EcuadorProject title: Integrated Management of Water Resources of the Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara, Colombia – Ecuador Binational Basins

Countries: Colombia and Ecuador

Implementing Partner: Water Secretariat of Ecuador (SENAGUA)

Management Arrangements: National Implementation Modality (NIM)

UNDAF/Country Programme Outcome:

Ecuador. UNDAF 2019-2022. Outcome 2. By 2022, Ecuador has strengthened its regulatory, political and institutional frameworks to improve sustainable, participatory and gender-sensitive management of natural resources, promoting more responsible patterns of production and consumption, in a context of climate change.

UNDP Strategic Plan Output: 1.4.1 Solutions scaled up for sustainable management of natural resources, including sustainable commodities and green and inclusive value chains

UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Category: High

UNDP Gender Marker: 2

Atlas Project ID (formerly Award ID): 00085035 (Ecuador)

Atlas Output ID (formerly Project ID): 00092085 (Ecuador)

UNDP-GEF PIMS ID number: 5753 GEF ID number: 9566

Planned start date: TBD Planned end date: TBD

PAC meeting date: TBD

Brief project description: The Mira, Mataje and Carchi - Guáitara are transboundary basins which are very valuable for Colombia and Ecuador. About 1.1 million persons live in this area. These basins sustain valuable biodiversity from two hotspots: tropical Andes and Tumbes-Choco-Magdalena, including high-value conservation species like the north shore marsupial frog (Gastrotheca espeletia), the yellow-eared parrot (Ognorhynchus icterotis) and the Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus). Water resources and biodiversity are threatened by natural and anthropogenic pressures (e.g., land use change, pollution from untreated sewage). The area is also impacted by the expansion of illegal crops, drug processing and trafficking and illegal armed groups. The condition of the three basins has deteriorated and there are evident symptoms of problems in several areas. This project will focus on water governance which is one of the root causes of the present situation in the area. The core element of the proposed theory of change is that improved water governance (e.g., multi-level dialogue, watershed identity, empowered communities) will generate a range of improvements along the causal chain. The project will be a catalyst that will contribute to: (i) build a common vision based on IWRM, (ii) establish common planning to guide actions at the binational, national, and local levels, and (iii) mobilise and involve key stakeholders for the integrated transboundary management. The project will allocate GEF resources strategically to (1) develop a participatory process to generate an integrated diagnosis on the current situation of the transboundary basins (i.e., TDA) and a formal binding instrument adopted by both countries (i.e., SAP), (2) build human and social capital through training, and (3) implement some practical

1 | P a g e

exercises to generate learning on key issues (inadequate wastewater treatment, climate-related landslides, and hydrometeorological data sharing).

FINANCING PLAN (only cash transferred to UNDP bank account and budgeted under the same GEF project should be included under this section (1), all others should be included under section (2).

GEF Trust Fund or LDCF or SCCF – Binational Activities USD 2,545,562GEF Trust Fund or LDCF or SCCF – Activities in Ecuador administered by Ecuador CO

USD 644,566

(1) Total Budget administered by UNDP USD 3,190,128PARALLEL CO-FINANCING (all other co-financing that is not cash co-financing administered by UNDP)

GAD Angochagua USD 263,478

Ibarra municipality USD 375,566

San Lorenzo municipality USD 50,000

Tulcan municipality USD 6,644,019

GAD Carchi USD 2,695,873

GAD Esmeraldas USD 2,751,978

GAD Imbabura USD 4,040,869

GAD Tufiño USD 34,219

SENAGUA USD 1,042,498

MAE USD 1,204,491

INAMHI USD 999,999

ALTROPICO USD 375

UNDP Ecuador USD 20,000

(2) Total co-financing USD 20,123,365(3) Grand-Total Project Financing (1)+(2) USD 23,313,493

SIGNATURES

Signature: print name below Agreed by Government

Date/Month/Year:

Signature: print name below Agreed by Implementing Partner

Date/Month/Year:

Signature: print name below Agreed by UNDP Date/Month/Year:

Project title: Integrated Management of Water Resources of the Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara, Colombia – Ecuador Binational Basins

2 | P a g e

Countries: Colombia Implementing Partner: Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MADS)

Management Arrangements: National Implementation Modality (NIM)

UNDAF/Country Programme Outcome:

Colombia. UNDAF 2015-2019. Outcome environmental sustainability. Colombia will have succeeded in increasing resilience and socio-environmental sustainability to address the effects of climate change, make sustainable use of natural resources and effectively manage disaster risks.

UNDP Strategic Plan Output: 1.4.1 Solutions scaled up for sustainable management of natural resources, including sustainable commodities and green and inclusive value chains

UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Category: High

UNDP Gender Marker: 2

Atlas Project ID (formerly Award ID): 00114639 (Colombia)

Atlas Output ID (formerly Project ID): 00112583 (Colombia)

UNDP-GEF PIMS ID number: 5753 GEF ID number: 9566

Planned start date: 1 august 2019 Planned end date: 1 august 2023

PAC meeting date: TBD

Brief project description: The Mira, Mataje and Carchi - Guáitara are transboundary basins which are very valuable for Colombia and Ecuador. About 1.1 million persons live in this area. These basins sustain valuable biodiversity from two hotspots: tropical Andes and Tumbes-Choco-Magdalena, including high-value conservation species like the north shore marsupial frog (Gastrotheca espeletia), the yellow-eared parrot (Ognorhynchus icterotis) and the Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus). Water resources and biodiversity are threatened by natural and anthropogenic pressures (e.g., land use change, pollution from untreated sewage). The area is also impacted by the expansion of illegal crops, drug processing and trafficking and illegal armed groups. The condition of the three basins has deteriorated and there are evident symptoms of problems in several areas. This project will focus on water governance which is one of the root causes of the present situation in the area. The core element of the proposed theory of change is that improved water governance (e.g., multi-level dialogue, watershed identity, empowered communities) will generate a range of improvements along the causal chain. The project will be a catalyst that will contribute to: (i) build a common vision based on IWRM, (ii) establish common planning to guide actions at the binational, national, and local levels, and (iii) mobilise and involve key stakeholders for the integrated transboundary management. The project will allocate GEF resources strategically to (1) develop a participatory process to generate an integrated diagnosis on the current situation of the transboundary basins (i.e., TDA) and a formal binding instrument adopted by both countries (i.e., SAP), (2) build human and social capital through training, and (3) implement some practical exercises to generate learning on key issues (inadequate wastewater treatment, climate-related landslides, and hydrometeorological data sharing).

FINANCING PLAN (only cash transferred to UNDP bank account and budgeted under the same GEF project should be included under this section (1), all others should be included under section (2).

GEF, LDCF or SCCF Trust Fund or other vertical fund – – activities in Peru administered by Colombia CO

USD 659,872

(1) Total Budget administered by UNDP USD 659,872

PARALLEL CO-FINANCING (all other co-financing that is not cash co-financing administered by UNDP)

3 | P a g e

CORPONARIÑO USD 63,677

Government of Nariño USD 18,984,650

Ipiales municipality USD 199,149

Ricaurte municipality USD 10,252

MADS USD 5,124,027

IDEAM USD 800,000

WWF Colombia USD 425,000

(2) Total co-financing USD 25,606,755

(3) Grand-Total Project Financing (1)+(2) USD 26,266,627

SIGNATURES

Signature: print name below Agreed by Government

Date/Month/Year:

Signature: print name below Agreed by Implementing Partner

Date/Month/Year:

Signature: print name below Agreed by UNDP Date/Month/Year:

4 | P a g e

I. TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Table of Contents5II. Development Challenge 9

Environmental context and global significance.................................................................................................9Social, economic and cultural context.............................................................................................................15

Security risks................................................................................................................................................19Global environmental problems and root causes...........................................................................................19

Carchi - Guáitara..........................................................................................................................................22Mira.............................................................................................................................................................24Mataje.........................................................................................................................................................26Climate variability and climate change........................................................................................................27Weak water governance..............................................................................................................................28Summary.....................................................................................................................................................29

Long-term solution..........................................................................................................................................30Barriers that limit the solution of global problems.........................................................................................30

Barrier 1. Limited experience applying IWRM in transboundary basins.....................................................30Barrier 2. Insufficient intersectoral coordination for water resources management..................................30Barrier 3. Limited integration of key stakeholders in managing water resources.......................................31Barrier 4. Hydrometeorological data of the transboundary basins is not shared........................................31Barrier 5. Existing binational instruments are insufficient to sustain collaborative action.........................31Barrier 6. Deterioration of the social fabric as a result of illegal activities..................................................32

III. Strategy 32IV. Results and Partnerships 34

Expected results..........................................................................................................................................34Partnerships................................................................................................................................................42

Strategic allies.................................................................................................................................................44TDA/SAP process.........................................................................................................................................44Small scale innovative interventions...........................................................................................................45

Risks and Assumptions....................................................................................................................................45Stakeholder engagement plan........................................................................................................................48Gender equality and empowering women......................................................................................................50South-South and Triangular Cooperation........................................................................................................51Sustainability and Scaling Up..........................................................................................................................51

Environmental sustainability.......................................................................................................................51Social sustainability.....................................................................................................................................51Institutional sustainability...........................................................................................................................52Financial sustainability.................................................................................................................................52Replicability.................................................................................................................................................52

V. Project Management 52Cost efficiency and effectiveness....................................................................................................................52Project management.......................................................................................................................................53Agreement on intellectual property rights and use of logo on the project’s deliverables and disclosure of information.....................................................................................................................................................54

5 | P a g e

VI. Project Results Framework 55VII. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan 64

Oversight and monitoring responsibilities......................................................................................................64Binational coordinator of the project..........................................................................................................64Project board...............................................................................................................................................64Project implementing partner.....................................................................................................................65UNDP country office....................................................................................................................................65UNDP-GEF unit............................................................................................................................................65Audit............................................................................................................................................................66Additional GEF monitoring and reporting requirements.............................................................................66

VIII. Governance and Management Arrangements 70Project board..................................................................................................................................................72

Executive.....................................................................................................................................................72Development partner..................................................................................................................................73Senior Beneficiary........................................................................................................................................73

Technical Committee......................................................................................................................................74National Directors...........................................................................................................................................74Project Management Unit...............................................................................................................................74

Binational coordinator.................................................................................................................................74Thematic specialists.....................................................................................................................................75

Project Assurance...........................................................................................................................................76Governance role for project target groups.....................................................................................................76

IX. Financial Planning and Management 76Parallel co-financing........................................................................................................................................76UNDP Direct Project Services as requested by Government...........................................................................78Budget Revision and Tolerance.......................................................................................................................79Refund to GEF.................................................................................................................................................79Project Closure................................................................................................................................................79Operational completion..................................................................................................................................79Transfer or disposal of assets..........................................................................................................................79Financial completion.......................................................................................................................................80

X. Total Budget and Work Plan 81XI. Legal Context 94XII. Risk Management 94XIII. Annexes 96

6 | P a g e

Abbreviations

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CBP Project binational coordinator

CDR Combined delivery report

CO Country office

CORPONARIÑO Regional Autonomous Corporation of Nariño

CPAP Country programme action plan

DPC Direct project costs

DPS Direct project services

EGP Gender, participation, and intercultural specialist

ENSO El Niño southern oscillation

ERC UNDP Evaluation Resource Centre

ETS TDA/SAP specialist

GAD Angochagua Rural Decentralized Autonomous Government of the Angochagua Parrish

GAD Carchi Decentralized Autonomous Government of the Carchi province

GAD Esmeraldas Decentralized Autonomous Government of the Esmeraldas province

GAD Imbabura Decentralized Autonomous Government of the Imbabura province

GAD Tufiño Rural Decentralized Autonomous Government of the Tufiño Parrish

GEF Global Environment Facility

GEF ID GEF project identification number

GOBNAR Government of Nariño

HACT Harmonized approach to cash transfers

IDEAM Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies

IDP UNDP information disclosure policy

INAMHI National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology

IW: LEARN GEF International Waters learning exchange and resource network.

