanisms or their implementationare insu cient otherwise the problem would not exist.There ore these mechanisms and the reasons or any ailuremust be documented in order that appropriate interven-tions can be suggested.

An important characteristic o governance analysis is tond out where decision-making power really sits, and how

the mechanisms actually work, as opposed to how they aresupposed to work.

Governance analysis should describe the dynamic relationswithin political and social structures that underpin suchaspects as legislative and regulatory rameworks, decision-making processes and budgetary allocations. In carryingout the causal chain analysis, many cross-cutting underly-ing causes will be ound to be governance issues.

It is also vital to know what relevant projects, programmesand investments have been approved, or are in the pipe-line, or the orthcoming decade. Investment project cycles

are generally very long, so the current development port-olios become an integral part o the TDA.

The governance analysis should be conducted by regionalexperts, and there should be regular eedback betweenboth groups in order to understand the dynamics andsynergies between the causes o transboundary problemsand possible ailures in governance.

IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT

The death of aquatic species

TRANSBOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

Chemical pollution

IMMEDIATE CAUSE

Hot spot e.g. polluting factory

UNDERLYING CAUSES

Lack of industrial investmentLack of economic incentives to

reduce pollution


21/82


(vii) Production o the complete dra t TDA and submission or fnal approval

Up to this point, all the act- nding, analysis and diagno-sis has been carried out separately or each key problem orrelated set o problems. These now have to be combinedinto a single document.

This complex task is conducted under the supervisiono the Project Manager, who may appoint specialists tohelp. The dra t TDA should have a jargon- ree executivesummary and the main text should be lucid and concise.There should be easy to understand maps (either sketch,GIS or photographic) illustrating the geographic scale andscope o the priority transboundary problems, impactedareas and the location o immediate causes (such as pollu-tion hot spots, river diversions, urban developments, etc.).

To have o cial standing, the TDA should be ormally adoptedby the project steering committee ollowing any technicaland stakeholder reviews that may be advisable. This adop-tion gives a seal o authority and buy-in on the document asinput into the more political process o the SAP.

1.2.4 Formulating the SAP

The third phase takes the process into the political arena whereobjectivity may be a ected by political pragmatism. A goodTDA will have made it easier to develop logical, sustainable and

politically acceptable solutions on the basis o sound scienti cand socioeconomic analysis. This is why so much emphasis hasbeen given to the groundwork in the rst two phases.

Figure 7 shows the theoretical sequence o tasks, althougho course some o these will go on in parallel.

(i) Bridging the TDA and SAP and developinglong-term EcoQOs

This is a crucial step, coming between the TDA and the SAP

phases o the process, and provides the bridge between thetwo stages. It links how the shared waterbody is now with whatit is hoped it will be in the uture. The Ecosystem Quality Objec-tives (EcoQOs) are statements o the vision o how the stake-holders would like to see the state o the system in the uture.

There ore the project should examine the vision and eachpriority transboundary problem detailed in the TDA and ask the question, What would be an acceptable environmental

status that would be a sign o a solution or this problem?This statement o status will represent a long-term EcoQO.

Figure 7: Steps carried out during the SAP ormulationprocess

It is important that at this stage there is ull consultationwith all the stakeholder groups to encourage buy-in andownership. EcoQOs should be statements o the visiono how thestakeholders would like to see the state o the system in the uture. A practical way o achieving thisis to involve stakeholder representatives in the bridgingmeeting and subsequent SAP meetings, who will reportback to their respective groups on the outcomes.

(ii) Planning the remaining steps o the SAP

Many o the solutions proposed in the initial brainstorm-ing meeting, including investments, will require actionat a national level. It is important to engage the nationalinter-ministry committees (IMCs) in the process as early aspossible. One way to do this is to organise national meet-ings that mirror the initial brainstorming. These shouldbe organised by the national IMCs and include a suitablerange o stakeholders and technical specialists.

