basic data · web viewproject description the goal is to move iw:learn from a demonstration phase...

2019 Project Implementation Report

2019Project Implementation Review (PIR)

IW:LEARN IVBasic Data................................................................................................................................................Overall Ratings.........................................................................................................................................Development Progress.............................................................................................................................Implementation Progress..........................................................................................................................Critical Risk Management.........................................................................................................................Adjustments..............................................................................................................................................Ratings and Overall Assessments............................................................................................................Gender.....................................................................................................................................................Social and Environmental Standards........................................................................................................Communicating Impact.............................................................................................................................Partnerships.............................................................................................................................................Annex - Ratings Definitions......................................................................................................................

of 21

2019 Project Implementation ReportA. Basic DataProject InformationUNDP PIMS ID 5337GEF ID 5729Title GEF International Waters:Learning Exchange And

Resources Network (IW:LEARN) 4th PhaseCountry(ies) New York - GEF, Regional Centre - Istanbul, New York

- GEFUNDP-GEF Technical Team Water and OceansProject Implementing Partner UNESCOJoint Agencies (not set or not applicable)Project Type Full Size

Project DescriptionThe goal is to move IW:LEARN from a demonstration phase where successful knowledge management services to GEF IW projects were piloted, tested and replicated, towards a scaled-up project which becomes a hub for global learning on transboundary waters, working both inside and outside the GEF-financed portfolio. This enhanced role as a global knowledge hub will support the scale-up of GEF IW investments globally, as the project will harness experience from more than 22 years of GEF portfolio and partner activities to improve the current and future portfolios and impacts of investments. GEF IW:LEARN will also help GEF IW projects in improving their project outcome sustainability by linking them up to global processes and frameworks, as well as partners at the regional and basin-levels

Project ContactsUNDP-GEF Regional Technical Adviser Mr. Vladimir Mamaev ([email protected])Programme Associate Ms. Zora Urlandova ([email protected])Project Manager Mr. Mish Hamid ([email protected])CO Focal Point Ms. Figen Canakci ([email protected])

Ms. Marcela Fabianova ([email protected])GEF Operational Focal Point (not set or not applicable)Project Implementing Partner Mr. Julian Barbiere ([email protected])Other Partners (not set or not applicable)

of 21

2019 Project Implementation ReportB. Overall RatingsOverall DO Rating SatisfactoryOverall IP Rating SatisfactoryOverall Risk Rating Low

of 21

2019 Project Implementation ReportC. Development ProgressDescriptionObjectiveTo strengthen knowledge management capacity and promote scaled-up learning of disseminated experiences, tools and methodologies for transboundary waters management—across and beyond the GEF IW portfolio, together with a global network of partners—in order to improve the effectiveness of GEF IW and partner projects to deliver tangible results and scaled-up investments.Description of Indicator Baseline Level Midterm target level End of project target

levelLevel at 30 June 2018 Cumulative progress since project start

1) Strengthened KM capacity across IW portfolio and beyond2) Scaled-up learning /dissemination of experiences, tools and methodologies3) Improved effectiveness of IW projects to deliver results

Previous phases of IW:LEARN have built on the growing experience base to populate the interactive baseline.The needs of the projects and other stakeholders is growing and without continuing development the information sharing and other learning experiences will stagnate and become dated.

(not set or not applicable)

Through the partnership, KM approaches and capacity within the IW portfolio are strengthened through new methods/lessons of managing/using information and knowledge

Partners activities utilise results and experiences from IW projects to enhance non-GEF projects as indicated by partner responses to surveys

Increasing number of IW projects delivering improved P, SR or ES/SE performance and attributing (through surveys) achievement to IW:LEARN supported activities/information.

Increasing number of projects deliver an exit strategy with sustainable financing indicating

KM approaches and capacity are being strengthened through a series of activities and the IW:LEARN partnership. One International Waters Conference on Source to Sea Management and other issues, 2 regional workshops and 3 twinnings have helped to transfer tacit knowledge among IW Staekholders. Videos, experience notes, content on the website, spatial data being added to the visualization tool, results information in the results archive and various new programmatic tools produced.

Partners are actively utilizing results and experiences learned through these events as indicated by post-event evaluations conducted. An increasing number of non-GEF projects are being involved in our various activities.

We do not yet have the means to assess improved P, SR or ES/SE performance until we can get access to Tracking Tool Data consecutively. IW:LEARN activity summaries do indicate improved project performance as a result of participation in IW:LEARN activities.

We do not have a means to systematically assess project exit strategies.

KM approaches and capacity are being strengthened through a series of activities and the IW:LEARN partnership. Two GEF Biennial International Waters Conferences, 4 regional workshops and 6 twinnings/twinning partnerships have helped to transfer tacit knowledge among IW Stakeholders. Videos, experience notes, content on the website, spatial data being added to the visualization tool, results information in the results archive and various new programmatic tools produced.

