International Waters learning Exchange & Resource Network

2.4 - Examples of the TDA/SAP process in action

Examples

Black Sea Rehabilitation Project (BSERP)

This 2007 Black Sea TDA was developed in order to update the 1996/1999 Black Sea Strategic Action Programme. The original TDA was developed in 1996, the first of its kind for the GEF. The 1996 Black Sea TDA was a technical document, which examined the root causes of Black Sea degradation and options for actions that could be taken to address them.

The 2007 Black Sea TDA was expected to build on the existing 1996 document and it was anticipated that it wouldn’t adhere to the previous TDA development process (the general model used in 1st phase International Waters projects). The final document followed the 2005 GEF IW TDA/SAP “best practice” approach:  identification and initial prioritisation of transboundary problems; gathering and interpreting information on environmental impacts and socio-economic consequences of each problem; causal chain analysis (including root causes); and completion of an analysis of institutions, laws, policies and projected investments.

TDA development was carried out with the involvement of all stakeholders using scientific cruise data, existing monitoring information at the national level, expert meetings, international expertise, and local knowledge from different stakeholders. During the process of TDA development, a series of thematic reports, including a hot spot analysis, governance and institutional analysis, stakeholder analysis, and a Causal Chain Analysis (CCA) were drafted through an iterative and consultative process, with several versions being developed after successive consultations with international consultants and national experts.

The TDA document, although highly detailed, logically laid out and easy to navigate, was the result of a very time consuming and resource depleting process. Consequently, there was not enough time available within the project to complete and endorse the SAP – not an uncommon issue within IW projects. A solution was found that involved the development of a ‘technical’ SAP, which consisted of the key SAP components (Vision, Goals, Actions). This document did not undergo any national or regional consultation by the closure of the project and was passed to the Black Sea Commission to continue the process. The SAP for the Environmental Protection and Rehabilitation of the Black Sea was finally adopted in Sofia, Bulgaria, in April 2009.

Conclusion:

  • The Black Sea TDA was the product of a very collaborative process.
  • It conformed to the 2005 best practice approach.
  • It was very logical, highly detailed and the data and information was quality controlled.
  • The TDA was adopted by the steering committee and the participating countries.
  • However, too much time was spent on the TDA (22 months) and consequently the SAP was not completed or endorsed within the timescale of the GEF IW project.

Kura-Aras River Basin

The 2006 Kura-Aras River Basin TDA was developed during the project development phase using PDF funding (Project Development Fund). This project was challenging due to the countries involved (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran), as well as funding levels and the project design.

Again, the TDA followed the 2005 GEF IW TDA/SAP “best practice” approach:  identification and initial prioritisation of transboundary problems; gathering and interpreting information on environmental impacts and socio-economic consequences of each problem; causal chain analysis (including root causes); and completion of an analysis of institutions, laws, policies and projected investments.

During the TDA development, 4 country specific reports (termed national TDAs) and a number of thematic reports were drafted through an iterative and consultative process involving the TDA ‘technical task team’, the Project Management Unit and hired consultants (both regional and international).

Although there was limited data and information and a lack of comparability between data sets from upstream and downstream countries (particularly relating to flow rates and pollution loads), the TDA document was clear, logical and easy to navigate. In addition, it was completed in approximately 12 months, partly due to good project management and partly due to a highly motivated team.

Due to the limited time available during the PDF phase, a preliminary SAP document was developed in 2006 (Vision, EcoQOS, Targets), which it was hoped would help bridge between the PDF phase and subsequent Full Project implementation.

In 2012, a Full Project for the Kura-Aras River (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan) commenced and an early outcome of the project has been the revision of the 2005 TDA, using the same basic format but with more recent, and better quality controlled data and information.

Conclusion:

  • The Kura Aras River Basin TDA was the product of a well-managed, collaborative process.
  • It was clear and well laid out and conformed to the 2005 best practice approach.
  • The TDA was adopted by the steering committee and the countries.
  • It provided a good foundation for the Full Project.
  • Limited funds meant there was not enough time to fully QC data and information.
  • A forceful management style resulted in delivery of the TDA but with some collateral damage amongst the stakeholders.

Lake Chad

The objective of the Full-Sized Lake Chad project was to build capacity within the Lake Chad Basin Commission (LCBC) and its national committees, so that it could better achieve its mandate of managing land and water resources in the greater Conventional Basin of Lake Chad. The Project initially ran into difficulties due to poor project management, successive project managers and a general lack of strategic direction, particularly with reference to the TDA.

After a difficult and poorly planned start, the TDA Technical Task Team participated in TDA/SAP training using the 2005 GEF IW TDA/SAP “best practice” approach and redesigned the TDA accordingly. During the process of TDA development, country specific reports (termed national TDAs) were drafted and information from these was used to develop the regional Lake Chad TDA.