IWC GEF biennial International Waters Conference

LOA Letter of agreement

MADS Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development

MNE Commonwealth of northern Ecuador

MRE Ministry of foreign affairs

MTR Midterm review

NIM National implementation modality

OSC Civil society organization

PIP Policy on public involvement in GEF projects

PIR GEF Project Implementation Report

POPP UNDP programme and operations policies and procedures

7 | P a g e

PPD GEF small grants programme

PRODOC Project document

SAP Strategic action programme

SBAA Standard basic assistance agreement

SENAGUA Water Secretariat

SESP UNDP's Social and Environmental Screening Procedure

SSARH Undersecretary of Social Affairs and Water Resources Articulation of SENAGUA

TDA Transboundary diagnostic analysis

TE Terminal evaluation

UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UPL Universal price list

USD United States dollar

WFP World Food Programme

8 | P a g e

II. DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE

Environmental context and global significance

1. Colombia and Ecuador share three transboundary watersheds which drain into the Pacific Ocean: Mira, Mataje and Patia (ILEC et al., 2016) (Figure 1).

2. Patia is a large basin (ca., 22,203 km2 drainage area) which is mostly located in Colombia (98%). One of its tributaries is the Guáitara river which is an element of the Carchi - Guáitara unit. The Carchi river rises from the melting of the Chiles volcano, on the border of Colombia and Ecuador, it runs through the El Angel paramo receiving waters of several minor rivers and flows eastward forming the border between the two countries for about 20 kilometres, when it enters Colombia the river becomes the Guáitara river. For management purposes Colombia and Ecuador consider the Carchi – Guáitara basin as a transboundary unit.

Figure 1. Transboundary basins shared by Colombia and Ecuador. Source: Transboundary Water Assessment Programme river basins data portal (twap-rivers.org).

3. The transboundary Mira, Mataje and Carchi – Guáitara basins cover a total area ca., 15,150 km 2 (1.5 million hectares); Mira is the largest, comprising 71.4% of the total shared area (Figure 2, Table 1).

4. The Tulcán - Ipiales1 aquifer is a transboundary groundwater resource which is located under the Carchi-Guáitara basin. There is limited information about this aquifer, which has an estimated surface in between 262 km2 and 366 km2 (UNESCO, 2007; UNESCO 2009; GRAC & UNESCO-IHP, 2015; SENAGUA, 2016).

1 Label 10S in the world inventory of transboundary aquifers (UNESCO, 2009).

9 | P a g e

Figure 2. Transboundary rivers basins which drain into the Pacific Ocean: Mira (orange), Mataje (green) and Carchi – Guáitara (yellow).

Figure 3. Approximate location, size and shape of the Tulcán – Ipiales transboundary aquifer (UNESCO, 2007).

10 | P a g e

Table 1. Surface of transboundary river basins which drain into the Pacific Ocean.

River basinEcuador Colombia Total

(km2)km2 % km2 %Carchi - Guáitara 366.4 9.1 3.649.6 90.9 4,016.1

Mira 6,537.5 60.5 4,276.3 39.5 10,813.8

Mataje 158.8 49.5 161.9 50.5 320.7

Total 7,062.7 8,087.8 15,150.6

5. The transboundary basins are part of two biodiversity hotspots: tropical Andes and Chocó/Darién/Western Ecuador (now called Tumbes-Choco-Magdalena) (Myers, 1988; Mittermeier et al., 1999; Myers et al., 2000).

6. The upper Mira and Carchi - Guáitara are part of the tropical Andes hotspot and include paramos and evergreen montane forests (ecoregions northern Andean paramo and northwest Andean montane forests). This hotspot has the highest plant endemism and amphibian diversity of the world. A key component is the Paramo ecosystem which is considered the major provider of water for the Andes highlands. The two most important ecological services of paramos are water regulation and carbon sequestration (Minaya, 2017). A distinctive feature is the “paramo de frailejones” which is dominated by plants of the genus Espeletia (common name frailejones). Espeletia pycnophylla subsp. angelensis -- which is endemic to south Colombia and northern Ecuador -- is the most common species in the area (Rodríguez et al., 2017) and support specialised macro-arthropod fauna (Smithers et al., 2001). Another important group is achupallas (genus Puya) which are keystone species that support frogs, hummingbirds2 and the Andean bear3 (Tremarctos ornatus). Other high-conservation value species found in this area are the Andean frogs Gastrotheca riobambae (endemic of Ecuador) and Gastrotheca espeletia that live in paramo and montane forests, both are listed as "endangered" in IUCN´s red list (Coloma et al., 2004; Bolívar et al., 2004; Chasiluisa et al., 2018).

7. The mid and lower Mira and Mataje are part of the Tumbes-Choco-Magdalena hotspot and include mangroves, tropical humid, very humid premontane and montane forests (ecoregions South American Pacific mangroves, Western Ecuador moist forests and Chocó-Darién moist forests). These areas support large number of species and high endemism. High conservation value species are found in this area like Cephalopterus penduliger (vulnerable), Crax rubra (vulnerable4), Neomorphus radiolosus (endangered), and Ateles fusciceps (critically endangered).

8. The Mira river discharges in Colombia in a delta which has a main discharge in Boca de Milagros and seven smaller channels (Figure 4). This is a tide-influenced delta with characteristics of wave-dominated systems. Mira discharges ca., 839 m3/s into the Pacific Ocean, and has a sediment load of ca., 213,160 t/year and a suspended sediment load of ca., 9.7 million t/year (Restrepo & López, 2008). In 2017. On the river delta the protected area “Distrito Nacional de Manejo Integrado Cabo Manglares, Bajo Mira y Frontera” (190,282 ha) was established. This protected area coincides with the Afro-descendants´ collective area "Bajo Mira y Frontera" (see paragraph 29) and includes mangroves and beaches. This is an IUCN´s category VI protected area where the local communities can use the local natural resources, mainly artisanal fisheries and collection of piangua (Anadara tuberculosa and A. similis).

2 Woods & Ramsay (2001) found eight species of hummingbirds feeding on Puya hamata nectar.3 The Andean bear feeds on frailejones and achupallas.4 This species is listed “vulnerable” in the global red list. This bird extends between Mexico and Ecuador, in humid evergreen forest and mangroves. It has become scarce in the project area; the main threats are habitat fragmentation and hunting. In the red lists of Colombia and Ecuador it listed as “vulnerable” (Renjifo et al., 2014) and “critically endangered” (Olmedo, 2019), respectively. This bird is considered one of the key conservation targets for the “Distrito Nacional de Manejo Integrado Cabo Manglares, Bajo Mira y Frontera” in Colombia.

11 | P a g e

9. The southern part of Tumaco Bay is included as part of the Mira basin (Figure 4). This bay is located between the Patía and Mira deltas. This bay is a shallow semi-protected area where numerous small coastal rivers discharge.

10. The Mataje river discharge is about 20 kilometres south of the Mira river delta. Mataje forms an estuary that is about four kilometres wide, whose centre is the Colombia - Ecuador border (Figure 4). This estuary is the northernmost of four river mouths that together form the Cayapas - Mataje estuarine system.

11. The “Reserva Ecológica Manglares Cayapas Mataje”5 (49.350 ha) encompass the whole Cayapas - Mataje estuarine system. The natural resources of the protected area are extensively used by local communities that live within and in the vicinity of reserve. Collection of piangua in the mangroves is a main subsistence and commercial activity which is done mainly by women and children.

12. The transboundary basins contain six key biodiversity areas. These coincide with Important Bird Areas 6

(IBA) outlined by Franco et al. (2009) and Santander et al. (2009). High incidence of threatened birds’ species has been found in the Reserva Natural Río Ñambí and the basin of the Guiza river (part of the Mira watershed) (Flórez-Paí, 2016). The Table 2 list species of birds that are highly threatened by the current conditions in the basins.

13. About eight percent of the transboundary basins is under some form of conservation or management (Table 3). In addition, there is a large Awá reserve in Ecuador that, despite not being a protected area, in practice contributes to conserve valuable biodiversity (see paragraph 23).

5 Established in 1995, it is an IUCN´s category VI protected area.6 The six IBAs are: CO068 Reserva Natural Río Ñambí CO069 Reserva Natural La Planada EC001 Mataje-Cayapas-Santiago EC002 Territorio Étnico Awá y alrededores EC003 Corredor Awacachi EC036 El Ángel-Cerro Golondrinas

12 | P a g e

1. Tumaco. 2. Candelilla de la mar. 3. San Lorenzo. 4. Borbón.

Figure 4. Location of the Mira river delta and the Mataje river estuary.

Figure 5. Estimated water demand by sectors in the transboundary basins.

Table 2. Key high-conservation value bird species in the transboundary basins.

Scientific name Common name Risk

Ognorhynchus icterotis (Massena & Souance) 1854 Yellow-eared parrot Perico palmero, loro orejiamarillo CR

Penelope ortoni (Salvin)1874 Baudo guan Pava del baudó EN

Spizaetus isidori (Des Murs) 1845 Black-and-chestnut Eagle Águila Crestada, Guamán, Huamán EN

Neomorphus radiolosus (Sclater,PL & Salvin) 1878 Banded Ground-cuckoo Correcaminos escamado ENVireo masteri (Salaman,PGW & Stiles,FG) 1996 Choco vireo Vireo del ñambí ENOdontophorus melanonotus (Gould)1861 Dark-backed Wood-quail Perdiz de Nariño VUMicrastur plumbeus (Sclater,WL) 1918 Plumbeous Forest-falcon Halcón de Munchique VUGlaucidium nubicola (Robbins & Stiles,FG) 1999 Cloud-forest Pygmy-owl Buhito Nubicola VUChaetocercus bombus (Gould, 1871) Little woodstar Pequeño zumbador VUDysithamnus occidentalis (Chapman) 1923 Bicolored antvireo Hormiguero occidental VU

Cephalopterus penduliger (Sclater,PL) 1859 Long-wattled Umbrellabird Paragüero del pacífico VU

Dacnis berlepschi (Hartert) 1900 Scarlet-breasted Dacnis Dacnis pechirroja VU

Table 3. Surface under conservation and management in the transboundary basins.

Transboundary basinSurface under conservation and

management (ha)Surface of the transboundary

basin (ha)

Percentage of the basinEcuador Colombia Total

Carchi - Guáitara 15,070 27,503 42,573 401,600 10.6

Mira 78,959 7,382 86,341 1,081,380 8.0

Mataje 2,025 562 2,587 32,070 8.1

Total 96,054 35,447 131,502 1,515,050 8.7

Percentage of total 6.3 2.3 8.7

13 | P a g e

transboundary areaThe surface under conservation and management includes: (i) in Ecuador, protected areas, protective forests7 and areas of the Socio Bosque programme8, and (ii) in Colombia, protected areas and paramo which has been declared a strategic ecosystem. Ramsar sites are also included for both countries, but they overlap with the protected areas.

Table 4. Population in the three transboundary basins.

River basin Colombia Ecuador Total

Carchi - Guáitara 447,285 17,624 464,909

Mira 212,719 476,632 689,351

Mataje 3,513 2,184 5,697

Total 663,517 496,440 1,159,957Notes. For Colombia, population projection for 2015 based on the 2005 census prepared by the Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística (DANE). For Ecuador population from the 2010 census provided by Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC). In both cases the population was estimated from the area that is part of the corresponding watershed.

Table 5. Estimated water demand (m3/s) in the transboundary basins.

Transboundary basin Country Domestic Agriculture &

livestock Industrial Total

Carchi - GuáitaraEcuador 0.24 0.83 0.1 1.17

Colombia 0.67 1.21 ND 1.88

MiraEcuador 1.65 13.45 0.48 15.58

Colombia 0.48 0.06 ND 0.54

MatajeEcuador 0.0066 0.0076 0.0006 0.0148

Colombia ND ND ND NDND = Not available. The estimate for Mataje is very rough, there is no specific information in the countries. In Colombia, the national sector of the watershed is considered part of the Mataje basin. In Ecuador, the national sector of the watershed is considered part of the Cayapas basin.

7 Protective forests are vegetation formations, natural or cultured in public or private land, which are designated to conserve water, soil, flora and fauna. These areas are not part of the national system of protected areas.8 Socio Bosque is a government-funded initiative of the Ministry of Environment of Ecuador, that offers economic incentives to owners of land with native forests to guarantee its protection over the medium to long-term.

14 | P a g e

Figure 6. Major land uses in the transboundary basins. Combined data for Colombia 2014 and Ecuador 2016.