Partners are actively utilizing results and experiences learned through these events as indicated by post-event evaluations conducted. An increasing number of non-GEF projects are being involved in our various activities.

We do not yet have the means to assess improved P, SR or ES/SE performance until we can get access to Tracking Tool Data consecutively. IW:LEARN activity summaries do indicate improved project performance as a result of participation in IW:LEARN activities.

We do not have a means to systematically assess project exit strategies.

of 21

2019 Project Implementation Reportlessons/experiences facilitated by IW:LEARN

The progress of the objective can be described as: On trackOutcome 1(UNEP Implemented)Increased experience sharing and replication of successes throughout and beyond the IW portfolio, as well as enhanced stakeholder buy-in to GEF IW project interventionsDescription of Indicator Baseline Level Midterm target level End of project target


*Percent of projects utilising IWL recommended approaches to visualisation

*Number of new stakeholders partnering IW projects as a result of improved awareness (web, newsletters, synthesis reports, etc.) of activities and achievements

*Percentage of IW projects and partners cite improved web presence in gaining new partners for execution or sustainability

*% of projects utilising the IW:LEARN Website toolkit or offering a website consistent with IW:LEARN Website Guidelines

*Percent of projects utilising IWL recommended approaches to visualisation

*Number of new stakeholders partnering IW projects as a result of improved awareness (web, newsletters, synthesis reports, etc.) of activities and achievements

*Percentage of IW projects and partners cite improved web presence in gaining new partners for execution or sustainability

*% of projects utilising the IW:LEARN Website toolkit or offering a website consistent with IW:LEARN Website Guidelines


*50% of existing IW and 70% of new projects utilise IWL recommended approaches to visualisation

*10 new stakeholder groups supporting IW projects with their sustainability plans (as reported by surveys from projects)

*75% of GEF 5 (and previous) IW projects and >80% of GEF 6 IW projects cite improved web presence

*75% of projects utilising the IW:LEARN Website toolkit or offering a website consistent with IW:LEARN Website Guidelines

(TBD) 20 projects visualizing spatial data at IW:LEARN.net(0)40 Number of portfolio visualization maps/graphs produced(0)50 layers uploaded in the visualization tool(0)50% of existing IW and 70% of new projects utilise IWL recommended approaches to visualisation

(0)10 new stakeholder groups supporting IW projects with their sustainability plans (as reported by surveys from projects)

(0)75% of GEF 5 (and previous) IW projects and >80% of GEF 6 IW projects cite improved web presence

(TBD)75% of projects utilising the IW:LEARN Website toolkit or offering a website consistent with IW:LEARN Website Guidelines

(11) 20 projects visualizing spatial data at IW:LEARN.net(10)40 Number of portfolio visualization maps/graphs produced(552)50 layers uploaded in the visualization tool

(INDICATOR CANCELED)50% of existing IW and 70% of new projects utilise IWL recommended approaches to visualisation

(INDICATOR CANCELED)10 new stakeholder groups supporting IW projects with their sustainability plans (as reported by surveys from projects)

(0)75% of GEF 5 (and previous) IW projects and >80% of GEF 6 IW projects cite improved web presence

(48)75% of projects utilising the IW:LEARN Website toolkit or offering a website consistent with IW:LEARN Website Guidelines

The progress of the objective can be described as: On track

of 21

2019 Project Implementation ReportOutcome 2(UNDP Implemented)Enhanced portfolio & partner capacity at the regional & global levels, and portfolio-wide dialogue opportunities for increased transboundary cooperationDescription of Indicator Baseline Level Midterm target level End of project target


*Number of IW projects adopting new management approaches/replication of practices and experience from twinnings

*Number of IW projects adopting new management approaches/replication of concepts from workshops/IWC

*% of IWC project participants indicate increased capacity to execute IW projects

*%age of IW projects have PSC agreed sustainability plans as a result of experiences facilitated by IWL

*Number of basins/LMEs where Transboundary co-operation strengthened as a result of IWL

*%age of IW projects with a clear gender mainstreaming plan/policy

Projects have only partially been tracked to assess progress of up-take of training, twinning, etc. over time (following event, in 6 and 13 months)


*10 IW projects demonstrate new approaches following twinnings

*50 IW projects indicate at least 1 new approach following workshops/IWC

*90% of project participants provide positive responses to capacity increase following IWC

*75% of projects have plans in-place at closure

*2 basins have enhance co-operation as a result of IWL activities

*70% of existing IW projects and 100% of projects starting after 2016 have gender mainstreaming policy

(2)5 planned twinning partnerships established

(2)6 ad-hoc exchanges

(1)10 IW projects demonstrate new approaches following twinnings

(299)600 Number of IW participants at IWC 8 & 9(80)50% of IW projects attending IWC exhibit/present at least one innovation and/or replicable experience

