Challenges for the Conference A World Bank Perspective Tony Garvey Water Resources Advisor South Asia Region, World Bank

World Bank International Waters Portfolio (47 Projects) qRegional Seas (7) Baltic, Caspian, Danube/Black, Aral, Mediterranean, Red, Gulf of Aqaba qIntl River Basins (6) Nile, Niger, Senegal, Lesotho, Parana, Mekong qLakes (5) Ohrid, Victoria, Malawi, Chad qGroundwater Basins (1) Guarani qNutrient Pollution Reduction (4) Poland, Rumania, Georgia, Black Sea Partnership qWetland/Biodiversity Restoration and Conservation (12) qOthers related to biodiversity and coastal & marines resources (12)

How Do These Projects Fit Into The Bank’s Program? qThe Bank’s Program in a Country is driven by two things  The countries development imperitives and priorites for external development financing  The Bank’s mission and priorities Macro economic management Poverty Alleviation Sustainable Development Good Governance and Public Sector Performance Enabling market led growth

IW Projects Deal with Tranboundary Waters -- What Are We Talking About? qA river or lake basin including its coastal and possibly marine area with multiple political/administrative jurisdictions qThese entities may be constitutional, sovereign or statutory -- hence they have legitimate interests and responsibilities founded in law qProblems arise because  Present or future actions cause externalities in other jurisdictions  The scope of development in one jurisdiction may have physical or legal limits that can only be removed by another jurisdiction  There may be major differences in the need for water in time and space that create economic and social risks including sustainability and preemption of future options

What Are Some of the Specific Issues? qEnvironment -- water quality, ecosytem functions, land degradation qExpansion of water services -- power, flood mitigation, water supply for drinking, irrigation, industry, navigation qFinancing capital investment qLack of sustainability -- groundwater depletion, degradation of the hydrologic cycle, erosion and sedimentation, pollution qGaps in data, information, knowledge -- flood forecasting, hydrologic analysis

What Have We Been Trying to Do About These Problems and Issues qCreate international institutional frameworks and mechanisms for cooperation qExpand the knowledge and information base -- monitoring, data bases, models, research and studies qCreate planning frameworks -- TDAs and SAPs that articulate issues and options, and suggest priorities

Can This Approach Work? Is It Working? Is It Just Too Early Too Tell? Are There Important Constraints That We are Ignoring? What Are The Implications for GEF?

External Barriers to Cooperation qThe basic approach is appealing -- establish an international framework to address a transboundary, international problem -- but can it be successful if:  There is asymmetry in knowledge, capacity, economic wealth, poverty  Riparians lack experience with integrated planning and water management  Short-term economic and social development priorities and interests differ among riparians  There are significant differences in access to capital and fiscal space

Internal Barriers to Cooperation qLack of an adequate knowledge base qPoor governance in the water sector qLack of participation of stakeholders qThe lack of fiscal space to build capacity and make institutional changes especially in new areas like environmental management qShort-term economic and fiscal returns outweighs long-term investment in institutions and reform qThe difficulty in making the transition from supply side management to integrated water management qFew examples of successful national or international river or lake basin management

Constraints GEF May Be Ignoring qLack of country commitment  Wide gulf between focal points/ line ministries/ departments and policy makers -- wants vs means  Policy makers commitments can be measured by how they allocate resources -- low budgets reflect low priority  Policy makers do not have the fiscal space or options to finance the required capacity -- nothing of real value is really free qGEF’s high transaction costs for the country and the Bank are a major disincentives and hinders ownership and commitment -- nothing of real value should necessarily be easy, but nothing should be this hard

RETHINKING THE GEF MODEL qThe linkage between achieving national sustainable development and capturing global benefits -- local benefits vs global benefits; how can you capture global benefits at the margin if local benefits aren’t achieved or sustainable? qCoherence of GEF Objectives and National Priorities? qPatience vs. Immediate returns and results? Seeing a new reality -- Outcomes versus outputs -- a short intervention to buy down a barrier does not look realistic if a country cannot follow through qWorking both sides of the street -- building local capacity to participate in basin or international frameworks for cooperation qBAU+GEF=disappointment and disaster?

Can This Approach Work? Is It Working? Is It Just Too Early Too Tell? Are There Important Constraints That We are Ignoring? What Are The Implications for GEF?