Social, economic and cultural context

14. About 1.1 million persons live in the three transboundary basins (ca., 57% in Colombia and 43% in Ecuador) (Table 4). The local population depends on water resources (mainly for farming and domestic consumption, Table 5 and Figure 5) and the ecosystem services linked to the water cycle.

15. Carchi - Guáitara is a highly intervened basin, about 70% of its surface are farming areas. In Mira, about 38% and 41% of its surface are farming areas and forests, respectively. Mataje also has a large area of farming areas (ca., 47%), but maintain about 46% of forest cover (Figure 6).

16. The transboundary basins extend over the territories of Colombia´s Nariño department and three provinces of Ecuador: Esmeraldas, Carchi and Imbabura. Fifty-one municipalities have areas on the three basins (Table 6), and seven of them have territory in two basins:

The Ecuadorian municipalities of Tulcán, Espejo, and Montúfar and the Colombian municipalities of Cumbal and Sapuyes have areas in Carchi – Guáitara and Mira.

Tumaco (Colombia) and San Lorenzo (Ecuador) have areas in Mira and Mataje.

Table 6. Municipalities that are part of the transboundary basins.

Transboundary basin Country Province /

departmentNumber of

municipalities Municipalities

15 | P a g e

Carchi - Guáitara

Ecuador Carchi 3 Tulcán, Espejo, Montúfar

Colombia Nariño 33

Aldana, Ancuya, Consacá, Contadero, Córdoba, Cuaspud, Cumbal, El Peñol, El Tambo, Funes, Guachucal, Guaitarilla, Gualmatán, Iles, Imues, Ipiales, La Florida, La Llanada, Linares, Los Andes, Ospina, Pasto, Potosí, Providencia, Puerres, Pupiales, Samaniego, Sandoná, Santa Cruz, Sapuyes, Tangua, Túquerres, Yacuanquer

Mira

Ecuador

Carchi 6 Tulcán, Bolívar, Espejo, Mira, Montúfar, San Pedro de Huaca

Imbabura 6 Ibarra, Antonio Ante, Cotacachi, Otavalo, Pimampiro, San Miguel de Urcuquí

Esmeraldas 1 San Lorenzo

Colombia Nariño 6 Barbacoas, Cumbal, Mallama, Ricaurte, Sapuyes, Tumaco

Mataje

Ecuador Esmeraldas 1 San Lorenzo

Colombia Nariño 1 Tumaco

Figure 7. Municipalities that are part of the transboundary basins.

16 | P a g e

17. There are valuable archaeological and cultural sites in the transboundary area, like the Inca road system (Qhapaq Ñan9) which runs along the Ecuadorian Andes and extends in the stretch between Rumichaca and Pasto in Colombia.

18. In general, the local population face high levels of poverty and unsatisfied needs:a. In Carchi – Guáitara, the Ecuadorian municipalities have an average poverty level of 58% 10 (2010

census) and in Colombia, four municipalities have rural population with high levels of unsatisfied basic needs (range 71% - 82%) (CORPONARIÑO, 2012).

b. In Mira, the Ecuadorian municipalities have an average poverty level of 63% 11 (2010 census) and 67% of the Colombian population has unsatisfied basic needs. However, two Colombian municipalities (Mallama and Barbacoas) have over 90% of unsatisfied basic needs (CORPONARIÑO, 2012).

c. In the Mataje basin, the Ecuadorian parish of Mataje -- which runs along the Mataje river -- had a poverty level of 98.9% in 2010. Since then living conditions have not much improved, there are 10 human settlements where people live in precarious houses and most residents do not have access to safe water, electricity, medical services and schools (GAD Mataje, 2011). Access and transportation are also very limited. There is a single gravel road that reaches the parish main locality. There are remote communities that can only be reached by boat or trails. Living conditions on the Colombian side are slightly better, with 47.8% of unsatisfied basic needs.

19. Indigenous people and Afro-descendants account for ca., 24% of the population that live in the three basins (Table 7). In Colombia, these groups have territories with communal land rights that cover about 244 thousand hectares. Three indigenous groups live in the area12: Pastos, Awá, and Otavalo.

Table 7. Indigenous and Afro-descendant population that live in the three transboundary basins.

Transboundary basin

Colombia Ecuador Total Grand totalIndigenous

peopleAfro-

descendants Subtotal Indigenous people

Afro-descendants Subtotal Indigenous

peopleAfro-

descendantsCarchi - Guáitara 58,656 4,713 63,369 599 1,128 1,727 59,255 5,841 65,096

Mira 30,839 56,163 87,002 90,291 28,278 118,569 121,130 84,441 205,571

Mataje 296 5,164 5,460 61 959 1,020 357 6,123 6,480

Total 89,791 66,040 155,831 90,951 30,365 121,316 180,742 96,405 277,147

Sources: DANE (2017), INEC (2010a), INEC (2010b) and INEC (2010c).

Table 8. Extent of territories with communal land rights in Colombia.

Basin Collective titles of black communities (ha) Indigenous reserves (ha)

Guáitara - 639

Mira 82,417 152,914

Mataje 7,929 -

Total 90,346 153,553

Estimated using information for 2014 from Instituto Colombiano de Desarrollo Rural

9 The Qhapaq Ñan includes 273 component sites spread over ca., 6,000 km from Colombia to Argentina. It was included in the World Heritage List on 2014.10 The highest poverty level was found in Espejo municipality with 63.7%.11 The highest poverty level was found in Cotacachi municipality with 72.8%.12 Gómez et al. (2017) include the Epera and Chachis as part of the Mataje transboundary basin. This occurs because these authors include all the Cayapas – Mataje estuarine system as part of the Mataje basin. In the present project we do not follow this approach, because that estuarine system is formed by the discharge of several rivers -- one of them is Mataje (located on the northern limit of the reserve) -- that have separate non-transboundary basins.

17 | P a g e

(INCODER).

20. The Pasto are pre-Inca indigenous people that inhabited the Andes´ highlands in southern Colombia and northern Ecuador. Pre-Hispanic Pastos were farmers who also traded commodities with other groups in the tropical lowlands (Pollard Rowe, 2011; Minahan, 2016). Currently, the Pastos inhabit their highland ancestral territory which is part of the Colombian Nariño and Putumayo departments and the Ecuadorian Carchi province. They maintain a strong identity and are mainly farmers that cultivate native plants -- e.g., potatoes, quinua (Chenopodium quinoa), melloco (Ullucus tuberosus) -- and raise livestock animals -- e.g., cattle, pigs, sheep and cuy (Cavia porcellus).

21. In Colombia, the Pastos have resguardos indígenas13 (indigenous reserves) that are governed by a Cabildo Indígena (Indigenous Cabildo), an autonomous traditional socio-political organization. In Ecuador, Pastos do not have assigned territories14, and most people do not consider themselves to be indigenous (Minahan, 2016). Only two communities La Esperanza and La Libertad (Carchi province) have recognised themselves as Pastos (Anon, 2011; Vasquez, 2008; Vasquez & Ávalos, 2013). There are initiatives to strengthen transboundary linkages and to promote their recognition as a binational group (Carrión, 2014; Carrión, 2015; Gómez et al., 2017).

22. The Awá are indigenous people that live in mountainous rainforest areas of the south-west of Colombia (Nariño and Putumayo departments) and north-west of Ecuador (Esmeraldas, Carchi and Imbabura provinces). The Awá were hunter-gatherers, nowadays they also cultivate crops and raise small animals (e.g., chickens, cuy and pigs) and live in small communities of extended families (called centros Awá) and in isolated houses in the forest. Within the three transboundary basins there are 42 Awá resguardos indigenas in Colombia15 and 22 centros Awá in Ecuador, there live ca., 34,830 persons, most of them in Colombia (88%) (Gómez et al., 2017).

23. In Ecuador, most of the centros Awá are located within the Awá Kwaiker Forest Ethnic Reserve, this is a 101,000 hectares area which includes a 99,336.51 forest reserve that was established in 200616. This reserve protects high-conservation value biodiversity like the brown-headed spider monkey (Ateles fusciceps) which is listed as "critically endangered" in UICN´s red list, the banded ground-cuckoo (Neomorphus radiolosus) and the baudo guan (Penelope ortoni) which are listed as "endangered", and the yellow-green tanager (Bangsia flavovirens) and the spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus) which are listed as "vulnerable". The reserve is also recognised as an Important Bird Area (code EC002) (BirdLife International, 2019).

24. The Awá have four second-level organizations17 that together form the Great Awá Family which promotes their recognition as binational indigenous people with a comprehensive life plan (Pineda, 2012; Barahona, 2013; GFAB, 2018).

25. The Otavalo are a pre-Inca indigenous people that inhabited the Andes between the north of Quito (Ecuador) and the present border with Colombia. They were farmers that practiced irrigation agriculture and used waru waru18 (Salomon, 1986; Valdez, 2006). Nowadays, they live in the Imbabura province, mostly in the Otavalo municipality (located in the upper part of the Mira basin), and have a quite diverse economy which includes farming, production of textiles and handicrafts, and national and overseas trading (Stephen, 1991; Korovkin, 1998; Meisch, 2002; Célleri, 2012).

13 See Annex 9 for definitions.14 In Ecuador, indigenous people do not have assigned territories. The constitution of 2008 established that indigenous people can create "Circunscripciones Territoriales Indígenas" (Indigenous Territorial Constituencies) as a special regime of territorial organization (articles 60, 242, 257). However, this figure has not yet been applied.15 Gómez et al., (2017) report three additional resguardos in process of being created.16 Ministerial Agreement 004 published in the Registro Oficial 218 of 1 March 2006.17 Three of them represent resguardos / centros located within the three transboundary basins: Unidad Indígena del Pueblo Awá (UNIPA), Cabildo Mayor Awá de Ricaurte (CAMAWARI) and Federación de Centros Awá del Ecuador (FCAE). The fourth organization is Asociación de Cabildos Indígenas Awá del Putumayo (ACIPAP) which represent the resguardos based in the Putumayo department (Colombia).18 This is an ancient Andean agriculture technology that uses a network of embankments and canals (UNEP, 1997).

18 | P a g e

26. Afro-descendants live mostly on the coastal areas of the Mira and Mataje basins19, with the exception of the population living in the Chota valley in the Ecuadorian highlands. This valley is in the upstream area of the Chota river (a tributary of the Mira river) and lies in the provinces of Imbabura and Carchi.

27. The population that live in the tropical lowlands practice small scale farming, timber extraction, hunting, fishing and, in some places, artisanal mining. The main crops are coconuts, plantain, cassava, chontaduro (Bactris gasipaes) and borojo (Alibertia patinoi). Bushmeat is used for domestic consumption and some trade in local markets. The main traded species are tatabra (Pecari tajacu), conejo (Cuniculus paca) and venado (Mazama americana and Odocoileus virginianus), but eight species were found in Tumaco market by Gómez et al., (2016). An important activity in the mangroves is the collection of piangua / concha prieta (Anadara tuberculosa and A. similis) which is done primarily by women and children.

28. The inhabitants of the Chota Valley are mainly small-plot farmers that cultivate onions, common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), sugarcane and avocados, and raise small animals. They have a very distinctive Afro-Andean culture (Lipski, 1987; Ritter, 2003; Lipski, 2008; Ruggiero, 2010; Sessarego, 2014; Lara & Ruggiero, 2016) and produce high-level football players (Meijers, 2014; Thompson-Hernández, 2016; Jijon, 2017). The valley has (i) a dry tropical climate, (ii) hillsides affected by wind erosion and (iii) scarce water access.

29. In Colombia, Afro-descendants have “títulos colectivos de comunidades Negras” (collective titles of black communities20). Each collective area is governed by a community council. There are two community councils in the Mira and Mataje basins: (i) Alto Mira y Frontera and (ii) Bajo Mira y Frontera. They integrate the Corporación Red de Consejos Comunitarios del Pacífico Sur (RECOMPAS21).

30. In Ecuador, Afro-descendants do not have assigned territories, but there is a strong movement to advance towards recognition of collective areas (Sánchez et al., 2015; Sánchez, 2015).

Security risks

31. The transboundary basins are affected by complex high security risks. The Colombia - Ecuador border has long been affected by violence and crime. However, in recent years the situation has exacerbated in the project target area mainly due to an increased activity of organized crime and illegal armed groups 22 that is linked mainly to (i) cultivation, processing and transport of illegal drugs23 and (ii) illegal mining (Walcott, 2008; Anon, 2018d; Villaverde, 2018; Idler, 2019).