(TBD)50 IW projects indicate at least 1 new approach following workshops/IWC

(95)90% of project participants provide positive responses to capacity increase following IWC

(1)3 Number of roundtables/workshops in SEE/MENA(Not) Completed MAGD available for regional dialogue

(0)2 Number of roundtable/workshops in new regions

(0)2 basins have enhance co-operation as a result of IWL activities

(3)6 global and regional workshops addressing identified knowledge gaps

(5)10 gender mainstreaming activities (6 webinars, 1 video and 3 workshops)

*(6)10 IW projects demonstrate new approaches following twinnings (Dniester, FDMT, IWECO, PacR2R, CLME+, Amazon)

*(34)50 IW projects indicate at least 1 new approach following workshops/IWC

*(95)90% of project participants provide positive responses to capacity increase following IWC

*(CANCELED)75% of projects have plans in-place at closure

*(0)2 basins have enhance co-operation as a result of IWL activities

of 21


(100)100 IW personnel participating in gender webinars

(TBD)70% of existing IW projects and 100% of projects starting after 2016 have gender mainstreaming policy

(2)8 Involvement of IW:LEARN in global water dialogue process (e.g. World Water Forum, Stockholm Water Week, etc.)

The progress of the objective can be described as: On trackOutcome 3(UNDP Implemented)Increased global awareness of GEF results and additional partner collaboration with GEF projectsDescription of Indicator Baseline Level Midterm target level End of project target


GEF IW has increased activities on programmes at SWW and WWForum

On average, no sessions solely on GEF IW interests


25% Increase on global dialogues sessions on GEF IW

(25)25% Increase on global dialogues sessions on GEF IW

(25)25% Increase on global dialogues sessions on GEF IW

The progress of the objective can be described as: AchievedOutcome 4(UNDP Implemented)External partnerships mobilized and working together for improved learning and knowledge management, through an enhanced global freshwater Community of Practice—to impact results and advance conjunctive management of water resourcesDescription of Indicator Baseline Level Midterm target level End of project target


*Number of partnerships encouraged through IW:LEARN activities promoting improved conjunctive management of surface and groundwater

*The number of cases of linked management of ecosystems is strengthened

*Number of IW projects with PSC approved sustainability/exit plans involving the private sector

Current partnerships in IW projects are developed on an ad hoc basis and there has been little attempt to actively engage partners outside the GEF IW community at a global level


*5 new partnerships between projects on conjunctive management

*5 projects have adopted improved conjunctive management approaches to ground/surface waters

(TBD)5 projects have adopted improved conjunctive management approaches to ground/surface waters

(1)1 freshwater basin and 1 LME have enhanced co-ordination as a result of IWL activities

(TBD)5 projects identify IWL support as assisting private sector engagement in exit/sustainability projects

(0)5 projects have adopted improved conjunctive management approaches to ground/surface waters

(1)1 freshwater basin and 1 LME have enhanced co-ordination as a result of IWL activities

(TBD)5 projects identify IWL support as assisting private sector engagement in exit/sustainability projects

of 21

2019 Project Implementation Report*1 freshwater basin and 1 LME have enhanced co-ordination as a result of IWL activities

*5 projects identify IWL support as assisting private sector engagement in exit/sustainability projects

The progress of the objective can be described as: On trackOutcome 5(UNDP Implemented)Increased capacity of beneficiary governments, intergovernmental bodies and GEF projects to implement agreed actions identified in existing Strategic Action Programs, with an eye to long-term sustainabilityDescription of Indicator Baseline Level Midterm target level End of project target


*Number of EV studies completed by GEF IW projects

*Number of TDA/SAPs with EV studies

*SAPs and SAP implementation enhanced and attracting additional co-finance and enhanced community engagement

*MOOCs result in increase in skilled professionals in IW project related activities

Baseline will need to be established on the number of IW projects using EV

Projects’ have not been assessed in developing ‘implementable’ SAPs to-date

IWL does not offer any MOOCs


*10 IW projects complete EV assessments based on IWL guidance and other information

*100% of new TDA/SAPs have used EV approaches

*100% new SAP projects follow the guidance prepared by IWL on enhancing implementation of SAPs

*2000 people register for MOOC including 50 from GEF IW projects and partner organizations

(0) 10 IW projects complete EV assessments based on IWL guidance and other information

(0) 100% of new TDA/SAPs have used EV approaches

(0) 100% new SAP projects follow the guidance prepared by IWL on enhancing implementation of SAPs

(583 and 0)2000 people register for MOOC including 50 from GEF IW projects and partner organizations

(0 and 0) 100 complete the courses including 30 from GEF IW projects showing a higher engagement level from within the IW portfolio