Bridging the TDA and SAP anddeveloping long-term EcoQOs

Planning the remaining steps of the SAP

Brainstorming ways to attainthe EcoQOs

Examination of the alternatives

Formulating the SAP

Development of targets andindicators and agreement on theinstitutional framework

Drafting the action programme/SAP


22/82


Each countrys National IMC should appoint a National ActionProgramme (NAP) Formulation Team who will eventuallygenerate dra t NAPs. These teams ensure that all actions are

rmly anchored on realistic national policy and investmentcapacity, and promote a sense o national ownership.

In addition, a SAP ormulation team should be created.

This will include representatives o the TDA experts andNAP Teams in order to ensure adequate synergy to addressregional priorities; this is o course a technical team thatwill not make political decisions.

(iii) Brainstorming ways to attain the EcoQOs

The objective o the brainstorming activity is to work withstakeholder representatives and specialists to propose anumber o practical options that would make signi cantprogress towards achieving the EcoQOs.

A brainstorming meeting should be organised with partici-pation o stakeholders and experts. Everyone is encouragedto be creative in his or her ideas. No attempt is made to limitthe discussion to what seems reasonable or easible. Becauseo this in ormality, it is not necessary to seek ormal approval

rom the steering committee or who should be invited.

The meeting examines each EcoQO and identi es possibleoptions, particularly governance re orms and investments,

or achieving them. The process involves working in smallgroups, each o which develops part o a matrix (or table) o options, which should include:

Which part o the causal chain they address Time rames or implementing them Responsible parties Relative costs (where possible) Indicative priorities to the solutions proposed

This matrix will be the basis or urther technical evaluationand should be as inclusive as possible, since it does notrepresent a commitment.

(iv) Examination o alternatives

The high priority proposals emerging rom the brainstorm-ing now have to be evaluated or:

Their technical and nancial easibility Their environmental and socioeconomic costs and bene ts Their political and social acceptability

Each o these analyses should be carried out nationally bythe NAP ormulation teams and national members o theSAP ormulation team. However, the whole process shouldbe steered regionally.

At this stage, rm decisions need to be taken by the projectsteering committee and, most importantly, by the national

inter-ministry committees. The outcome is ultimately re ectedin the dra t NAPs.

Parties committing themselves to implementing the SAPmust be ully accountable or their actions. There ore, thestakeholder group/sector/government agency responsible

or implementing the actions proposed within the TDAmust be clearly and unambiguously identi ed.

(v) Development o targets and indicators

To integrate the national actions detailed above into acoherent region-wide programme o action (the SAP), threebasic technical recommendations are required. These are:

Development o short-term targets and priority actionsincluding investments

Agreement on the national/regional institutionalramework

Development o measurable M&E indicators or eachtarget

Development o short-term targets and priority actions

The technical and political consultation process describedabove should enable the SAP ormulation team to deter-mine how ar the political process can be taken, in theshort/medium term, towards the long-term EcoQOs.

Through care ul accounting o the environmental andsocial bene ts, a set o one to ten year targets and prior-ity actions can be set. In addition, the targets should bere ected in measurable process, stress reduction and envi-

ronmental and socioeconomic status indicators. Theseshould ask the question What measurable progress shouldbe observable at the end o a decade?

Short-term targets are stepping stones on the way to anEcoQO; they de ne the pragmatic steps towards achiev-ing agreed EcoQOs. The timescale o an EcoQO may bedecades while a shorter-term target would be monitoredand reported on perhaps annually.


23/82


Short-term targets are goals towards which measurableprogress should be observed over a period o , say, one, veor ten years. Targets may be environmental, such as somesort o water quality indicator or species abundance, or theymay be more closely linked to societal actors such as theproportion o human sewage that is now being treated tosecondary level. They should be unambiguous and easy tocommunicate to the public.

Agreement on the Institutional Framework

The TDA will have already examined institutional strengthsand weaknesses, both national and regional. Propos-als should be ormulated on how the weaknesses shouldbe corrected (barriers removed), through increasing thecapacity o existing institutions or creating new ones.