There were significant issues around availability and quality of data and information (particularly from CAR, Chad and Niger). In addition, a single consultant from Nigeria, aided by an international consultant, drafted the TDA and there was little collaboration with the countries, beyond an initial TDA meeting. However, the final TDA was presented in a very clear, logical and manner, within 18 months.

Based on the findings of the TDA, the SAP was completed as a regional policy framework for the Lake Chad Basin in 2007. The SAP was a well defined, aspirational but reasonably achievable document and as a consequence was endorsed by the Council of Ministers in June 2008. However, the Investment Plan for SAP implementation was not developed within the duration of the project.

Conclusion:

  • The final Lake Chad TDA was an acceptable document that conformed to the 2005 best practice approach.
  • The TDA was adopted by the steering committee and the countries.
  • It provided a good foundation for SAP development.
  • Despite many challenges, a fully endorsed SAP was produced within the timeframe of the project.
  • However, the TDA and SAP process were driven by external consultants rather than the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) and the countries, which resulted in a lack of collaboration and consultation.

Rio de la Plata Maritime Front (FREPLATA)

The FREPLATA program was a bi-national initiative that culminated in the endorsement of a SAP by a comprehensive range of 37 key stakeholders including 9 ministries, the navy, coast guards, provincial and local authorities, and private sector representatives. This constituted the broadest SAP endorsement in UNDP’s IW history and was a significant achievement for the GEF IW portfolio.

During the first phase of the full project, the PCU and a team of national experts developed an initial TDA document in Spanish. This document was long (approx 300 pages), not particularly well structured and was considered to be unacceptable for decision makers.

As a result, a TDA for policy makers was produced in 2006 that presented a non-technical summary of the main points of the more extensive TDA published in the Spanish language. It was designed to inform policymakers and other interested groups and to facilitate their participation in the second stage of FREPLATA, the design of a SAP that includes specific measures to address the problems identified in the TDA. This document conformed to the 2005 best practice approach, was reasonably short and concise, although rather academic in places. A key to the success of this TDA was the use of GIS maps to describe the both the transboundary problems, and their causes and impacts – something that has not been replicated since.

Conclusions:

  • The original FREPLATA TDA was overly long and difficult to navigate.
  • The clever use of resources to develop a TDA for policy makers resulted in a highly effective TDA document.
  • The TDA for policy makers provided a good foundation for SAP development, which resulted in the SAP being endorsed by a wide range of stakeholders from both countries.

Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS)

The Nubian Aquifer Sandstone Project was launched in July 2006 with four key objectives, three of which included: (1) The preparation and agreement on a Shared Aquifer Diagnostic Analysis (SADA) to jointly identify and understand threats to the NSAS and their root causes; (2) The preparation of a SAP to outline the necessary legal, policy and institutional reforms needed to address the priority threats and their root causes as identified in the SADA; and (3) The development of an enhanced framework for developing an agreed legal and institutional mechanism towards joint management of the shared NSAS.

The NSAS TDA, titled as a Shared Aquifer Diagnostic Analysis in recognition that the water related environmental problems facing the aquifer were shared or common rather than transboundary, was developed using the 2005 GEF Best Practice approach as a starting point. The project encountered a number of difficulties, including a lack of a PCU in any of the participating countries (the project manager was based at the IAEA in Vienna), poor project management and a general lack of strategic direction, particularly with reference to the SADA and SAP.

A short and rather limited TDA was produced that lacked data due to the nature of the system and the lack of available data from the participating countries. However, it was reasonably logical, gave direction for the SAP process that was to follow, and importantly helped the four participating countries develop a sense of participation and collaboration during the process.

The SAP produced was a framework document that presented a vision, Water Resource/Ecosystem Quality Objectives (WR/EcoQOs) and high-level management targets/actions associated with each Quality Objective. The SAP process proved to be challenging but the four participating countries endorsed the resulting SAP in 2012.

Conclusions:

  • The NSAS SADA was a short document conforming loosely to the 2005 best practice approach.
  • Although limited in data and information, it provided a suitable foundation for SAP development.
  • The SAP was a high level document, again with limited detail but it was endorsed by the participating countries.
  • The TDA and SAP process needed to be driven by external consultants due to poor project management, which resulted in poor engagement with the participating countries.