(0) 10 IW projects complete EV assessments based on IWL guidance and other information

(30) 100% of new projects implementing a TDA-SAP Process are trained in economic valuation

(44) 100% new SAP projects follow the guidance prepared by IWL on enhancing implementation of SAPs (Amazon, CLME+, Kura, Okavango, Orange, WIO-SAPPHIRE/SAP, YSLME)

(1096 and TBD)2000 people register for MOOC including 50 from GEF IW projects and partner organizations

(82 and 0) 100 complete the courses

of 21

2019 Project Implementation Report*100 complete the courses including 30 from GEF IW projects showing a higher engagement level from within the IW portfolio

including 30 from GEF IW projects showing a higher engagement level from within the IW portfolio

The progress of the objective can be described as: On track

of 21

2019 Project Implementation ReportD. Implementation Progress

Cumulative GL delivery against total approved amount (in prodoc): 77.68%Cumulative GL delivery against expected delivery as of this year: 77.68%Cumulative disbursement as of 30 June (note: amount to be updated in late August): 3,097,413

Key Financing AmountsPPG Amount 140,000GEF Grant Amount 3,987,500Co-financing 12,122,316

Key Project DatesPIF Approval Date May 27, 2014CEO Endorsement Date Dec 3, 2015Project Document Signature Date (project start date): Mar 16, 2016Date of Inception Workshop Mar 16, 2016Expected Date of Mid-term Review Mar 31, 2018Actual Date of Mid-term Review Sep 17, 2018Expected Date of Terminal Evaluation Jan 1, 2020Original Planned Closing Date Mar 16, 2020Revised Planned Closing Date (not set or not applicable)

Dates of Project Steering Committee/Board Meetings during reporting period (30 June 2018 to 1 July 2019)2019-05-062019-05-07

of 21

2019 Project Implementation ReportE. Critical Risk Management

Current Types of Critical Risks Critical risk management measures undertaken this reporting period

of 21


F. Adjustments

Comments on delays in key project milestonesProject Manager: please provide comments on delays this reporting period in achieving any of the following key project milestones: inception workshop, mid-term review, terminal evaluation and/or project closure. If there are no delays please indicate not applicable.Not applicable. There are no delays in connection with these key milestones.Country Office: please provide comments on delays this reporting period in achieving any of the following key project milestones: inception workshop, mid-term review, terminal evaluation and/or project closure. If there are no delays please indicate not applicable.Not applicable.UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser: please provide comments on delays this reporting period in achieving any of the following key project milestones: inception workshop, mid-term review, terminal evaluation and/or project closure. If there are no delays please indicate not applicable.Not applicable.

of 21

2019 Project Implementation ReportG. Ratings and Overall AssessmentsRole 2019 Development Objective Progress Rating 2019 Implementation Progress RatingProject Manager/Coordinator Satisfactory - IP Rating provided by UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser

and UNDP Country Office only -Overall Assessment The overall health and performance of the GEF IW:LEARN project is continues to be strong. The project has a

fully staffed project coordination unit and all project partners are delivering across all project activities. The project has delivered another regional training workshops, a GEF Biennial International Waters Conference, 3 twinnings, global dialogue support with three side events and support to project participation, website enhancements, visualization tool training, a regional dialogue roundtable and methodology on how to foster transboundary cooperation and various freshwater thematic support in six cross-cutting areas.

While performance against the DO still requires some work, my assessment is that the project is still well positioned to realize targets by the end of the project implementation.

The project’s workplan for the period has been mostly implemented with some exceptions. Lags in delivery have been identified through the project steering committee process and will be mitigated.

With regard to risks, no new risks have been identified in the project implementation. None of the existing risks are identified as critical. That being said, our comments in these risks are:>A key risk to this project is an operational one as it brings together several agencies and partners. This may increase the complexity of project implementation and hinder positive impacts-The Partners have collaborated effectively to deliver content-rich events at the various regional workshops for example. There are increased transaction costs with managing the larger partnership but so far the PCU is able to handle it.

>Not all GEF IW projects are willing to engage in various types of portfolio learning activities or expose weaknesses in project implementation to external scrutiny.-So far this has not proven to be an issue. Most GEF projects have shown interest in IW:LEARN activities and services provided. In some cases, the project would benefit from stronger GEF Agency engagement with IW:LEARN vis-à-vis their project portfolios.

>IW projects fail to respond in a timely manner to IWL requests or to develop websites compliant with IWL guidelines-There is a mild risk here, especially in so much as a significant percentage of projects do not presently manage websites consistent with IW:LEARN guidelines. While the PCU does not feel it is a major risk, it is true that a significant part of the portfolio does not have websites. Ultimately, it is a responsibility of the GEF Agencies to ensure that their projects have proper websites...however, the IW:LEARN project will seek to minimize this risk by communicating directly with projects to offer its website toolkit and other forms of support.