For example, there may be a need to create a revised or

new regional coordinating ramework such as a commis-sion or a river basin or Large Marine Ecosystem. In parallel,there must be discussions on:

The ormulation o national policy The need or legal and institutional re orms Investment priorities

These proposals will normally be ormulated by the NAPteams, agreed by the national inter-ministry committees,and nal agreement reached ollowing the decision on the

operational objectives.

The TDA/SAP is itsel a policy process leading to concretebene ts, as governments make commitments to institutionaland policy changes, and investments, and may identi y actionsneeded and carry them out during the progress o the TDA/SAP.

Development o measurable M&E indicatorsor each target

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) indicators are long-termmonitoring tools used to veri y the implementation o the SAP and to enable adaptive management as condi-tions change. In order to achieve this, the SAP team shouldprepare a set o process, stress reduction and environmentaland socioeconomic status indicators based on the resultso the TDA but adapted according to the needs o the long-term EcoQOs and shorter-term targets and priority actions.

Project monitoring and evaluation indicators or any subse-quent GEF interventions should also be developed. There

should be clear linkages between the indicators and theinstitutional capacity or monitoring them.

(vi) Dra ting the Strategic Action Programme(SAP)

Dra ting the SAP has many similarities with the NAP dra t

ing process. It should be prepared on the basis o identi edregional priorities and agreed Ecosystem Quality Objectives.The various SAP and NAP meetings conducted during the SAP

ormulation process will have produced a great deal o mate-rial that will need to be integrated into one document.

The work o integration o the various materials o the SAPinto a single document should be conducted under thesupervision o the Project Manager and key members o the PMU and the SAP expert(s).

The SAP should be a concise jargon- ree document with cleartargets, quanti able time-limited milestones and unambigu-ous assignment o responsibilities. It should embody:

A statement o the priority problems Principles adopted or solving them Institutional arrangements Policy and legal re orms Investments Joint planning and dispute settlement mechanisms Public participation Long-term EcoQOs and short-term targets and priority

actions Common measures to be taken Monitoring and review arrangements and reporting

It should include a series o annexes giving details such asmonitoring and evaluation indicators, lists o stakeholdersand contact points.

Dra ting the National Action Programmes (NAPs)

Based on the regional SAP, each country involved inthe TDA/SAP will need to develop a National ActionProgramme (NAP) (or Integrated Water Resource Manage-ment Plan (IWRMP) / Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper(PRSP), as appropriate). The reason or this is that the under-lying causes as well as the complex linkages between thesources o environmental degradation and threats meanthat national actions must respond to the uniquely speci ccircumstances and priorities o each country.


24/82


Each country must select the approach that best suits itsgeographic characteristics, political, nancial, institutionaland regulatory rameworks, best available science andtechnology, current assessments, inventories and data.Further, some countries will place the NAP higher in thepolitical process than others (i.e. at a parliamentary levelrather than ministerial). There ore no two NAPs will havequite the same appearance, scope or ocus.

(vii) Ministerial adoption

As a long-term strategic programme designed to changegovernment, corporate and public behaviour, the SAP(and the associated NAPs) must be ormally endorsed byrelevant government authorities. This is to ensure that theyare adequately incorporated into planning and budget-ary processes at all levels: national, state, province, district,municipal.

Solid support rom government authorities is a key tosuccess ul implementation o SAP activities and strategies,including pilot projects. Particularly because it addressesa cross-sectoral range o issues, the SAP must be broughtinto the mainstream o policy, legal and budget provisions,

en orcement mechanisms, and technical and scienti crameworks.

O cial adoption o the SAP is also necessary to give theprocess the legitimacy and support that will be needed tobring on board a wide range o stakeholders, both rom thepublic and private spheres.

(viii) Conducting a Donors Con erence

The SAP planning process itsel should be encouraging tothe various parties engaged in the endorsement process.One o the most e cient mechanisms is to call a donors(or partnership) con erence, to allow bilateral and multilat-eral organisations to review the proposals and to engagein joint planning or uture projects including SAP and NAPinvestment needs.

