GEF Third Biennial International Waters Conference Salvador, Bahia Brazil June 20-25, 2005 Thematic Breakout Session II: M&E Results: Programme Study Recommendations Thursday, June 23, 2005 Presentation Benoit Bihamiriza

I. Introduction We are impressed by the results reached by the M&E Team; We welcome the recommendations made and would like to see them put into practice; We would like to express our gratitude to GEF for organizing this major event and for inviting us to share IW experiences & lessons.

II. Brief Recall of GEF Interventions for Lake Tanganyika and its Results 1995 – 2000: Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (LTBP): ‘’Pollution Control & Other Measures to Protect Biodiversity of Lake Tanganyika’’. Funded by GEF through UNDP; implemented through UNOPS by

Lake Tanganyika Project Results (Continued 1) NRI (Natural Resources Institute) in collaboration with MRAG (Marine Resources Assessment Group Ltd) & IFE (Institute of Freshwater Ecology).

Lake Tanganyika Project Results (Continued 2) Results of LTBP intervention: –Numerous scientific studies. –Lake Tanganyika TDA –Lake Tanganyika SAP –Draft Convention on the sustainable management of Lake Tanganyika; All conducted through an in-depth stakeholders participation process.

Lake Tanganyika Project Results (Continued 3) 2002 – 2004 : Lake Tanganyika Management Planning Project (LTMPP) PDF-B: ‘’Developing Detailed Regional and National Project Proposals and Financing Mechanisms to Implement the Lake Tanganyika Strategic Action Program)’’. Funded by GEF through UNDP; Executed by UNOPS.

Lake Tanganyika Project Results (Continued 4) Results of this PDF-B intervention: –Detailed regional and national projects to implement the SAP; –Financing mechanisms to implement the SAP; –Leveraged about US$ 80 million through an increased Partnership of GEF/UNDP with AfDB, EU/COMESA, NDF, IUCN, FAO and riparian countries;

Lake Tanganyika Project Results (Continued 5) –Signing of the Convention by all four riparian countries (June 12, 2003); –Ratification of the Convention by two countries; –Lake Tanganyika Management Authority ready to be established; –The Authority will coordinate the implementation of the SAP, the FFMP and the Convention.

Lake Tanganyika Project Results (Continued 6) Impact: Environmental impact may take long, but TDA, SAP and the Convention are regionally and nationally felt as ownership. The Convention and the Authority are offering opportunities for regional cooperation, peace building and maintenance as well as conflicts prevention and resolution over the use of the Lake Basin shared resource.

Lake Tanganyika Project Results (Continued 7) The Convention and the Authority to be established attracted an impressive partnership for the sustainable development of the Lake Tanganyika Basin; Private sector is also interested in being part of the process and is funding some of the management interventions (ex. Waste water pre-treatment in Bujumbura).

III. M&E Results, Programme Study Recommendations Priority Criteria : Coherent, transparent, and practicable design; Achievement of global benefits. Country ownership and stakeholder involvement. Replication and catalysis.

Priority Criteria (Continued 1) Cost-effectiveness and leverage. Institutional sustainability. Incorporation of monitoring and evaluation procedures. All criteria are important, but if we have to give further priority, coherence and practicable project design; country ownership and stakeholders involvement;

Priority Criteria (Continued 1) Institutional sustainability; and Incorporation of monitoring and evaluation procedures can reflect all the other and are the guarantors of project success (cf.explanation).

M&E Results, Programme Study Recommendations Recommendation 1: Production and use of an accessible GEF international waters focal area manual. We think this would be an important step towards improving project formulation and implementation;

Recommendation 1 (Continued 1) The suggestion to make it accessible and to translate it into all U.N. languages would help better understanding and communication Language has in fact proved to be a major communication problem in Lake Tanganyika;

Recommendation 1 (Continued 2) Projects formulation would improve, projects start-ups would accelerate and implementation would pose less difficulties. We welcome the recommendation that the manual should include clearer descriptions of the operational Programs;

Recommendation 1 (Continued 3) People in our case tended in fact to confuse the Concepts of global and local benefits, and had difficulties to apprehend the concepts of incremental Costs, leverage, etc. IW program focal areas should be clearly explained and the relationship with programs in other focal areas.

Recommendation 1 (Continued 4) At Lake Tanganyika, we agreed that management of the Lake could not be separated from the management of the entire basin. In the designing of new projects, we therefore would need to have clear explanation of IW programs focal areas and the relationship between especially biodiversity and Land degradation, but also climate change.

Recommendation 1 (Continued 5) Illustration by current project examples, demonstration projects, inclusion of a glossary of terms and a guide to the implementing agencies are all very important. Adaptive management is a useful tool in changing situations; without it, we won’t have overcome huge challenges in Lake Tanganyika region.

Recommendation 1 (Continued 6) Training of GEF project staff, particularly new staff should be introduced in all IW Projects and should be adapted to changing situations. It should include exchange visits with similar IW projects. Such training would improve project designing and implementation and will forge a GEF family identity.

Recommendation No. 2: Developing a comprehensive M&E system for IW projects that ensures an integrated system for information gathering and assessment throughout the lifespan of a project The M&E system should be an integrative part of all IW projects.

Recommendation 2 (Continued 1) The system should include details of monitoring of project progress, stress indicators, and projects results/ achievements; Systematic assessment of current indicators has to be conducted before undertaking their harmonization.

Recommendation 2 (Continued 2) M&E tools should be aimed at helping to improve management decision- making by providing information and data to projects managers and partners on all projects implementation aspects. M&E tools should be common and accessible to all IW projects.

Recommendation 3: The incorporation of a regional- level coordination mechanism for IW projects. The new mechanism could be of great assistance to project coordinators and stakeholders as it would be closed to them.

Recommendation 3 (Continued 1) The mechanism would enable and enhance synergies between IW projects and their focus on global benefits; It would enable the M&E system to be strengthened at a regional level; and Would assist IAs, EAs and Donors to monitor progress and recommend corrective measures if necessary in time.

Recommendation 3 (Continued 2) It should also involve National GEF Focal Points to ensure enhanced national support. However does this means the creation of a new distinct project as a regional coordinating body to lead other projects in each cluster in a same natural boundary? Will it coexist with the current GEF regional coordination/facilitator offices, or Will it reinforce them to service this arrangement?

Recommendation 4: The redefinition of the GEF International Waters Task Force Should enhance their technical backstopping and supervision; and Should be available to the projects whenever needed, as failure in project effective supervision leads to difficulties in projects formulation & implementation.