Dnipro River Basin

The Dnipro Basin Environment Programme (DBEP) project was established by the three riparian countries to develop a TDA for the Basin and to achieve agreement on a SAP for protection and recovery of the river and its tributaries. The DBEP project was implemented during a time of considerable change in the region. In particular, the political and economic relationships between the three former Soviet republics changed dramatically. A decision was reached prior to project launch that the effort should proceed despite there being no legal basis in place for joint development and implementation of a Dnipro SAP. Even without a formal legal basis, the DBEP created and maintained strong country buy-in and ownership, in part due to good project management by the PCU at the time.

During the process of TDA development, nine initial chapters/reports were produced by Regional Thematic Centres and constituted the bulk of the information for the TDA. The TDA process was informed by the GIWA methodology as it was produced before the GEF TDA/SAP best practice approach had been drafted. The development phase was highly participatory - all three countries were fully involved, and there was a strong lead from the project management unit, the TDA ‘technical task team’, and hired consultants (both regional and international). The final document, published in 2003, was overly long (180 pages) but was very logically laid out and relatively easy to navigate, although there has been some criticism of the overly technical causal chains.

During 2003, the ‘Kyiv Declaration on Cooperation in the Dnipro Basin’ was signed at the 5th Pan-European meeting of European Environment Ministers in Kyiv. The Kyiv declaration signalled a “readiness” to prepare an international agreement to serve as the main organisational mechanism for ensuring “stable international cooperation” amongst the Dnipro Basin countries, and to define “general principles, goals, objectives and commitments of the signatories in the sphere of Dnipro basin environmental rehabilitation”.

SAP development commenced accordingly and due in part to the ‘esprit de corps’ developed during the TDA phase, a full SAP document was produced which was considered aspirational, ambitious, yet attainable. However four years later, and two years beyond project completion, the Dnipro countries were still discussing how to proceed with the international agreement. Initially, Russia indicated its interest to delay the agreement pending further consideration of the financial implications. Then, during June 2007, the three environmental ministers from Russia, Belarus and Ukraine planned to sign a “Ministerial Declaration on Further Development of Cooperation on the Protection of the Dnipro River Basin”, including joint Ministerial approval of the Dnipro SAP. Unfortunately, the signing of the Declaration was refused by the Russian government, resulting in a new Declaration being signed on 17 July 2007 by Ministers on environmental protection of Ukraine and Belarus. This event couldn’t be overestimated: Ukraine and Belarus officially adopted the SAP and confirmed their joint course on establishment of Dnipro basin international institutional management mechanisms.

Conclusions:

  • The Dnipro River Basin TDA was the product of a well-managed, collaborative process.
  • It was clear and well laid out and informed the 2005 GEF best practice approach.
  • The TDA was adopted by the steering committee and the countries.
  • It provided a good foundation for the SAP – not only technically but also due to the good relationships that developed during its formulation.
  • The SAP document was well constructed but took a number of years to endorse and ten by only 2 out of the 3 riparian countries involved.

Caribbean LME

The CLME Project, launched in 2009, aims to assist the participating countries from the Wider Caribbean Region (WCR) to improve the management of their shared living marine resources - most of which are considered to be fully or overexploited - through an ecosystem-based management (EBM) approach. In particular, the CLME Project aims to facilitate the strengthening of the governance of key fishery ecosystems in the WCR, at the regional, sub-regional and national levels.

During the project preparation phase (2007), a preliminary TDA was prepared which followed the 2005 GEF IW TDA/SAP “best practice” approach. However, upon commencement of the Full Project, the TDA Technical Task Team (TTT) and the Stakeholder Advisory Group (STAG) modified the methodology to focus the CLME TDA on specific fishery ecosystems rather than geographical sub-regions. Three specific ecosystems (continental shelf, pelagic and reef ecosystems) were agreed as the focus of three ecosystem based TDAs. In addition, draft casual chain analyses for the three systems were prepared, reviewed, validated and prioritized using the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) methodology.

Due to significant staff changes in the Project Management Unit during the development of the TDA, together with the geopolitical complexity of the region (27 independent States and more than 10 dependent territories border or are located within the marine area covered by the project), the regional TDA was delivered later than anticipated. As a consequence there was limited time available for the development of the SAP, which was approved as a ‘high level’ document by the project steering committee in early 2013. Country endorsement is unlikely to occur during the current project.

Conclusion:

  • The CLME Regional TDA and 3 ecosystem TDAs were the product of a very collaborative process.
  • They conformed to the 2005 best practice approach but the methodology was modified to focus the CLME TDA on specific fishery ecosystems rather than geographical sub-regions – a unique approach.
  • All documents produced were clear and well laid out.
  • The TDA was adopted by the steering committee and the participating countries.
  • The SAP, currently being developed, is a high level document with limited detail.
  • However, too much time was spent on the TDA (24 months) and consequently it is unlikely the SAP will be endorsed within the timescale of the GEF IW project.