32. Coca plantations have expanded since 2013. It has been estimated that in 2017 there were about 171 thousand hectares, 26.6% of these in the Nariño department (Figure 8 and Figure 9)(UNODC, 2018). The municipalities of Tumaco and Barbacoas – that are part of the Mira basin24 -- are among the 10 municipalities with the largest amount of coca plantations (UNODC, 2018).

33. Illegal armed groups extort locals (e.g., farmers, lorry drivers, merchants) and attack settlements. In the Colombian side, there has been an escalade of violence-driven displacement in rural areas and murder of leaders and members of social organizations (Table 9) (Carvajal, 2017; Anon, 2018; Asmann, 2019).

34. Violence generates forced displacement and migration25 (Table 9). For example, UNHCR reported that about 95% of refugees in Ecuador (i.e., 48,822 at mid-2018) are Colombian (UNHCR, 2017; UNHCR, 2018; UNHCR, 2019). In Ecuador, there are a number of cases of small communities that have been displaced by illegal armed groups from islands located close to the border. In Colombia, on August 2018, about 650

19 Tumaco, Barbacoas and Ricaurte municipality in Colombia and San Lorenzo municipality in Ecuador.20 Law 70 of 1993 established collective titling of Pacific vacant territories in favour of black communities (Hoffman, 1999; Renteria & Cuesta, 2017)). The communal areas are legally designated as "tierras de las comunidades negras" (lands of black communities).21 A civil society organization established in 2003 that congregate the community councils located in Tumaco and Francisco Pizarro municipalities.22 Including (i) militants of the now-demobilized Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the existing National Liberation Army (ELN) armed groups and (ii) drug cartels and groups related to drug trafficking (Anon, 2018; Anon, 2018a; FIP. 2018a; FIP, 2018b).23 Plantations and processing are based in Colombia. Coca plantations are located in the humid lowlands, while poppy fields are in the highlands intermingled with crops like potatoes and maize (Pinzón & Sotello, 2007; Ospina et al., 2018). Drug transportation, logistics and provision of supplies occur on both sides of the border (Woody, 2017; Puerta, 2018).24 UNODC (2018) reports 19,517 ha of coca plantations in Tumaco and 4,590 ha in Barbacoas.25 There are clashed among rival criminal groups and between illegal groups and armed forces of both countries.

19 | P a g e

Awá and Afro-descendant persons were forced to leave their homes (internal displacement) due to clashes among illegal armed groups (Anon, 2018b). The most recent events occurred on (I) January 2019 when about 263 families of Awá and Afro-descendant persons had to abandon their homes in Tumaco (Anon, 2018c) and (ii) on 2 March 2019 when there was a mass arrival of about 150 persons in Palma Real and San Lorenzo (Ecuador) that travelled by boat from Candelillas de la Mar (Colombia) (Anon, 2019a; Anon, 2019b; Freire, 2019).

Global environmental problems and root causes

35. The Mira, Mataje and Carchi – Guáitara transboundary watersheds face multiple threats to biodiversity, water resources and local people. Both countries have made significant efforts to advance towards collaborative action, however the situation is complex and requires a more comprehensive approach. There are a number of evident symptoms of severe problems in several areas of the transboundary basins.

36. Three major problems are evident: (i) biodiversity loss, (ii) deterioration of environmental services and (iii) decreased quality of life of the population (Figure 10).

37. The three above mentioned major problems are caused mainly by anthropogenic causes. The situation is different on each basin, but in general, the main causes are:a. Inadequate management of solid waste and effluents that causes water and soil pollution and

ultimately have impacts on human health and contribute to biodiversity loss.b. Poor farming practices that causes soil erosion and land degradation, deterioration of ecosystems

that produce water (e.g., paramos) and regulate water flows, and pollution of water and soil.c. Land use change, mainly expansion of farming areas, that causes habitat fragmentation and

destruction of native vegetation.d. Increased demand of water that contributes to conflicts among competing users.e. Illicit drug cultivation (coca in the lowlands and poppy in the highlands) and processing that has a

range of consequences including deforestation (Figure 8), habitat degradation and fragmentation, water and soil pollution, and land degradation.

f. Climate variability and climate change which exacerbate other pressures like the duration of dry periods and the survival of fauna and flora. Also, extreme weather events, mostly related to El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), have become more intense and frequent.

20 | P a g e

Figure 8. Surface of coca plantations in Colombia and the Nariño department.

Figure 9. Density of coca plantations in 2017.

21 | P a g e

Table 9. Violence-related impact on local population during 2018.

Multiple and massive forced internal displacementNumber Total persons Total families

Nariño department 27 6,090 [2] 1,629Esmeraldas province 5 1,544 222Carchi province 2 180 46

Armed conflict and violenceNumber of events Armed confrontations

Nariño department 104 57Esmeraldas province 18 3Carchi province 2 1

Aggressions against leaders in ColombiaTotal Afro-descendent Indigenous people

Nariño department 5 3 1Notes. [1] Source: CODHES26 Tablero estadístico – situacional. Information for the period 1 January – 31 August 2018. https://sisdhescodhes.wordpress.com/2018/11/09/tablero-estadistico-situacional/[2] In Nariño, 95% of displaced persons were indigenous people (752 persons) and Afro-descendants (5,062 persons).

Figure 10. General causal chain analysis of the situation in the transboundary basins.

38. Two root causes have been identified: (i) insufficient capacity for monitoring and enforcing compliance of pertinent regulations and (ii) limited capacity to apply comprehensive integrated water resources management (IWRM). Ultimately, these causes reveal weak water governance.

26 Consultoría para los Derechos Humanos y el Desplazamiento (CODHES).

22 | P a g e

39. The scenario is influenced by critical externalities. Illegal armed groups and drug cartels operate in the area. Their activities in turn generate widespread insecurity and crime, encourage illegal activities (e.g., coca cultivation and gold mining), and undermine the social fabric27 (Figure 10).

40. This somehow coincide with the results presented by ILEC et al., (2016) who identified that (i) water quality (mainly wastewater pollution) and (ii) governance (mainly legal framework) had the highest risk. In Mataje, ILEC et al., (2016) also included a very high risk in wetland dysconnectivity. In Mira, ILEC et al., (2016) included high risk of hydropolitical tension (Figure 11).

41. The transboundary basins have similar problems, but their conditions and severity of their issues are quite different.

Carchi - Guáitara

42. Carchi – Guáitara has the highest population density (1.16 persons/ha) and the highest percentage of farming area. The impact of illegal activities is felt, but with less intensity than in the other basins.

43. The main problems are degradation of natural ecosystems, water pollution, and limited availability of water during the dry season (Figure 12).

44. Water pollution is caused by a range of sources, including farming, domestic sewage and gold mining 28 in Colombia. This basin has a large surface dedicated to farming activities that in turn discharge large amounts of agrochemicals. A severe case is potato production in the Carchi province, where heavy use of pesticides has resulted in poisoning and neurological impairment of farmers (Cole et al., 2002; Yanggen et al., 2004; Sherwood, 2009).

45. Degradation of paramos and native forests is a key issue which is mainly caused by expansion of the agricultural frontier and the common practice of burning paramos. Paramos have special protection status in both countries. In Colombia, mining and oil exploration and extraction are prohibited, and regional corporations must develop zoning and management schemes29. Paramo areas must be delineated and sanctioned by the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MADS). The Ecuadorian constitution includes paramos among fragile and threatened ecosystems that have a special management regime. Paramos must have participatory management plans that consider their contribution to watershed dynamics30. However, there are practical limitations to enforce regulations. A key matter is land access limitations faced by small farmers, who are forced to clear accessible natural areas.

27 For example, forced displacement of local population and expansion of an illegal economy (e.g., provision of supplies and workforce, transportation of drugs).28 Illegal gold mining has severe impacts that include deforestation, soil and water pollution as well as violation of human rights (The Global Initiative, 2016).29 See Law 1450 of 2011, published in the Official Register on 16 June 2011 and ruling C-035 of 2016 of the Constitutional Court of Colombia.30 See the Organic Code on the Environment (COA), published in the Official Register on 12 April 2017, and the Andean Ecosystems, issued by Acuerdo 064 published in the Official Register on 5 November 2009. The latter includes Andean forests and wetlands.

23 | P a g e

Figure 11. Risk levels of key indicators for Mira, Mataje and Patia transboundary basins from ILEC et al., (2016).

Mira

46. Mira contain patches with dense population (mostly in Ecuador31) and intense farming (mostly on the middle – high basin), but an overall lower population density (0.64 persons / ha). The impact of illegal activities is stronger than in Carchi – Guáitara. The Colombian side is affected by widespread coca plantations and attacks to civilians and infrastructure. But violence affects both sides of the border

47. The upper and lower basin have different problems. In the former, water pollution, degradation of natural ecosystems and soil degradation are severe issues (Figure 13). Also, water scarcity has exacerbated in certain areas (e.g., Chota valley, Lita). Water pollution is caused by a range of sources, including farming, domestic sewage, effluents from various activities (e.g., dairy and panela production, illicit crops). Illegal gold mining occurs in several locations and have environmental and social impacts far beyond water pollution (UNODC, 2018a; Anon, 2018e; Bonilla, 2019).

31 There is a densely populated urban area along the Pan-American highway that link five municipalities (Ibarra, San Miguel de Urcuqui, Antonio Ante, Cotacachi and Otavalo). In this area there is intense and diversified production (textiles, manufacturing, tourism, commerce, animal husbandry, agriculture).

24 | P a g e

Figure 12. Causal – chain analysis of the situation in the Carchi – Guáitara transboundary basin.

Figure 13. Causal – chain analysis of the situation in the upper Mira transboundary basin.

25 | P a g e

Figure 14. Causal – chain analysis of the situation in the lower Mira transboundary basin.

Figure 15. Causal – chain analysis of the situation in the Mataje transboundary basin.

26 | P a g e

48. In the low basin, the cultivation and processing of coca and African oil palm are major drivers of degradation of natural ecosystems, water pollution and soil degradation (Figure 14). Hydrocarbon pollution is generated by sabotage of the Transandino pipeline, leakages from illegal siphoning valves and homemade oil refineries. Sediment dynamics in the river and the ocean discharge are also altered by the load of sediments released by erosion, riverbed mining, and illegal gold mining. On the mangroves of the river delta area a key issue is the reduction of abundance and size of piangua. Anadara tuberculosa is listed as "vulnerable" (main threat overexploitation) in Colombia´s red list of marine invertebrates (Ardila et al., 2002).

Mataje

49. This basin has the lowest population density (0.18 persons/ha). About 47% of its surface is dedicated to agriculture, a main driver of land use change are African oil palm plantations. The impact of illegal activities is stronger than in the other two basins. In general, living conditions are harsh and human settlements are small and remote, with vert limited access. This facilitates the installation of illicit crops and drug processing facilities.

50. The main problems are degradation of natural ecosystems, water and soil pollution, and overexploitation of estuarine fishery resources (Figure 15). There is also bushmeat consumption, but its severity is difficult to assess due to lack of information.

51. The main causes of the degradation of natural ecosystems are land use change and deforestation. The main drivers of land use change over the years have been shrimp farms, African oil palm plantations and illicit crops. Similarly, water and soil pollution are caused primarily by effluents from agriculture, illicit crops and illegal gold mining.

52. Overexploitation of fishery resources is crucial in the estuarine area. The high demand for piangua in Ecuador has caused overfishing in local areas in the Cayapas – Mataje esturine system and induced increased exploitation in the neighbouring areas in Colombia. Despite existing regulations and several project interventions, the condition of the piangua population has not improved. Between 51% and 58% of pianguas sampled in San Lorenzo (Ecuador) between 2011 and 2014 were below minimum landing size (Moreno, 2017).

Climate variability and climate change

53. In the transboundary basins the most obvious risk factor is ENSO, a recurrent planetary climate phenomenon. El Niño (ENSO´s warm phase) produces an extreme increase in rain and floods in Ecuador and a rain deficit and severe drought in Colombia. It is anticipated that climate change will produce stronger and more frequent ENSO events (Cai et al., 2014; Cai et al., 2015).