>New projects are not aware of IW:LEARN, have sufficient time to participate or know how to sufficiently engage its services and provide experiences to peers (via CoP participation, IWC engagement and information syndication)-So far projects have indicated interest and desire to participate in the project’s services, whether IW Conference, regional workshops, global dialogue participation, website toolkit hosting, webinars or other activities. The project is also marketing itself as an agent to help projects establish websites and draw on its various services. The project has updated its brochures and prepared a new “welcome” video as an outreach product.

>With a global spread of constituents, the IW:LEARN website and portfolio services (face-to-face capacity-building as well as programmatic tools) cannot be relied upon to automatically “pull” beneficiaries. There may be a need to “push” (as the previous IW:LEARN team did with direct project interaction).-This is not yet proven to be a risk factor. The project is able to attract project participation in its activities.

Role 2019 Development Objective Progress Rating 2019 Implementation Progress RatingUNDP Country Office Programme Officer (not set or not applicable) (not set or not applicable)Overall Assessment (not set or not applicable)Role 2019 Development Objective Progress Rating 2019 Implementation Progress RatingGEF Operational Focal point (not set or not applicable) - IP Rating provided by UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser

and UNDP Country Office only -Overall Assessment (not set or not applicable)Role 2019 Development Objective Progress Rating 2019 Implementation Progress RatingProject Implementing Partner (not set or not applicable) - IP Rating provided by UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser

of 21

2019 Project Implementation Reportand UNDP Country Office only -

Overall Assessment (not set or not applicable)Role 2019 Development Objective Progress Rating 2019 Implementation Progress RatingOther Partners (not set or not applicable) - IP Rating provided by UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser

and UNDP Country Office only -Overall Assessment (not set or not applicable)Role 2019 Development Objective Progress Rating 2019 Implementation Progress RatingUNDP-GEF Technical Adviser Satisfactory SatisfactoryOverall Assessment IW:Learn is a global project focusing on GEF IW knowledge management developing KM approaches and

capacity that are being strengthened through a series of activities of the project.During the reporting period the project has successfully progressed towards reaching its development objectives by implementing several KM activities:• With regard to the data and information component, several new features were added to the project website.• Eight newsletters were produced including one special issue produced for the 6th GEF Assembly. The presence of IW:LEARN on social media continues to grow with 171 subscribers to IW:LEARN Exposure stories (7.6% increase from Q4), 1047 followers on Facebook (8.9% increase) and 772 followers on Twitter 6.2% increase). The partner released an enhanced an updated version of the Website Toolkit, native to the new content management system, which has been marketed to projects. GRID-Arendal conducted two training sessions during the 9th GEF Biennial International Waters Conference.• In terms of the face-to-face training and dialogue activity, progress has been noted across the component. A new twinning pair was identified, namely the Caribbean IWECO project and Pacific Ridge to Reef projects, with the first exchange undertaken in March. The project sent two GEF projects the IRF’s International River Symposium to concretize plans for iterative twinning between GEF projects and International River Prize Winners. In terms of the structured twinning, the project supported one exchange between the Kura River Basin and Dniester basin.• The project realized its biggest deliverable of all, the 9th GEF Biennial International Waters Conference in Marrakech from November 3-8, gathering 330 participants from 92 countries and 31 GEF IW projects for the portfolio’s signature dialogue and training event in partnership with the Government of Morocco.• With regard to the regional dialogue activity, preparation for regional dialogue in Central America was underway with the dialogue event planned for Honduras in July. Preparations for the Third Regional Roundtable including SEE Nexus Ministries meeting: (i) preparation of material and content, and (ii) coordination with partners on the dates (October 2019 currently proposed). A Nexus Ministries meeting will be organized back to back. Project partner Global Water Partnership conducted the 2nd policymaker roundtable on water-energy-food ecosystem nexus in Skopje, FYR Macedonia in October 2018, with over 70 participants in attendance. GWP also released the Methodological Approach for the establishment and sustaining of a Regional Dialogue and Community of Practice on Transboundary Water Management.• On the global training activity, the project executed the 5th targeted workshop for GEF IW projects in Africa with 13 GEF IW projects and 37 participants (with partners UNIDO, ICPDR, TNC, SADC-GMI, IIASA, WWF-US, UNECE) in Botswana in May.• For the gender mainstreaming activity, partners WWF-US and UNESCO-WWAP conducted the 6th gender webinar on 'Sharing Experiences on Gender Mainstreaming in Transboundary Water Bodies', ii) Maintained the online library (Google Drive) updated with relevant gender-related documents. iii) Disseminated online through e-mail, social media, website of recording and iv) done follow-up with interested participants. The partners drafted proposals for gender-related sessions for WWW2019. The project partners conducted training sessions at the 2018 Stockholm World Water Week and the IWC9, as well as a webinar. The SWWW event was an all-day session, well-attended by a representative cross-section of the thousands of participants.• In terms of global dialogue support, the project organized three events in the 2018 Stockholm World Water Week (a seminar on IWRM, a water-energy-food nexus and showcase on the GEF7 Replenishment). The project organized an exhibit booth for the GEF IW portfolio and participated in various partner meetings and side events. In Astana, the project organized two side events (on source-to-sea management and a GEF7 showcase) at and participated in the 8th Meeting of the Parties to the Helsinki Water Convention, an inter-governmental event attracting close to 400 participants.• In terms of programmatic support and thematic learning, the project partner IUCN refined the benefit sharing materials for online usage. They also continued the build-out of the Learning Exchange Service Center. Partners UNECE (financing sustainable management of transboundary basins), TNC (sustainable infrastructure/water funds), ICPDR (Legal and Institutional Frameworks). And WWF-US (private sector engagement/financing bankable projects) contributed sessions to the targeted workshop in Africa. UNECE also organized the fourth meeting of the global network of basins working on climate change adaptation on 14-15 February 2019 in Geneva, with participation of several GEF IW basins such as Senegal, Niger, OSS, Chu Talas, Dniester, Neman-Bug, lake Victoria etc. ICPDR and UNECE contributed sessions to the IWC9 on transboundary governance and mainstreaming climatic change & variability respectively. TNC also contributed a session on Water Funds during the IWC9. Partner IUCN developed a training package on how to develop benefit-sharing