Suggested preparation or a donor meeting:1. In orm relevant donors o planned meeting at least six

months in advance.2. Distribute preliminary NAPs at least two months prior

to the meeting.3. Distribute endorsed SAP as soon as it is available

Figure 8: Summary o TDA/SAP Methodology

1. Projectdevelopment

Preliminary projectrequest

Identi cation andconsultation withthe stakeholder

groups

3. Developmentof the TDA

Identi cation and initialprioritisation of transboundary

problems

Analysis of impacts/consequencestransboundary

problems

Production andsubmission of complete

draft TDA

TDA Preparation

Causal chain analysisand governance

analysis

Final prioritisation of transboundary

problems

4. Formulatingthe SAP

Bridging the TDA andSAP and developinglong-term EcoQOs

Brainstorming ways toattain the Eco/WR QOs

Examination of andpolitical consultation on

alternative options

Development of targetsand indicators

Drafting the NAPs andSAP

Planning the remainingsteps of the SAP andappointing SAP and

NAP formulation teams

2. Planningthe TDA/SAP

Design work plan forthe TDA/SAP

preparation phaseincluding budgets

Detailed stakeholderanalysis and draft

public involvement plan

Identi cation of the

technical task team(TTT)

Preparation of adraft concept paper

Project approval bythe GEF CEO

Appointment of ProjectManager

Appointment of Facilitator

Form InterministryCommittees

Form Steeringcommittee

Set up the TDA Technical Task Team

(TTT)

5. SAPImplementation

Adoption of the SAP: The Ministerial

Conference

Preparation of FullProject brief

Conducting a DonorsConference

Development of relevant interventionsby GEF and/or other

donors

Agreement on theinstitutional framework

TDA adopted bysteering committee


25/82


1.3 Catalysing Ocean FinanceCase Studies

Catalysing Ocean Finance Case Study #1:

Danube/Black Sea Basin

Context:

As a result o the green revolution during the nineteen sixties,many countries dramatically increased their application o ertil-isers to agricultural land, including in the 17 countries o theDanube River basin and downstream Black Sea, in western andcentral/eastern Europe. While this ertiliser helped to dramati-cally increase agricultural productivity, it also had a cost as armrun-o contributed nutrient (nitrogen, phosphorus) pollutionto these transboundary waterbodies. Concurrently, populationgrowth and industrialisation led to signi cant increases in pointsources o pollution to the Danube and the Black Sea rompoorly or untreated wastewater and large scale livestock arms

(manure). The net result was a three to our old increase in theburden o nutrients reaching the Danube and the Black Sea.While nutrients are essential to both reshwater and marineecosystems, in excess they can lead to a serious (and growing)problem known as eutrophication, whereby excess nutrientsstimulate high levels o plankton growth; when these plank-ton die, their decomposition by aerobic bacteria consumes somuch oxygen in the water that major areas can experience verylow oxygen conditions, or hypoxia. By the nineteen eighties,much o the northwest shel o the Black Sea was hypoxic, anumber o species and benthic ecosystems had disappeared,and economic losses rom sheries, tourism and other sectors were estimated at $500 million per year. Through the jointpreparation o their respective Transboundary DiagnosticAnalyses (TDA), the Danube and Black Sea countries con rmednutrient pollution as the highest priority transboundary issue

acing the Danube/Black Sea basin system. Drawing rom theDanube and Black Sea TDAs, the suite o barriers the countrieso the Danube/Black Sea basin aced are summarised in Table 2:

Table 2: Identi ed barriers to restoring and protecting the Danube River and Black Sea ecosystems

Type o Barrier Barriers

Stakeholders

Consumers /Users

PolicyMakers

Local &Multi-lateral

FinanciersSupplyChains

R e g u

l a t o r y

Lack o a number o Black Sea international agreements/regulations

Lack o coordinated policy and legislation developmentbetween the Danube countries and Black Sea countries

Lack o coordinated policy and legislation development processesin EU (Bg, Ro) and other countries o the Black Sea basin

Non-existent or insu cient policies and legislation at nationallevel (e.g. sheries, agriculture, tourism, etc.)

