top priority and severity of giwa concerns

Top priority and severity of the GIWA concerns

Top priority concerns by GIWA region and sub-system

Project design

Methodology adapted to local conditions

Supported by training workshops

Reporting based on existing data

Region-to-region comparisons

Methodology development took

longer time than anticipated

Time for training and implementation

was underestimated

Regional teams

Local experts conducted the regional assessments

Natural and social scientist worked together, breaking down disciplinary barriers

A network of 1500 experts is established for future missions

Social scientists were underrepresented

Lack of policy specialists

Assessment ownership

Strong local ownership

New partnerships were built in many regions

Lack of stakeholder involvements in some regions

Causal chain for Aral Sea

Shrinking of the Aral Sea

Salinisation of soils and water bodies

Loss of habitats

Health impacts from chemical pesticides and

natural salts

Loss of (reduction) agricultural productivity

Loss of fisheries

Loss of water supply

Socio-economicimpacts

Immediate causes

Activities Root causesEnvironmental impacts

Increased diversion of water flow

Increased salinisation

and chemical pollution

Decreased ice resources

Hydropower production

Irrigated agriculture

Governance

Conflicting water use strategies

Weak water management

Unclear legal framework

Economic

Lack of incentives to save water

Expansion of irrigated farming

Inadequate integration of environmetal

cosiderationMigration of population

The process

The implementation of GIWA was a learning process

All priorities were justified by experts

External peer reviewers made the process transparent

Knowledge-sharing was initiated in many regions

- Eutrophication- Chemical pollution - Oil spills

- Overexploitation of fish- Destructive fishing practices

Concern approach has constraints when combining fresh water, coastal and marine systems

Amur River

Okhotsk Sea

Data not always available

Subjectivity unavoidable in parts of the assessment

Lack of expertise in economics and policy-making

GIWA Outputs:

41 out of 42 GEF eligible regions have produced regional assessments

Of the total 69 identified regions 50 have produced regional assessments

Project Document:

Stategic assements of ecological status of transboundary waters for GEF use

Project Document:

Identification of more sustainable approaches to the use of water and its resources at national, regional and local levels

GIWA Outputs:

a) GIWA Global Report adresses global policy

b) GIWA Regional reports adress both regional and national levels

Project Document:

Protocols for the conduct of CCA and TDA for use in GEF IW projects and by implementing agencies

GIWA Outputs:

GIWA has identified and applied a framework to guide CCA, providing substantial guidance for GEF IW projects

GIWA did not produce protocols for TDA

GIWA Outputs:

Not fully achieved due to lack of commitment

Project Document:

Increased leveraged co-finance

GIWA Outputs:

GIWA information will contribute to TDAs in GEF eligible regions lacking TDAs

Regional teams has strengthened assessment capacity

Project Document:

A baseline of information at regional level to the regional task of preparing TDAs

28% Published/printed

13% Published/web only

41% Peer reviewed, final version in house

13% Drafted

5% No progress

Results

GIWA reports help develop priority setting mechanisms in the regions

Comparable results based on the same criteria

Regional teams guarantee credibility

Recognized peer reviewers

Quality of the policy analysis varied

Non GEF-eligible regions incomplete due to lack of funds

www.giwa.net