of 21

2019 Project Implementation Reportarrangements at a transboundary scale and contributed to the Learning Exchange Service Center at the project website. UNECE provided materials to GRID-Arendal for the project’s first synthesis note water-energy-food ecosystem nexus. The WWF-US-led activity on private sector engagement resulted in a webinar on its expanded Water Risk Filter management tool.• Partner UNESCO-IHP conducted a peer-review of the “Conjunctive Water Management” (CWM) brochure (2 major improvement: linking CWM with Water accounting in project design, and CWM as a tool for multiple purposes, Climate Change, IWRM, ecosystem services conservation, etc.). They also discussed IW:LEARN involvement with two Groundwater / Conjunctive Management projects initiated (Bug and Neman, DIKTAS 2). IHP-UNESCO contributed sessions throughout the IWC9 on conjunctive management of surface and groundwaters, as well as on data management.• In terms of programmatic support and other activities, project partner UNIDO finalized the economic valuation methodology for posting at the IW:LEARN website. They also contributed a training session to the Botswana workshop. Partner UNIDO conducted two further economic valuation training events at events of the LME:LEARN project in Panama and Dakar and also finalized the Tier One and Tier Two valuation methodology.• In terms of online training the project completed an online course page at the iwlearn.net site. Under PCU and GWP leadership, preparation for online MOOC on Freshwater Security went underway. The Large Marine Ecosystem Massive Online Course continued to see registrations, now reaching a total 858 actively engaged users.No risks were identified during the reporting period.

Project is on track to fully achieve its end-of-project targets by project closure.IPThe project has a very effective PCU, led by a very successful and knowledgeable PM. To date the project has 77,68% delivery rate and is well aligned with the approved project document.In terms of project management, the project completed various reporting requirements for UNDP and UNESCO. The fourth joint project steering committee meeting was held successfully in Geneva, May 2019. The project also concluded its mid-term evaluation process and the associated mid-term management response. A condensed project steering committee meeting took place at IWC9 in Marrakech to discuss this in November 2018.The project is rated Satisfactory for its implementation progress.

of 21


H. Gender

Progress in Advancing Gender Equality and Women's EmpowermentThis information is used in the UNDP-GEF Annual Performance Report, UNDP-GEF Annual Gender Report, reporting to the UNDP Gender Steering and Implementation Committee and for other internal and external communications and learning. The Project Manager and/or Project Gender Officer should complete this section with support from the UNDP Country Office.

Gender Analysis and Action Plan: not availablePlease review the project's Gender Analysis and Action Plan. If the document is not attached or an updated Gender Analysis and/or Gender Action Plan is available please upload the document below or send to the Regional Programme Associate to upload in PIMS+. Please note that all projects approved since 1 July 2014 are required to carry out a gender analysis and all projects approved since 1 July 2018 are required to have a gender analysis and action plan.(not set or not applicable)Please indicate in which results areas the project is contributing to gender equality (you may select more than one results area, or select not applicable):Contributing to closing gender gaps in access to and control over resources: NoImproving the participation and decision-making of women in natural resource governance: YesTargeting socio-economic benefits and services for women: NoNot applicable: NoAtlas Gender Marker RatingGEN1: some contribution to gender equalityPlease describe any experiences or linkages (direct or indirect) between project activities and gender-based violence (GBV). This information is for UNDP use only and will not be shared with GEF Secretariat.