Poor en orcement o existing environmental protectionlegislation and regulations in agriculture, industry, shipping andharbors, sheries, etc.


26/82


Type o Barrier Barriers

Stakeholders

Consumers /Users

PolicyMakers

Local &Multi-lateral

FinanciersSupplyChains

I n s t i t u t i o n a l

Non-existent or weak local, national, regional and/or globalocean governance institutions

Diminished government control over privatised arms and otherbusinesses

Low public sector capacity (individual, institutional, national)

F i n a n c i a l

Lack o suitable nancial instruments and/or skills to access andapply them

Poor management and/or poor capital investments andoperational unding or waste water collecting/treatment systems

Low level o user ees (tari s) and incentives or rational wateruse and adequate treatment

Lack/mismanagement o public unds dedicated toimprovements o the quality o environment

E c o n o m

i c

Unsustainable development/practices in agriculture, coastal zonedevelopment, tourism, sheries, etc.

Lack o or inadequate economic incentives (e.g. subsidies, etc.)

Poor implementation o sectoral management planning atnational level and international level

Low standard o living (poverty, unemployment, low income)

P o

l i t i c a l

Signi cant political changes in the Black Sea region, e.g. EUaccession o Romania and Bulgaria

Political tensions between countries limit opportunities ortransboundary cooperation on the joint management o naturalresources and environment o the Black sea region

Emergence o breakaway regions not internationally recognisedand which dont su ciently engage in regional environmentalcooperation

I n f o r m a t

i o n a l

Insu cient (and/or poor access to) data and in ormation orsustainable management o the Black Sea ecosystem

Insu cient knowledge o available nancial and economicinstruments or sustainable ocean management

Low awareness o negative environmental impacts

Low standard o environmental education and awareness

T e c h n o l o g

i c a l

Limited track record and experience o supply chain actors andinvestors

E n v i r o n m e n t a

l

Decline in natural resources and biodiversity o the ecosystemboth marine and coastal.


27/82


Figure 9: The Black Sea Drainage Basin

Source: World Bank

UNDP-GEF Strategy:

Beginning in the early 1990s, UNDP initiated a series o GEFInternational Waters projects, totaling just over $50 millionin GEF grants, with the long-term objective o restoringthe highly degraded Danube and Black Sea transbound-ary ecosystems. Through multi-country negotiation andadoption o the Danube and Black Sea Strategic Action

Programmes, UNDP-GEF supported the 17 governmentso the Danube and Black Sea basins in re orming their poli-cies, legislation and institutions related to reducing nutri-ent pollution in the basin (Box 1). This included adoptingBest Agricultural Practices or manure management and

ertiliser application, phase out o phosphorus-containing

detergents, promoting industrial cleaner production, etc.Through a range o capacity development e orts, UNDP-GEF also helped to establish, strengthen and ultimatelysustain the emerging commissions and secretariats or boththe Danube and the Black Sea, charged with coordinatingimplementation o their respective conventions and actionprogrammes. Through two o these International Watersprojects, UNDP-GEF also helped the countries to preparean investment port olio o nearly 500 projects representingneeded pollution reduction investments totaling over US$5 billion. As shown in Figures 10 & 11, a sizeable ractiono these investments had been completed as o 2006, withsubstantial associated reductions in nitrogen and phospho-rus pollution loads (Table 3) to the Danube and Black Sea.