54. During El Niño, the Cayapas - Mataje estuarine system is affected by high tides and strong swells. In the Ecuadorian lowlands of the project area, heavy rain causes river overflow and landslides on unstable hillsides. Similar conditions occur in the coastal plain of Colombia (Tumaco municipality). In the Nariño department, temperature increases, and the highlands experience a water deficit (range 40 - 80%) and extensive frosts which affect crops.

55. La Niña (ENSO´s cold phase) produces the opposite. In Ecuador, a deficit of precipitation and increased rainfall in Colombia. However, the Colombian coastal lowland of the project area also has a reduction in precipitation (Cadena et al., 2004). Heavy rainfall affects mostly the highlands of Nariño department with severe impacts. For example, during La Niña 2010, 18,480 families were affected by floods and 10,996 by landslides (CEPAL, 2012).

56. Extreme weather events, like floods and landslides, impact the local population in a range of ways like loss of agriculture production and household items, damage of infrastructure, and increased health risks. At the moment, both countries do not share the hydrometeorological data from the three transboundary basins.

57. There is limited specific information about the possible impacts of climate change in the transboundary basins and the water cycle. However, Nariño´s adaptation plan project for 2050 an increase in temperature of about 2°C and an increase of 9% in precipitation in the lowlands (Guevara et al., 2016). Similarly, water supply to rivers is projected to increase between 50% and 100% in the coastal lowlands where Mira river discharges and between 27% and 50% on the rest of the lowlands. In the highlands, the

27 | P a g e

projected increase of water supply to rivers is <25%. But, IDEAM et al., (2015) has different conclusions and projects an increase in precipitation three times higher than Guevara et al., (2016); with higher levels in the coastal fringe and the higher Andes.

58. There is no similar information for Ecuador. But, Jimenez et al., (2012) made estimates for 2050 for Imbabura, Carchi and Esmeraldas provinces:

a. an increase in temperature of 1.65 °C, 1.67 °C and 1.39°C, respectively in Imbabura, Carchi and Esmeraldas,

b. a minimum reduction of -0.2% in precipitation in Imbabura, and c. an increase in precipitation in Carchi and Esmeraldas of 2.16% and 10.87%, respectively.

Figure 16. Causal – chain analysis of weak water governance in the transboundary basins.

Weak water governance

59. The transboundary basins face a complex situation. A number of causes can be addressed with more (i) stringent monitoring and enforcement of existing regulations and (ii) investment in public infrastructure and development projects. But at the basis of the causal chain analysis is weak water governance. Good water governance is fundamental to implement IWRM because it must strive to balance conflicting interests over water resources and the present and future needs of the various user groups.

60. Both countries have adopted and apply a watershed management approach and have long been advancing towards collaborative management. Even the idea of binational basin councils has been discussed. This is very positive, because sound IWRM of each transboundary basin will require a holistic perspective and actions from multi-level stakeholders, from water users up to water authorities. However, there are severe limitations to advance collaborative IWRM. The main causes are: (i) lack of watershed identity, (ii) existing river basin councils are inoperative, and (iii) uneven operation of water and irrigation boards (which are the fundamental units that exercise water resources management) (Figure 16).

61. At the moment, local water stakeholders lack watershed identity. This occurs mainly because the “watershed” is an abstract technical concept that is difficult to visualise and grasp by local persons who normally know and relate to the water courses with which they interact.

28 | P a g e

62. It has been shown that geographic scale is fundamental for the development of water management purpose (Cheng & Daniels, 2005; Cohen & Davidson, 2011; Cohen, 2012; Cohen, 2012a; Druschke, 2013). Existing management national units are too large and therefore users have difficulty in visualising clear relationships between watershed health and local conditions, as well as the linkages between upstream and coastal dynamics. Also, the watershed units and the management structures (e.g., water rights) do not relate to the cultural and spiritual significance of water to indigenous people.

63. Existing basin councils (Mira and Carchi in Ecuador and Guiza in Colombia) are inoperative. River basin councils are merely consultative bodies where stakeholders do not influence decision-making. Councils are dominated by government representatives, that in practice decide the course of actions. Stakeholders do not have substantive representation, that is to act in the interest of the represented and to be accountable and responsive to them (Pitkin, 1972; Dovi, 2018). Stakeholder representation in river basin management is a complex matter that has not been deeply analysed (Wester et al., 2003; Wester, 2008; Carr, 2015; Franzén et a., 2015). The current approach in the project area is formalistic and does not promote empowerment of the various groups of water users (i.e, sharing power).

64. Cohesion and representation in basin councils are key elements, because these bodies are crucial to construct watershed identity and connection between local users and the regional scale of watershed management (Cheng & Daniels, 2005; Reich, 2006). In contrast, rural water and irrigation boards are grassroots bodies that have direct action in water access and use. These are the basic units to construct water governance from the ground up to the basin level. However, there are some limitations to take in to account:

a. There is a large number of water and irrigation boards. It was not possible to obtain precise numbers. But, from available information it was found that on the 13 Ecuadorian municipalities that are part of the transboundary basins there are 112 water boards (source SENAGUA). Four Colombian municipalities (i.e., El Peñol, El Tambo, La Llanada and Los Andes) have 70 water boards (rural aqueducts) (source Nariño Government). With respect to irrigation boards, Carchi´s seven municipalities have 43 irrigation boards (source SENAGUA) and Ibarra´s six municipalities have at least 143 community irrigation systems (Prefectura de Imbabura, 2015).

b. Irrigation boards are absent in water abundant areas like the Mataje basin. This is an area with abundant water resources and a very small population, where most households use water directly from the watercourses.

c. There is great disparity in the operation and performance of water and irrigation boards. There are strong water and irrigation boards, but also groups that face serious difficulties. In general, local communities strongly assume their responsibility to administer water systems, but sustainability is a major concern. A shared issue is inadequate maintenance and operation of infrastructure and the related services (e.g., disinfection of drinking water) in which cost recovery is a common limitation. In addition, there are difficulties with (i) renovating leadership and (ii) women involvement.

d. The Awá and lowland Afro-descendants do not integrate formal water management entities32. These groups have a profound cultural and spiritual linkages with water but live in forest areas with abundant water resources. Therefore, grassroots management entities like water and irrigation boards are not close to their everyday practice. Consequently, it is a challenge to engage these groups in water governance instances.

65. During project preparation it was found that young persons, in general, are not interested or motivated to get involved in water governance instances. This might be related to the perception that other activities offer better social and economic conditions than agriculture. It has been common that smallholders motivate their children to study and move from farming. This is a key worldwide issue that has been analysed by several authors (Leavy & Hossain, 2014; FAO, 2014).

66. Women have limited participation in water and irrigation boards. A situation that is more acute in irrigation boards. In general, there are marked gender roles assigned to men and women, where men run farming and irrigation and women are in charge of household chores and drinking water. Women face barriers to take leadership roles. In Ecuador, only 15% of water boards and 4% of irrigation boards of the project area were headed by women.

32 In contrast, to Pastos, Otavalos and Andean Afro-descendants who have been farmers with extensive water management practice and are key members of water management units.

29 | P a g e

Summary

67. The transboundary basins are affected by degradation of vital water resources that in turn threaten biodiversity hotspots (tropical Andes and Tumbes-Choco-Magdalena) and the livelihoods of about 1.1 million persons (ca., 24% of them indigenous people). The current scenario is affected by (i) illegal activities that contribute to biodiversity degradation, security risks for the local population, and deterioration of the social fabric, and (ii) climate change which may result in stronger and more frequent ENSO events and an overall increase in temperature and precipitation.

68. To mainstream IWRM at the national and transboundary levels requires coordinated and synergistic action including multiple actors with specific mandates and responsibilities. However, water governance is weak. Therefore, to advance towards collaborative transboundary water management it is necessary to strengthen bottom-up water governance and to mainstream reforms to build collaborative IWRM.

Long-term solution

69. Addressing the issues in the three transboundary basins will require interventions at several public and private levels that are beyond the scope of this project. Currently, local and central governments and civil society are investing in actions that contribute to solve the problems (e.g., irrigation infrastructure, motivating binational collaboration, fighting organised crime), but it is unlikely to have profound short-term impacts because of the complex scenario.

70. In this context, this project will contribute to promote the conservation and sustainable use of water resources by mobilising local, national and binational actions for a comprehensive intervention that strengthen water governance as a basis for IWRM. The Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis / Strategic Action Programme process (TDA / SAP) will be used to build the foundation for long-term collaborative action.

71. Not incorporating a holistic approach to catalyse synergic actions in the transboundary basins will result in further degradation of the water system and loss of valuable biodiversity and ecosystem functions.

Barriers that limit the solution of global problems

72. Even though both countries have solid bilateral cooperation and are committed to address the problems of the transboundary basins, there are barriers which limit the application of IWRM in the transboundary basins.

Barrier 1. Limited experience applying IWRM in transboundary basins

73. Colombia and Ecuador have made important advances and have increased experience in water resources management at the national level. IWRM, watershed management and the ecosystem approach are embedded into the national regulations and strategies of both countries. However, the application of IWRM in the transboundary context is still a new idea. There is previous experience to build upon. Both countries participated in the preparation of the Strategic Action Programme for the Amazon basin 33, and Ecuador is working with Peru on the preparation of a SAP for three transboundary basins34. However, the existing limitations for good water governance make it difficult to move up from domestic to binational water governance.

74. In both countries, it is necessary to develop capacities in water diplomacy (also called hydro-diplomacy) to address possible disagreements and conflicts over water-related matters. This is crucial since the Colombia – Ecuador border is a very sensitive area. In addition, it is necessary to train technical staff from the national water authorities and local governments in integrated watershed management and multilevel dialogue in order to build social sustainability for water management.

33 Prepared as part of project “Integrated and Sustainable Management of Transboundary Water Resources in the Amazon River Basin Considering Climate Variability and Climate Change” (GEF-AMAZON) (GEF ID 2364). A new project (GEF ID 9770) will support the initial implementation of the SAP.34 Project “Integrated Water Resources Management in the Puyango-Tumbes, Catamayo-Chira and Zarumilla Transboundary Aquifers and River Basins” (GEF ID 5284).

30 | P a g e

Barrier 2. Insufficient intersectoral coordination for water resources management

75. Despite the existing national policies and institutional arrangements for water resources management, intersectoral coordination is still an ongoing challenge. In Colombia the national water policy (MAVDT, 2010) identifies the need to strengthen collaboration among the various entities that have an impact on the management of water resources. A key development has been the creation of the National Water Council35 to increase coordination of sectoral policies, plans and programmes within the framework of the national water policy. At the local level it is still challenging the coordination with the regional environmental authorities36, local governments37 and community water aqueducts38. There is a similar challenge in Ecuador, where the water authority must coordinate with other sectoral entities (e.g., Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock), municipalities (responsible for drinking water and sanitation), provincial governments (manage public irrigation systems and develop infrastructure in water basins) and community organisations that manage water provision and irrigation services. The Ecuadorian water law established the Intercultural and Plurinational Water Council to oversee the implementation of public policies, but this entity has not yet functioned.

Barrier 3. Limited integration of key stakeholders in managing water resources

76. Despite the existing legal and institutional developments, there is incipient participatory management of water resources in the target basins. As mentioned before, stakeholders do not have substantive representation in basin councils. Lack of coordination among stakeholders – which have different perspectives and usually competing water needs -- has contributed to predominate sectoral and local perspectives that do not envision the watershed as a whole.

Barrier 4. Hydrometeorological data of the transboundary basins is not shared

77. Transboundary data sharing is a necessary element for IWRM and early warning systems for disaster risk reduction. Currently, the National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology (INAMHI) and the Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies (IDEAM) do not share hydrometeorological data of the transboundary basins. There are two main limitations:

a. Data generation. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) recommended meteorological station density is not met. Ecuador´s station density is insufficient in Carchi - Guáitara, upper and lower Mira and Mataje. Colombia´s station density is insufficient in upper Mira. For hydrological monitoring, station density is insufficient in the Ecuadorian part of Mira, and no country has monitoring stations in Mataje.

b. Data sharing. There are no agreed data sharing procedures.