(not set or not applicable)Please specify results achieved this reporting period that focus on increasing gender equality and the empowerment of women.

Please explain how the results reported addressed the different needs of men or women, changed norms, values, and power structures, and/or contributed to transforming or challenging gender inequalities and discrimination.The UNDP-GEF IW:LEARN gender partnership between UNESCO-WWAP and WWF activtoes address some of these issues through activities that support gender mainstreaming. The activity introduces systematic consideration of gender equity, women empowerment, and social inclusion in GEF’s international waters portfolio approach for the improved management of transboundary waters and for more in general integrated water resources management initiatives. This is accelerating the global recognition of this fundamental aspect of water resources management, and will improve project performance, scale of social impact and the likelihood of sustainability.The overall aim is to provide GEF IW projects with the elements and tools for training project staff and client country experts on water and gender issues and how to incorporate gender considerations into water policies, in different project contexts.

WWAP-WWF conducted gender sessions conducted at the 2018 Stockholm World Water Week on i) the importance of communication to gender-mainstreaming: 'Engendering communication: a critical step"" with interactive Q&A' (with examples from IWLEARN), ii) examples from GEF-funded and cofunded projects for operationalizing SDG targets on gender and water at project level, including through gender analysis with sex-disaggregated water data e.g.

They also conducted a webinar in the period.

At the 9th GEF Biennial International Waters Conference, partners conducted aparticipant workshop ""toward a Gender Protocol for the TDA-SAP Process"", IW Project Clinic on Gender as well as session in IWC9 Freshwater PreConference Workshop.

of 21


WWF provided review of draft and in-depth input to inform revised GEF water and gender e-course.

Partners conducted the 6th gender webinar conducted jointly by WWAP-WWF on 'Sharing Experiences on Gender Mainstreaming in Transboundary Water Bodies', ii) Maintained the online library (Google Drive) updated with relevant gender-related documents. iii) Disseminated online through e-mail, social media, website of recording and iv) done follow-up with interested participants.Please describe how work to advance gender equality and women's empowerment enhanced the project's environmental and/or resilience outcomes.The GEF Independent Evaluation Office which found in its Fifth Operational Program Study (OPS5) has assessed the GEF’s activities in support of gender mainstreaming in 2013. It stated that, “Gender is a highly important dimension in the GEF theory of change, as it is one of the main avenues by which to achieve behavioural change that will lead to broader adoption of sustainable solutions to global environmental problems.” The lack of sex-disaggregated data is a major obstacle to the production of scientific evidence on gender inequalities related to water and to the formulation of evidence-based policies. Investing in engendering water contributes to strengthening social inclusion, eradicating poverty and advancing environmental sustainability. This is no different for the GEF IW:LEARN project who strives to improve gender balance in its activities to the extent possible, thus empowering its stakeholders in projects, regional/basin organizations, agencies and participating countries.

of 21


I. Social and Environmental Standards

Social and Environmental Standards (Safeguards)The Project Manager and/or the project’s Safeguards Officer should complete this section of the PIR with support from the UNDP Country Office. The UNDP-GEF RTA should review to ensure it is complete and accurate.

1) Have any new social and/or environmental risks been identified during project implementation?NoIf any new social and/or environmental risks have been identified during project implementation please describe the new risk(s) and the response to it.(not set or not applicable)2) Have any existing social and/or environmental risks been escalated during the reporting period? For example, when a low risk increased to moderate, or a moderate risk increased to high.NoIf any existing social and/or environmental risks have been escalated during implementation please describe the change(s) and the response to it.(not set or not applicable)SESP: PIMS 5337 IW LEARN signed SES.pdfEnvironmental and Social Management Plan/Framework: not availableFor reference, please find below the project's safeguards screening (Social and Environmental Screening Procedure (SESP) or the old ESSP tool); management plans (if any); and its SESP categorization above. Please note that the SESP categorization might have been corrected during a centralized review.(not set or not applicable)3) Have any required social and environmental assessments and/or management plans been prepared in the reporting period? For example, an updated Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) or Indigenous Peoples Plan.Not ApplicableIf yes, please upload the document(s) above. If no, please explain when the required documents will be prepared.(not set or not applicable)4) Has the project received complaints related to social and/or environmental impacts (actual or potential )?NoIf yes, please describe the complaint(s) or grievance(s) in detail including the status, significance, who was involved and what action was taken.(not set or not applicable)

of 21


J. Communicating ImpactTell us the story of the project focusing on how the project has helped to improve people’s lives.(This text will be used for UNDP corporate communications, the UNDP-GEF website, and/or other internal and external knowledge and learning efforts.)GEF IW:LEARN is a service-oriented project, providing an array of partnership-building, training, information management and programmatic support to the GEF International Waters focal area and its partners. By supporting each IW project it is supporting each of those projects and their broad stakeholder base by extension. By improving the management of GEF IW projects and helping them to realize their outcomes, the project is improving livelihoods of people in benefiting from those shared water systems. The project has personally touched over 2000 stakeholders with its various learning activities.