28/82


Box 1: Danube/Black Sea Basin Policy, Planning and Regulatory Drivers or Investments in Nutrient PollutionReduction

Black Sea Danube River Black Sea & Danube River

Convention on the Protection o theBlack Sea against Pollution

Danube River Protection Convention European Union WaterFramework Directive

To prevent pollution by hazardoussubstances or matter; Annex to theConvention

To prevent, reduce and controlpollution rom land-based sources;Protocol to the Convention (Articles7, 8, 10)

To prevent, reduce and controlpollution rom or through theatmosphere;

To protect biodiversity and the

marine living resources; Dra tProtocol on the biodiversity Black Sea Strategic Action Plan

(2009) Ecosystem Quality Objective 3:

Reduce eutrophication Ecosystem Quality Objective 2b:

Conserve coastal and marinehabitats and landscapes

Upgrade all WWTPs servingpopulations > 200,000 p.e. withinthe BS countries sub-basins to

include N & P removal. Ensure all industrial plants haveadequate wastewater treatment toreduce N & P emissions rom directdischarge to sur ace waters.

Reduce or phase out the use o highP-containing laundry detergents.

Introduce harmonised P and Nstandards or all WWTPs serving>100,000 p.e. Ensure compliancewith and harmonise standards atregional level.

Harmonise the monitoring andassessment o N & P (concentrationsand loads) in major rivers and straits.

Develop a nutrient modelling toolto enable source apportionmentestimates to be made.

Improve the use o regulatoryinstruments or reducing pointand di use source pollution romagriculture.

Danube River Basin Management Plan (adopted by ICPDR 2009): Basin-widevision or nutrient pollution is thebalanced management o nutrientemissions via point and di use sources inthe entire Danube River Basin District thatneither the waters o the DRBD nor theBlack Sea are threatened or impacted byeutrophication.

2015 Management Objectives:

Reduction o the total amount o nutrients entering the Danube andits tributaries to levels consistentwith the achievement o the goodecological/chemical status in theDanube River Basin District by 2015.

Reduction o discharged nutrientloads in the Black Sea Basin to suchlevels, which permit the Black Seaecosystems to recover to conditionssimilar to those observed in the1960s.

Reduction o phosphates indetergents pre erably by eliminatingphosphates in detergent products

Implementation o the managementobjectives described or organicpollution with additional ocus on thereduction o nutrient point sourceemissions.

Implementations o best environ-mental practices regarding agricul-tural practices ( or EU Member States

linked to EU Common AgriculturalPolicy (CAP)). Create baseline scenarios o nutrient

input by 2015. De nition o basin-wide, sub-basin

and/or national quantitative reduc-tion targets (i.e. or point and di usesources).

Water Framework Directive

River Basin Management(consistent with IWRM)

Identi cation o mainproblems: nutrient,organic and hazardoussubstance pollution andhydromorphologicalalterations

Stakeholder consultation/participation

Urban Wastewater Directive

Speci ying need or wwt orgiven pe

Requirement or tertiarytreatment (more stringenttreatment) due to Romaniadeclaring BS coastal watersas sensitive

Nitrates Directive Identi cation polluted orthreatened (N) waters

Designation vulnerablezones

Establishment codes goodagricultural practice andaction programmes

National monitoring andreporting

Integrated Pollution Preventionand Control (IPPC) Directive

Impacts on both industrialplants and large industrialagricultural production


29/82


Figure 10: Total Danube Pollution Reduction Investment Costs (millions o Euros) as o 2006, projects per countryand sector

Source: International Commission or the Protection o the Danube River, ICPDR

Figure 11: Number o completed Danube pollution reduction investments per sector by country, as o 2006

Source: ICPDR

A key element o the UNDP-GEF e ort to restore the highlydegraded Danube and Black Sea ecosystems was the GEFDanube/Black Sea Basin Strategic Partnership or Nutri-ent Reduction, prepared and implemented in cooperationwith the World Bank and UNEP and closely coordinatedwith related e orts by the EU, EBRD and EIB. The long-termobjective o the Strategic Partnership was or all Danube/Black Sea basin countries to take measures to reducenutrient pollution levels and other hazardous substances

to such levels necessary to permit Black Sea ecosystemsto recover to similar conditions as those observed in the1960s. The intermediate objective o the Partnership was toreduce discharges o nitrogen and phosphorus to the Black Sea to levels at or below those observed in 1997. The Part-nership consisted o three components:

1. The Danube Regional Project (DRP) implementedby UNDP provided technical assistance and capacity

050

100150200250300350400450500550600650700750800850900950

10001050110011501200

AT BA BG HR CZ DE HU MD RO RS SK SI UA

M E U R

Municipal Industrial and agro-industrial Wetlands

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

AT BA BG HR CZ DE HU MD RO RS SK SI UA

115

12

32

12

5

17

4 48 7

22

7

14

7

11

4

7

1

3

05

06

6

0

7

3

3

0

7

15

7

5

40

3

0

5

Municipal Industrial and agro-industrial Wetlands


30/82


building or countries implementing the SAP (nowtermed Joint Action Programme, JAP) or the DanubeBasin with a ocus on nutrient reduction ($17 million).It ocused on policy/legal/institutional re orms andincluded associated nance or national projects or$1 billion in water quality investments to accompanythe re orms and involved the International Commis-sion or the Protection o the Danube River (ICPDR).

2. The Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery Project (BSERP),implemented by UNDP ($10 million), provided techni-cal assistance and capacity building in implementingthe Black Sea SAP, also with a ocus on legal, policyand institutional re orms to enable nutrient pollutionreduction through both investments and improvednutrient management practices.

3. The Investment Fund or Nutrient Reduction (IFNR)implemented by the World Bank. This test o innovative

nancing supported single country, single sector invest-ment sub-projects or nutrient reduction in the munici-pal, industrial, and agriculture sectors as well as wetland/

oodplain restoration. The GEF Council approvedunding in 3 tranches totaling up to $70 million or the

6+ year implementation period. The World Bank GEFIFNR supported identi cation and preparation o 10demonstration investments in 7 eligible countries total-ling $67 million in GEF nancing and $194 million inco- nancing (ratio 3:1) which were projected to deliverestimated nitrogen reduction o over 5,000 mt/yr andphosphorus reductions o over 400 mt/yr.

Results Stress Reduction through GovernanceRe orm and Investment

By helping the governments put in place a strong enablingenvironment or governance re orm and investment,substantial reductions in nutrient pollution to the Danube/Black Sea basin have occurred over the time period o the series o UNDP-GEF interventions. To date, at least$3.0 billion has been invested in addressing over 200 Danubeand Black Sea nutrient pollution hot spots including municipal,

industrial, agro-industrial and wetlands (Table 3); this includesover $260 million leveraged through the World Bank/GEF Investment Fund or Nutrient Reduction. Cumulativeprojected reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus pollution

rom these investments amount to 25,100 and 4,070 mt/year,respectively (Table 3). This compares avorably with estimateso the net reduction in nitrogen loads to the Black Sea, 36,000mt/year, between the 1988-1996 average (364 kt/year) be orethe UNDP-GEF catalysed investments began, and the averageover the 1999-2008 GEF period o 328 kt/year (Figure 13).Similarly, inorganic phosphorus loads rom the Danube to theBlack Sea have dropped 5-6 kt/year against their mid-ninetieshighs (Figure 12), also in relatively close correspondencewith the reductions achieved via investments in the basin.Notably, the 36 kt/year reduction in nitrogen loads representsabout 3.6% o global anthropogenic nitrogen loads rominsu ciently treated sewage (1 million mt/year; Seitzingeret al., 2010); this isnt surprising given the population o theDanube/Black Sea basin o about 160 million. These dataalso underscore signi cant progress towards achieving andeven exceeding ( or P) the intermediate Strategic Partnershipobjective o stabilising Black Sea nutrient loads at 1997 levels.Driven by commitments under the Danube River ProtectionConvention, the EU Water Framework Directive and DanubeJoint Action Programme, and with policy advisory support

rom the UNDP-GEF Danube Regional and Black SeaEcosystem Recovery Projects, the World Bank and others, mostDanube and Black Sea countries have taken important stepsto re orm and implement their nutrient management policiesand legislation ( ertiliser use, manure management, etc.)which will continue to improve the enabling environment orpublic and private nutrient reduction nance going orward.Over time, implementation o these commitments should bere ected in urther measurable reductions in total nitrogenand phosphorus loads to the Black Sea rom the Danube.However, these impacts will take some time to appear inDanube nitrogen loads to the Black Sea due to the very highlevel o accumulated ertiliser and manure nitrate in Danubebasin groundwater which will gradually diminish as improved

ertiliser and manure management practices continue.