Barrier 5. Existing binational instruments are insufficient to sustain collaborative action

78. Colombia and Ecuador have a long history of binational collaboration, several instruments have been developed:

35 Created by Law 1753 of 2015 and made operative by Decree 585 of 5 April 2017.The National Water Council initiated activities on June 2018.36 Regional environmental authorities ("corporaciones autónomas regionales", CARs) are decentralised autonomous institutions in charge of implementing national policies and regulations as well as managing the natural resources in their jurisdiction (e.g., paramos, forests), included water resources. With respect to water resources, CARs: (i) allocate water to users, (ii) control water pollution, (iii) prepare and implement watershed management plans ("Planes de Ordenación y Manejo de Cuencas Hidrográficas", abbreviated as POMCA) and (iv) implement actions for ecosystem protection.37 Municipal authorities are responsible for the provision of water and sanitation. In addition, the departmental governments coordinate and implement departmental water plans ("planes departamentales de de agua", abbreviated PDA) that channel investments from the Ministry of Housing, City and Territory.38 Community rural aqueducts are water provision systems managed by organised local groups. They (i) install and operate infrastructure to provide drinking water and (ii) elect a board to administer the water system. It has been estimated that there are about 12,000 rural aqueducts in Colombia. There are legal gaps that make them considered illegal, but at the same time receive government support to improve their capacities and service. A key issue is provision of clean water. In general, it has been found that in rural areas drinking water is not safe. MINSALUD (2018) reported that rural water in Nariño has a high Water Quality Risk Index.

31 | P a g e

a. Colombo - Ecuadorian Neighbourhood and Integration Commission39, which has been the basis for several initiatives and agreements. It has a Binational Technical Committee on Environmental Affairs which has a watersheds working group.

b. Colombo - Ecuadorian Integration Zone40 to foster sustainable development on the border area. A binational plan for the integration zone was adopted in 2014 (DNP & SENPLADES, 2017); it has a set of sectoral targets and an investment plan41. A fiduciary fund -- Fondo de Desarrollo Fronterizo y de Reparación Social42-- was created in 2018 to finance actions from the binational plan.

c. Binational cabinets. This is an operation mechanism to define and agree joint actions on issues of bilateral interest, as well as to assess progress of previous commitments. Seven binational cabinets have been held since 201243. On the sixth binational cabinet (Pereira, February 2018) both presidents endorsed the present project.

d. Binational plan for integrated water management for the three transboundary basins (MINAMBIENTE & SENAGUA. 2017). This plan was prepared by Colombia´s Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MADS) and Ecuador´s Water Secretariat (SENAGUA) within the framework of the watersheds working group and was endorsed by the governments on the fourth binational cabinet (Cali, December 2015). The agreed action plan established that at least one project must be prioritised to be executed depending on budget availability of the countries.

79. Despite all this progress, there are limitations to sustain formal binational action to advance on transboundary watershed management:

a. First, the binational plan for the integration zone includes within the environmental binational policies to guarantee integrated watershed management with emphasis on the basins that occupy binational territory. But there are no specific related actions. The indicators and targets for environmental sustainability relate to cover of native forest.

b. Second, the binational plan for the transboundary basins (MINAMBIENTE & SENAGUA. 2017) is very general and is not being implemented.

80. Ecuador and Peru signed in 2018 an international instrument that established a binational commission for integrated management of water resources of the transboundary watersheds44. A comparable formal instrument could be used to sustain the work on the transboundary watersheds shared by Colombia and Ecuador.

Barrier 6. Deterioration of the social fabric as a result of illegal activities

81. As mentioned before, the transboundary basins are affected by illegal actions that cause insecurity and violation of human rights (HRW, 2018). Key issues are the fragmentation and expansion of illegal armed groups, increase of illegal crops in Colombia and illegal mining in both countries, attacks to civilians and forced displacement45. Illegal activities have fostered an illegal economy based on cross-border trafficking of drugs, arms, ammunition, supplies, among others. Widespread violence and illegal activities deteriorate the social fabric and undermine social cohesion.

39 In 1989 the Colombo-Ecuadorian Neighbourhood Commission was established, later in 2011 it was transformed into the Colombo - Ecuadorian Neighbourhood and Integration Commission.40 The legal basis for the Colombo - Ecuadorian Integration Zone is Decision 501 of 2001 of the Andean Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs. The border integration zone includes two departments of Colombia (Nariño and Putumayo) and four Ecuadorian provinces (Esmeraldas, Carchi, Imbabura, Sucumbíos). 41 See http://www.sbi-ecuador-colombia.info.42 The fund is administered by the InteAmerican Development Bank and will be capitalized with national contributions (total USD 10 million per country, with annual inputs of USD2,000,000 per country).43 Last binational cabinet was held in December 2018.44 "Acuerdo que establece la Comisión Binacional para la Gestión Integrada de los Recursos Hídricos de las Cuencas Hidrográficas Transfronterizas ente la República del Ecuador y la República del Perú". This instrument was developed as part of the implementation of project “Integrated Water Resources Management in the Puyango-Tumbes, Catamayo-Chira and Zarumilla Transboundary Aquifers and River Basins” (GEF ID 5284).45 Colombia´s Constitutional Court Auto 620 of 2017 (15 November 2017).

32 | P a g e

82. The construction of water governance for transboundary watershed management will have to confront a complex scenario and therefore implement conflict-sensitive actions that do not have adverse effects on the stakeholders and the overall context.

III. STRATEGY 83. Solving the range of problems occurring in the three transboundary watersheds is beyond the means of

the present project considering the scope of interventions which will be needed, such as (i) investing in facilities for wastewater treatment and irrigation, (ii) strengthening control and enforcement of productive activities or (iii) confronting illegal mining. However, the present GEF project can assist the countries to set the foundation for collaborative transboundary watershed management.

33 | P a g e

Figure 17. Theory of change (a) and points of entry of the three pilot interventions.

84. The project will focus on water governance which is one of the root causes of the present situation in the area (Figure 10 and Figure 16). This is done in the understanding that improved water governance will contribute to construct sound transboundary IWRM (Figure 17). As mentioned before, there is a range of other factors that limit IWRM, but the basis of this project is that improved water governance will catalyse a range of improvements along the causal chain.

85. The TDA/SAP process will be the main tool. An exercise of deep collaborative and inclusive analysis and strategic planning will warrant the mainstreaming of fundamental elements such as watershed identity, governance, participation and representation. The aim will be to have a formal binding instrument (the SAP) that has an adequate balance between the technical, social-gender and political dimensions of transboundary management. In addition, it is envisioned that the SAP will be the basis for future actions at the local, national and binational levels.

86. To complement the TDA/SAP process, the project will develop:a. some training activities to confront (i) the lack of watershed identity, (ii) the issues in the

operation of river basin councils and water and irrigation boards, and (iii) the limited participation of women in water governance (Figure 17a), and

b. some practical experiences to generate learning on key issues (inadequate wastewater treatment, climate-related landslides, and hydrometeorological data sharing) (Figure 17b), and

c. the preparation of a public investment project to obtain fiscal funds for improving the performance of rural aqueducts in 12 municipalities of Nariño.

IV. RESULTS AND PARTNERSHIPS

Expected results

87. The objective of the project is to promote integrated water resources management (IWRM) in the Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara river basins shared by Colombia and Ecuador by strengthening the institutional and managerial capacities at the regional, local and community levels for achieving environmental and socioeconomic benefits.

88. The project is organized in four components and five outcomes. In total, six outputs will be generated (Table 10). The four components are: Component 1 will develop a participatory process to generate an integrated diagnosis on the current

situation of the three transboundary basins (i.e., Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis). Component 2 will develop a participatory process to prepare a binding instrument with priority

actions to advance IWRM (i.e., Strategic Action Programme). Component 3 will help to build human capital through training activities. Component 4 will focus on generating and sharing lessons and practical experience.

Table 10. Project outcomes and outputs.

Outcomes Outputs

Outcome 1. Priority transboundary issues affecting quality and quantity of water, its vulnerability to climate change and variability and barriers for IWRM, and their immediate and root causes, have been identified, including a governance and stakeholder analysis to further inform the SAP process.

1. Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) on Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara basins, based on the secondary information and generation of primary information, including structural causes, future status and dynamics completed and validated.

34 | P a g e

Outcomes Outputs

Outcome 2. Priority actions required for achieving IWRM of the Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara basins identified and integrated to the binational, national and sub-national development plans in both countries.

2. Strategic Action Program (SAP) adopted by the two countries focused on priority actions (e.g., governance reforms, investments) to address the transboundary issues identified by the TDA.

Outcome 3. Improved individual and institutional capacities in both countries to apply IWRM in the binational basins.

3. Training of key national and subnational stakeholders in key aspects to apply IWRM (water governance and improved operation of water and irrigation boards).

Outcome 4.1. Integrated water resource management and sustainable land use reduce pollution, improve water use efficiency and protect/restore aquatic ecosystems in the Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara river basins and their aquifers.

4.1.1. Three small scale innovative interventions on IWRM to reduce pollution from domestic wastewater, facilitate hydrometeorological data sharing and reduce risk of climate-related landslides.4.1.2. One pre-feasibility study to catalyse investments to improve the operation of rural water boards.

Outcome 4.2. Learning generated through replicable innovative interventions supports the SAP development and decision making.

4.2. Systematization of results, lessons and experience from the project and the innovative interventions in the Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara basins is available for relevant national and subnational stakeholders, as well as for other projects through participation in IW:LEARN.

35 | P a g e

Figure 18. Road map for the development of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis.

Component 1. Generation of knowledge, information management and diagnostic analysis of the current status of the transboundary water resources (surface and ground waters) of the Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara binational basins.

Outcome 1. Priority transboundary issues affecting quality and quantity of water, its vulnerability to climate change and variability and barriers for IWRM, and their immediate and root causes, have been identified, including a governance and stakeholder analysis to further inform the SAP process.

89. This is a binational component focused on completing a comprehensive analysis of the situation in the three transboundary basins. The expected outcome is that the situation of the watersheds is examined, and the transboundary and shared problems are identified (Table 10).

90. This component will be driven by the binational coordinator of the project (CBP) in close collaboration with (i) a TDA/SAP specialist (ETS) and (ii) a gender, participation and intercultural specialist (EGP) ( ). The ETS will be responsible for the technical implementation of the TDA/SAP process and the EGP will ensure that (i) the process is participatory and inclusive and (ii) that key aspects like governance, watershed identity, participation, representation and gender are addressed.

91. The construction of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis will be based mainly on existing information. There is good amount of material that has been generated over the years by a range of entities. For example, (i) there is hydrometeorological and water quality information generated by INAMHI and IDEAM, (ii) there are lessons about women involvement in water conservation and local measures for climate change adaptation that have been developed by Altropico, Corporación Grupo Randi Randi and WWF-Colombia, and (iii) there are lessons about water conservation that have been generated by the Government of Nariño (GOBNAR) and the three provincial governments of Ecuador46. In addition, there are some ongoing projects that will produce valuable inputs for the TDA47. Finally, both countries will bring their previous experience with the preparation of the TDA for the Amazon basin (GEF ID 2364) and the Ecuadorian experience with the TDA of the Puyango-Tumbes, Catamayo-Chira and Zarumilla basins (GEF ID 5284). A strategic axis of the analysis will be the linkages between watershed (upstream) and coastal (downstream) dynamics (e.g., pollution, sediment transport, fisheries and coastal biodiversity).

92. The standard GEF methodology will be used to develop the TDA/SAP process (GEF, 2013). However, the TDA process was adapted during project preparation (Figure 18). The main adaptations are:a. Set a minimum level of participation of persons from non-state entities 48 (>30%) and women (>40%)

in the TDA development team.b. Have consultants that compile and systematise information before the first meeting of the TDA team

(Annex 4).c. Dedicate the TDA launch meeting to agree on the operating procedures of the group.d. Have a specific workshop for the identification of prioritization of transboundary problems.e. Have a specific workshop (after thematic reports have been prepared and analysed) to review the

initial causal chain analysis and identify the leverage points.93. Six consultants will support the TDA process: (i) TDA/SAP process trainer, (ii) consultant to compile and

organize existing IWRM information, (iii) consultant to compile and organize existing social affairs

46 Decentralized Autonomous Government of the Esmeraldas province (GAD Esmeraldas), Decentralized Autonomous Government of the Imbabura province (GAD Imbabura) and Decentralized Autonomous Government of the Carchi province (GAD Carchi).47 The MacArthur Foundation is funding five projects that will generate information on a range of topics, including community-led conservation, ecosystem services and water conservation (see https://www.macfound.org/grants/?q=mira-mataje). These projects focus on Mira and Mataje. The Adaptation Fund is financing a project focused on food security of indigenous and Afro-descendant communities in the three transboundary watersheds (“Building adaptive capacity through food and nutrition security and peacebuilding actions in vulnerable Afro and indigenous communities in the Colombia-Ecuador border area”, see https://www.adaptation-fund.org/project/building-adaptive-capacity-climate-change-food-security-nutrition-actions-vulnerable-afro-indigenous-communities-colombia-ecuador-border-area-colombia-ecuador-2/). This project will prepare a vulnerability analysis that will be a direct input for the TDA.48 This was suggested during consultation meetings with stakeholders, to prevent that the TDA team is dominated by public entities.