Knowledge Management, Project Links and Social MediaPlease describe knowledge activities / products as outlined in knowledge management approved at CEO Endorsement /Approval.

Please also include: project's website, project page on the UNDP website, blogs, photos stories (e.g. Exposure), Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, as well as hyperlinks to any media coverage of the project, for example, stories written by an outside source. Please upload any supporting files, including photos, videos, stories, and other documents using the 'file lirbary' button in the top right of the PIR.www.iwlearn.netwww.facebook.com/iwlearnwww.twitter.com/iwlearnwww.youtube.com/gefiwlearn

of 21


K. Partnerships

Partnerships & Stakeholder EngagmentPlease select yes or no whether the project is working with any of the following partners. Please also provide an update on stakeholder engagement. This information is used by the GEF and UNDP for reporting and is therefore very important! All sections must be completed by the Project Manager and reviewed by the CO and RTA.

Does the project work with any Civil Society Organisations and/or NGOs?YesDoes the project work with any Indigenous Peoples?NoDoes the project work with the Private Sector?YesDoes the project work with the GEF Small Grants Programme?YesDoes the project work with UN Volunteers?NoDid the project support South-South Cooperation and/or Triangular Cooperation efforts in the reporting year?YesCEO Endorsement Request: PIMS 5337_IWL4_ CEO End Request 24 Nov 2015.docProvide an update on progress, challenges and outcomes related to stakeholder engagement based on the description of the Stakeholder Engagement Plan as documented at CEO endorsement/approval (see document below). If any surveys have been conducted please upload all survey documents to the PIR file library.The project has successfully engaged stakeholders as planned, through the Biennial International Waters Conference, regional training, global dialogues and via the project website and other ICT means, as foreseen in the CEO Endorsement Form.

of 21


L. Annex - Ratings DefinitionsDevelopment Objective Progress Ratings Definitions(HS) Highly Satisfactory: Project is on track to exceed its end-of-project targets, and is likely to achieve transformational change by project closure. The project can be presented as 'outstanding practice'.(S) Satisfactory: Project is on track to fully achieve its end-of-project targets by project closure. The project can be presented as 'good practice'.(MS) Moderately Satisfactory: Project is on track to achieve its end-of-project targets by project closure with minor shortcomings only.(MU) Moderately Unsatisfactory: Project is off track and is expected to partially achieve its end-of-project targets by project closure with significant shortcomings. Project results might be fully achieved by project closure if adaptive management is undertaken immediately.(U) Unsatisfactory: Project is off track and is not expected to achieve its end-of-project targets by project closure. Project results might be partially achieved by project closure if major adaptive management is undertaken immediately.(HU) Highly Unsatisfactory: Project is off track and is not expected to achieve its end-of-project targets without major restructuring.

Implementation Progress Ratings Definitions(HS) Highly Satisfactory: Implementation is exceeding expectations. Cumulative financial delivery, timing of key implementation milestones, and risk management are fully on track. The project is managed extremely efficiently and effectively. The implementation of the project can be presented as 'outstanding practice'.(S) Satisfactory: Implementation is proceeding as planned. Cumulative financial delivery, timing of key implementation milestones, and risk management are on track. The project is managed efficiently and effectively. The implementation of the project can be presented as 'good practice'.(MS) Moderately Satisfactory: Implementation is proceeding as planned with minor deviations. Cumulative financial delivery and management of risks are mostly on track, with minor delays. The project is managed well.(MU) Moderately Unsatisfactory: Implementation is not proceeding as planned and faces significant implementation issues. Implementation progress could be improved if adaptive management is undertaken immediately. Cumulative financial delivery, timing of key implementation milestones, and/or management of critical risks are significantly off track. The project is not fully or well supported. (U) Unsatisfactory: Implementation is not proceeding as planned and faces major implementation issues and restructuring may be necessary. Cumulative financial delivery, timing of key implementation milestones, and/or management of critical risks are off track with major issues and/or concerns. The project is not fully or well supported. (HU) Highly Unsatisfactory: Implementation is seriously under performing and major restructuring is required. Cumulative financial delivery, timing of key implementation milestones (e.g. start of activities), and management of critical risks are severely off track with severe issues and/or concerns. The project is not effectively or efficiently supported.

of 21

basic data · web viewproject description the goal is to move iw:learn from a demonstration phase...

Documents