31/82


Table 3: Danube/Black Sea Basin Nutrient Reduction Investments and associated nutrient pollution reduction,through 2005

COUNTRY

Number o projects by sectorTotal

Financing($million)

NitrogenPollutionreduction

(mt/yr)

Phosphoruspollutionreduction

(mt/yr)Municipal Industrial Agro-Ind. WetlandsLandUse

Austria 18 1 10 469.45 2,272 227Germany 7 13 331.38 870 79CzechRepublic

17 220.17 2,610 253

Slovakia 19 10 5 263.00 3,605 890Hungary 14 2 2 438.51 9,631 1,045Slovenia 12 2 1 239.83 2,088 750Croatia 1 1 256.00 n/a n/aBosnia-Herzegovina

1 1 20.37 31 5

Bulgaria 1 4 40.04 785 128Romania 7 1 490.60 2,302 529Moldova 1 1 73.95 280 70Ukraine 37 6 1 2 14.30 n/a n/aRussianFederation

9 1 49.60 n/a n/a

Serbia 1 22.14 430 70Georgia 1 8.25 n/a n/aTurkey 1 45.00 200 25TOTALS 144 21 7 38 1 $2,982.59 25,104 4,071

Source: UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project, 2005; DABLAS 2004 Assessment; ICPDR 2004 JAP report, World Bank

Figures 12 and 13: Danube River annual inorganic nitrogen (N-NO 3) and inorganic phosphorus (P-PO 4) loads to theBlack Sea (1988-2008) measured at Reni station located near discharge point o the Danube to the Black Sea

Source: ICPDR Transnational Monitoring Network

Reni

0

2

4

6

8

10

P - P

O 4

L o a

t . y - 1

1 9 8 8

1 9 8 9

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 1

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 3

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 5

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

12

14

Reni

0

50

100

150

200

250

N - N

O

3 L o a

d ( k t . y - 1

)

1 9 8 8

1 9 8 9

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 1

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 3

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 5

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

300

350

400

450

500


32/82


Results Environmental Bene ts

For nitrogen, phosphorus and chlorophyll-a (an indicator o productivity), 68, 88 and 100% o Danube waters, respec-tively, were recently rated as Class I or II in the Danubewater quality index that is considered to be compliant withgood water quality. In the Black Sea, the NW Shel hypoxic

zone has been virtually eliminated (Figure 14), the averagebiomass o phytoplankton has decreased signi cantly rom

peaks o late eighties (Figure 15), the key benthic phyl-lophora habitat is returning, and many species that wereconsidered locally extinct are also returning (Figure 16).Through this strategic, long-term intervention combininggovernance re orm and catalytic environmental nance,the Danube/Black Sea ecosystem is on the road to recov-ery in terms o its unctioning and e ective delivery o bothenvironmental and socioeconomic bene ts to the nearly160 million residents o the basin.

Figure 14: Reversal o eutrophication and hypoxia in the NW shel o the Black Sea as re ected in oxygenconcentrations (umol/l) of Constanta, Romania (blue and green correspond to low oxygen areas during periods o greatest hypoxia; yellow and orange illustrate return o more oxygenated waters)

Source: Dan Vasiliu, NIMRD-Constanta, Romania, FP6 Sesame Project Repor ts

Figure 15: Long-term trends in

Catalysing Ocean Finance Volume II

Documents

Transcript of Catalysing Ocean Finance Volume II