36 | P a g e

information, (iv) water resources specialist, (v) biodiversity specialist and (vi) climate change specialist (Annex 4). Four thematic reports were identified during project preparation (Annex 4): Thematic report 1. Governance of water and irrigation boards with a gender approach and

intercultural analysis. Thematic report 2. Diagnosis and prospective of supply, demand, water balance and water quality in

the transboundary basins Ecuador-Colombia. Thematic report 3. Assessment of vulnerability to contamination of the Tulcán Ipiales aquifer. Thematic report 4. Identification of innovative domestic water supply technologies applicable in rural

areas of the transboundary basins.94. The TDA will be adopted by the project board and widely disseminated.

Component 2. Strategic planning to strengthen governance for transboundary IWRM in Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara binational watersheds and aquifers.

Outcome 2. Priority actions required for achieving IWRM of the Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara basins identified and integrated to the binational, national and sub-national development plans in both countries.

95. A core group will be established to prepare the Strategic Action Programme (i.e., SAP development team). This group will be formed by key government agencies and the local governments that form part of the transboundary basins (i.e., GOBNAR, GAD Carchi, GAD Imbabura, and GAD Esmeraldas). The ministries of foreign affairs will have a fundamental role to facilitate bilateral negotiations and outlining the pertinent diplomatic procedures and instruments. It has been set a minimum level of participation for women (>40%) in the SAP development team.

96. The SAP process was adapted during project preparation (Figure 19). The main adaptations are:a. To have consultants that implement a set of communication and consultation actions to ensure that

SAP development is inclusive.b. Dedicate the SAP launch meeting to agree on the operating procedures of the group.c. To have two moments for consultation. The first with local stakeholders, and the second with key

government entities (e.g., ministries of the economy, cabinet council).97. The EGP will ensure that the process is participatory and inclusive. For this purpose, a set of actions will be

implemented to ensure fluid information, dialogue and consultation with stakeholders and indigenous people and Afro-descendants (from source-to-sea approach). An SAP participation and gender equality assistant and five community workers49 will be contracted to work at the local level.

98. The information, involvement and consultation process will initiate when the TDA is adopted by the project board (Figure 19). The first step will be to communicate its content (e.g., transboundary problems and root causes). Afterwards direct dialogue will continue to analyse key topics (e.g., forms for effective representation in basin councils, women empowerment) and generate contributions for the SAP development process. This will prepare the ground for formal stakeholder consultation of the draft SAP. Finally, this process will close when the SAP is endorsed by both government and its content is communicated to local groups.

99. Prior consultation to indigenous people is mandatory in Colombia and the process to be followed has been clearly regulated. One of the aspects that is subject to consultation is national and regional development plans which may affect them directly (DNP, 2012). Because the SAP is an instrument that will include territories of indigenous people and Afro-descendants, it is very likely that it will have to subject to prior consultation before it is subscribed by the Colombian government. The information, involvement and consultation process which is part of the TDA/SAP process was designed to inform and engage indigenous people and their organisations so that, if prior consultation of the SAP is required, they will be well acquainted and have contributed to its construction.

100.Once a first rough draft of the SAP is ready, it will be subject to stakeholder consultation in four geographic areas: Carchi – Guáitara basin, mid and high Mira basin, low Mira basin and Mataje basin (Figure 19). Three consultation workshops will be held on each area. The first, will serve to provide basic

49 These will be local persons that work directly with indigenous people. In Colombia, three community workers will work with the Awá, Pastos and Afro-descendants. In Ecuador, two persons will be hired. One to work with Awá and African-descendants and another to work with indigenous people in the highlands.

37 | P a g e

information, relevant background and to present the draft SAP. The following two workshops will provide space for analysis of the proposal and to draft comments, recommendations and contributions. A professional facilitation team will run the stakeholder consultation in close coordination with the community workers, the SAP participation and gender equality assistant and the EGP. The workshops will be designed to facilitate participation of women and men, mutual respect and collective decision-making.

101.The inputs from stakeholder consultation will serve to assemble the SAP. This document will be subject to consultation with high level government officials from both countries (e.g., ministry of the economy, governor of Nariño, prefects of Carchi, Imbabura and Esmeraldas). This will serve (i) to build political support, (ii) to ensure that the SAP is linked to national priorities, (iii) to secure firm commitments in support of SAP implementation, and (iv) to finalise binational negotiations that might be necessary.

102.Finally, the SAP will be formally endorsed at the highest possible level and widely communicated.

Figure 19. Road map for the development of the Strategic Action Programme.

Component 3. Capacity building at public, private and community level enabling the shared IWRM of Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara river basins.

Outcome 3. Improved individual and institutional capacities in both countries to apply IWRM in the binational basins.

103.The expected outcome is Improved individual and institutional capacities in both countries to apply IWRM in the binational basins. There will be four sets of training activities aimed at different target groups:

a. A training course on transboundary water governance (hydro-diplomacy) will be designed for officers of national (e.g., water authorities, ministries of foreign affairs) and local governments (GOBNAR, prefectures). A set of short videos summarizing the main concepts and tools will be prepared and released through the project YouTube channel, IW:LEARN, and water authorities in both countries.

38 | P a g e

b. Water School, aimed at actors linked to IWRM, will be potentiated. The Water School is a continuing education programme established by SENAGUA in 201650. Since then the conceptual framework of the programme and some courses have been developed51. The project will support an upgrading of the existing programme to ensure that is focused, effective and has impact, as well as mainstreaming a source-to-sea approach. Pilot courses will be developed and tested; the focus will be on basin councils and water and irrigation boards to contribute to strengthen water governance. A set of short videos with key messages will be prepared and disseminated. Lessons will be shared with Colombian partners.

c. Technical training for water and irrigation boards. There are several courses available in various organizations like the Colombian “Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje” (National Training Service, abbreviated SENA). The project will consult with UNDP´s Cap-Net programme (www.cap-net.org) to take advantage of the large catalogue of IWRM and water management courses and its relevant networks in South America. The project will contribute to develop / adapt courses that mainstream elements to strengthen water governance. Using inputs from the thematic report 1 (paragraph 93) and the needs assessment prepared for the Water School, two courses will be prepared (one for water boards and the other for irrigation boards) and trainers will be prepared. The courses will be tested with specific groups in Colombia and Ecuador and adjusted afterwards as needed. Finally, institutional and financial arrangements will be prepared to anchor this type of training into local entities that can sustain them in the long term.

d. Training to mainstream gender in water governance. Based on the results of thematic report 1, a short training course will be prepared to promote participation of women in water governance (focused on the role of women in water and irrigation boards). The course contents will include gender and intercultural matters. The course will be developed and tested with specific groups in Colombia and Ecuador and adjusted afterwards as needed. It is envisioned that this course will be assimilated by local entities that can sustain it in the long term.

Component 4. Innovative interventions for testing the socio-economic and environmental benefits from applying the IWRM at selected sites of the Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara river basins.

104.This component has two outcomes, the first is aimed at generating experience and lessons on key issues of the transboundary basins, and the second is intended at capturing and disseminating the project results, lessons and experience (Table 10).

Outcome 4.1. Integrated water resource management and sustainable land use reduce pollution, improve water use efficiency and protect/restore aquatic ecosystems in the Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara river basins and their aquifers

105.This outcome comprises three small scale innovate interventions (output 4.1.1) and one pre-feasibility study (output 4.1.2). The three interventions are: Pilot 1. Implementation of purification systems using redworms (Eisenia foetida), as an alternative for

the reduction of pollutant loads of residual domestic effluents in the rural parishes of Tufiño, Angochagua and Mataje in Ecuador, and the Municipality of Cumbal in Colombia.

Pilot 2. Binational information system integration through strengthening of the hydrometeorological network at Carchi-Guáitara and Mira binational basins.

Pilot 3. Community bioengineering as a process of adaptation to changing climate conditions and reduction of risk in the sub-basin of the Güiza River, Nariño, Colombia.

106.The pilot interventions were identified and selected by the project partners and then prepared by the entities that will implement them once the project begins. Annex 11 contain the pilot projects.

50 Resolution 2016-1442 of 5 December 2016.51 See: http://rpa.senagua.gob.ec/index.php/escuela-del-agua http://186.42.121.45/escuelaagua/

39 | P a g e

107.Pilot 1 is a binational intervention to install vermifilters to treat domestic wastewater in three localities in Ecuador and one locality in Colombia. Vermifiltration is a low cost easy to operate procedure that removes organic matter and pathogens, the effluent can be used for irrigation and generate humus as a byproduct (Arora et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2017; Jatin, 2018). Vermifilters are operating in a few localities in Ecuador and the pilot will contribute to have practical experience on their performance and operation and to assess their usefulness for small communities in the transboundary watersheds. For each locality, the project will cover part of the cost of the equipment the rest will be covered by contributions from local governments. This pilot will be executed by the Commonwealth of northern Ecuador52 (MNE) and by the Government of Nariño.

108.Pilot 2 is also a binational intervention to have real-time hydrometeorological data available to support early warning systems and as an input for decision-making through a public binational integrated display (viewer) to query data at various scales. GEF funds will be used (i) to provide a few key equipment (e.g., automatic hydrological and meteorological stations, Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler), (ii) to develop capacities for data transmission, storage and treatment, and (iii) to present information through Colombia’s FEWS platform53. The pilot will work in Carchi-Guáitara and Mira; Mataje was not included because of high risk for personnel and equipment. INAMHI and IDEAM will jointly execute this intervention.

109.Pilot 3 is a national intervention in Colombia to demonstrate the use of native vegetation and local knowledge to stabilise unstable slopes. The pilot will be developed in the Ricaurte municipality (on an area with high risk of landslides) which is part of Guiza river basin (Mira basin). GEF resources will fund (i) the training of the local community, (ii) materials and plants, and (iii) documentation and dissemination of lessons. The pilot will be executed by WWF-Colombia in collaboration with GOBNAR.

110.GEF funds will support a pre-feasibility study to improve performance of rural community aqueducts in 12 municipalities of the Nariño department. This study will (i) assess key operation issues (e.g., legal, administrative, financial, technical, maintenance) and the associated risks for human health, (ii) develop an action plan to overcome existing problems and strengthen operation of the aqueducts, and (iii) prepare a public investment project to implement the action plan. This plan will include technical aspects (e.g., cost-recovery), governance and investments for maintenance and upgrade of the water system (e.g., grit chamber, distribution network). The information from the diagnosis and the action plan will directly feed to the TDA/SAP process. The public investment project will be in presented to the Colombian General System of Royalty Payments54. It is foreseen that contribution of the GEF (USD120,000) will leverage an investment of > USD2,000,000 and will benefit about 82,000 persons. In addition, this financial mechanism will be discussed during SAP preparation.

111.The project´s monitoring and evaluation specialist (EME) will monitor and document the implementation of the pilots and the preparation of the public investment project (a web-based logbook will be kept). This person will ensure divulgation of progress and results and will encourage networking among participants and key stakeholders.

Outcome 4.2. Learning generated through replicable innovative interventions supports the SAP development and decision making.

112. This outcome focuses on documenting and sharing the lessons from the project and the pilot interventions. Three lines of work will be developed:

a. Facilitate communication among key actors of the project and disseminate achievements and lessons.

b. Document and disseminate the project lessons.c. Incorporate the gender perspective in the project management and actions.

52 The Commonwealth of northern Ecuador was established in 2011 as a mechanism for integration and development of the four northernmost provinces of Ecuador. These provinces are part of the Colombo - Ecuadorian Integration Zone.53 FEWS Colombia is an online visor that show river levels and hydrological alerts (http://www.ideam.gov.co/web/agua/fews). It is operated by IDEAM and uses Delf-FEWS (Werner et al., 2013).54 The Colombian General System of Royalty Payments (“Sistema General de Regalías de Colombia”, abbreviate SGR) provide funding for investment projects of the local governments.

40 | P a g e

113.At least 1% of GEF financing will support IW:LEARN activities such as setting and hosting a project website (see paragraph 118 and budget notes 25 and 27), share project achievements and lessons (see section document and disseminate project lessons) and support participation in relevant events and international waters conferences (IWC) (see paragraph 127).

114.The project´s communication specialist (COM) will oversee this outcome ().

Facilitate communication

115.At project start, the COM will establish a workgroup with the communication teams of the project partners. Each partner entity will designate a delegate that will integrate the workgroup and that will be the channel for the flow of information and communication materials. This workgroup in communication will prepare and agree:a. Annual work plans that will be jointly implemented and evaluated, and b. protocols and procedures for collaboration and joint actions.

116.The COM will prepare press materials and news, but their dissemination will be done through the channels and social networks of the project partners (e.g., YouTube, Instagram, Twitter).

117.In the first quarter of project implementation, the COM will prepare: A detailed communications strategy that will be focused on (i) actors and groups of interest (with a

clear focus on assisting the TDA/SAP process), and (ii) pilot intervention sites. The strategy will be analysed with the communication teams and it will be executed through annual joint work plans. At the end of each year, the workgroup will evaluate achievements and performance of the project´s communication strategy and it will make relevant adjustments.

Three guidelines about:a. Organization of sustainable events (UNEP, 2009; UNEP, 2012),b. Behaviour and use of inclusive language with gender perspective, and c. Organization of inclusive events with gender perspective.The guidelines will be agreed with the partners and implemented in all project actions.

118.The EPCG will be responsible for managing the project website that will be linked to the websites of the project partners, UNDP and IW: LEARN.

119.If necessary, accounts will be created and maintained in virtual platforms and social networks (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram) that are accessible to the target audiences of the project. However, the priority will be that information flows through the partner channels and networks.

120.A quarterly digital bulletin with news and information of the project will be prepared, which will be distributed to all the target audiences of the project.

Document and disseminate project lessons

121.The COM will establish both methods and procedures for the project team to systematically document the experience of the project and finally prepare documents that present the project learning. The COM will guide in the practice the project team so that they can adequately document experiences, good practices and the interventions performed.

122.Onsite meetings for self-assessment and reflection with be organised with local key stakeholders implementing pilot interventions55. A key element of these sessions will be to examine women´s contributions and perspectives. The results of these meetings will be systematized and presented to the Steering Committee of the project and reported in the annual reports to the GEF.

123.At the end of year 3, it is expected to prepare three documents that systematise the project experience:a. Application of the TDA / SAP process in the three transboundary watersheds.b. Advancing governance in the transboundary watersheds.c. Visibility and strengthening of the role of women in water management.

55 Three meetings per pilot intervention: (i) three months after pilot initiation, (ii) at midterm, and (iii) when closing the pilot.

41 | P a g e

124.These documents will have a dissemination format to be accessible to a broad audience. Each document (i) will have an executive summary in in Spanish, Awá pit, Kichwa and English, and (ii) will be in high-quality PDF format to be downloaded from the Web.

125.For project closure, a memoir that summarise the project experience will be prepared in a simple and very graphics format. The memoir will have executive summaries in Spanish, Awá pit, Kichwa and English, and will be distributed mainly in PDF format through electronic means. However, it is expected to print a few hard copies for audiences without access to the web. In addition, three short videos will be prepared. These will summarise the project achievements and lessons, including testimonies of key stakeholders and beneficiaries. The short videos will be made available through IW:LEARN, the project partners websites and YouTube.

126.The formal closure will be performed on the second quarter of the fourth year. A public event will be organized in each country with broad participation of beneficiaries, key stakeholders and project partners.

127.To support dissemination of advances and lessons, GEF resources will be invested to support participation in the international waters’ conferences of 2020 and 2022.

Incorporate gender perspective

128.The project has a gender action plan that guides the actions to be carried out to contribute to the generate of equal opportunities for men and women and to contribute to the empowerment of women (Annex 7). The gender action plan is summarised below in the PRODOC.

129.The binational coordinator of the project will be responsible for ensuring the adequate implementation of the gender action plan and for encouraging that the interventions of the project incorporate a gender approach. The EPG will coordinate the implementation of the gender action plan.

130.The actions of the gender plan are incorporated in all interventions of the project. However, to ensure an effective implementation, the EPG will organize (at the latest during the second quarter of the project implementation) the training of the project team and key staff of the project partners in key aspects of gender, cultural sensitivity and use of inclusive language. In these meetings, the gender action plan will be reviewed and the ways in which each person can contribute to its implementation will be analysed. The EPG will provide induction in gender aspects, cultural sensitivity and use of inclusive language to all new staff that joins the project as well as new partners that are incorporated during the implementation of the project.

131.Annual meetings will be organised with women´s groups to have their views and recommendations about empowering women to participate in water governance.

132.Every six months it will be verified (i) the status of budget execution related the gender action and (ii) there are appropriate conditions for participation and involvement of women in project interventions. This will be documented and reported within the project reports.

Partnerships

133.The project partners are: In Colombia, (i) the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MADS), (ii) the

Government of Nariño, (iii) the Regional Autonomous Corporation of Nariño (CORPONARIÑO), (iv) the Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies, (v) the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and (vi) WWF-Colombia.

In Ecuador, (i) the Water Secretariat, (ii) the Decentralized Autonomous Government of the Carchi province, (iii) the Decentralized Autonomous Government of the Imbabura province, (iv) the Decentralized Autonomous Government of the Esmeraldas province, (v) the Commonwealth of northern Ecuador (MNE), (vi) INAMHI and (vii) the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Key entities in Colombia

134.The Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development is also the national water authority. MADS guide the implementation of IWRM and the watershed management approach. The ministry delineates and establish instruments and regulations for water conservation and management. It oversees the implementation of the national water policy and the environment-related actions of the regional

42 | P a g e

environmental authorities. In addition, MADS deals with forests, biodiversity, ecosystem services, climate change, and environmental land use planning.

135.The Government of Nariño is responsible for the implementation of the department development plan. It has a Secretariat for Environment and Sustainable Development which oversee and coordinate actions for environmental management, including water conservation. GOBNAR also has a departmental water plan to catalyse (i) the provision of drinking water and sanitation services and (ii) water conservation. GOBNAR will oversee (i) the execution of the pilots on wastewater treatment with vermifilters (see paragraph 107) and community bioengineering (see paragraph 109) and (ii) the preparation of the public investment project to improve performance of rural aqueducts (see paragraph 110).

136.The Regional Autonomous Corporation of Nariño is responsible for implementing policies and regulations for sustainable use and conservation of natural resources (including water, paramos and forests). CORPONARIÑO is a regional environmental authority. With respect to water resources, the corporation (i) allocate water to users, (ii) control water pollution, (iii) prepare and implement watershed management plans (POMCAs) and (iv) implement actions for ecosystem protection.

137.The Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies is an agency of MADS. It generates and provides hydrological, meteorological and environmental information (e.g., pollution, ecosystems, climate change) to support the development of public policies and related decision making. IDEAM assess the current situation and possible future water scenarios.

138.The Ministry of Foreign Affairs organise and coordinate the Colombo - Ecuadorian Neighbourhood and Integration Commission, the implementation of binational plan for the integration zone, and the binational cabinets. In the present project the ministry will oversee the development of the TDA and the SAP and the formal adoption of the latter.

139.WWF-Colombia is an NGO that has advocating for water conservation and sound management of the transboundary watersheds. It has generated important inputs for the TDA – for example the socio-environmental atlas of the Mira and Mataje transboundary basins (Gómez et al., 2017) -- and is implementing a project to advance on water governance and community-led conservation in Mira and Mataje (sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation). WWF-Colombia will execute, in coordination with GOBNAR, the pilot on community bioengineering (see paragraph 109).

Key entities in Ecuador

140.The Water Secretariat is the national water authority and oversee the implementation of IWRM with a watershed management approach. The secretariat is responsible for the implementation of the water law and related regulations. It deals with regulation and administration of water quality, drinking water, irrigation and water governance. SENAGUA developed the Water School which will be upgraded with the present project.

141.The Decentralized Autonomous Governments of Carchi, Imbabura and Esmeraldas provinces are responsible for the implementation of provincial development plans. The prefectures have jurisdiction on (i) environmental management, (ii) construction, operation and maintenance of irrigation systems, (iii) the promotion of agricultural production, and (iv) the development, in coordination with other local governments, infrastructure works in basins and micro basins. The three provincial governments will directly contribute to the execution of the pilots on wastewater treatment with vermifilters (see paragraph 107).

142.The Commonwealth of northern Ecuador is a legal entity that facilitates integration and collaboration of the four northernmost provinces of Ecuador. MNE will oversee the execution of pilot 1 on the three selected localities.

143.The National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology is responsible for the generation and dissemination of hydrometeorological information. It administers the national network of hydrological and meteorological stations56. INAMHI and IDEAM will implement the pilot for real-time sharing of hydrometeorological data.

144.The Ministry of Foreign Affairs organise and coordinate the Colombo - Ecuadorian Neighbourhood and Integration Commission, the implementation of binational plan for the integration zone, and the

56 See https://abeltran94.wixsite.com/inamhi/novedades.

43 | P a g e

binational cabinets. In the present project the ministry will oversee the development of the TDA and the SAP and the formal adoption of the latter.

Strategic allies

TDA/SAP process

145.To achieve outcomes 1 and 2, it will be fundamental to collaborate with the organizations that are generating information about water conservation in the Mira and Mataje basins: Altropico, ECOLEX, Corporación Grupo Randi Randi, WWF-Colombia and Duke University. These entities are implementing five projects funded by the MacArthur Foundation (total investment USD2,045,000) that initiated in 2017 and will finish around 2020. Their actions are complementary and have a coordination mechanism.

146.Duke University execute the largest project (USD 870,000) through a consortium with Sustainable Development Solutions Network for the Andean region57 (SDSN Andes), Corporación Grupo Randi Randi, Fundación Ecológica Los Colibríes, WWF-Colombia, Universidad Regional Amazónica Ikiam, Universidad de Nariño, Instituto de Investigaciones Ambientales del Pacífico (IIAP) and Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (INABIO). This project has three lines of action (i) to collect and systematise existing information, (ii) to generate new information58, and (iii) to advance water governance. Three key products to be generated are a web-based information repository (called Wiki-Mira), a GIS database, and binational strategy. It will be important that the TDA/SAP process build upon the results of these projects.

147.Another key partner will be the World Food Programme (WFP) which is implementing the project “building adaptive capacity through food and nutrition security and peacebuilding actions in vulnerable Afro and indigenous communities in the Colombia-Ecuador border area”59. This project is funded by the Adaptation Fund and has three components: Increase community awareness and knowledge on climate change risks and food security and

nutrition in two border binational watersheds. Increase binational, institutional and community capacities to sustainably address recurrent climate

risks, particularly those that affect food security and nutrition. Reduce recurrent climate vulnerabilities through innovative community and ecosystem-driven

adaption measures that reduce food insecurity.148.The WFP project will produce an assessment of the vulnerability of the watersheds to climate change that

will be a valuable input for the TDA process.149.Another key partner is the GEF Small Grants Programme in Colombia60 which together with GOBNAR

implemented Sur Sostenible, a joint initiative that financed 58 community projects for protection and conservation of biodiversity and water resources. The lessons from these projects will be valuable for the TDA / SAP process.

150.It will be valuable to use the information and lessons generated by the “sustainable family farming modernization project”. This project is funded by loans from the World Bank (USD80 million) and the Government of Spain plus a grant from the European Union through the Latin American Investment Fund (LAIF). The project initiated in 2015 and will close in 2021. Its objective is to enhance incomes of small and medium sized farm households by supporting more productive and climate-smart use for land and water. Eighty percent of the World Bank loan focus irrigation systems. The project works on 17 provinces, including Esmeraldas, Carchi and Imbabura.

151.Finally, it will be beneficial to build upon the experience of the project “integrated water resources management in the Puyango-Tumbes, Catamayo-Chira and Zarumilla transboundary aquifers and river basins” (GEF ID 5284). This project has generated recent experience on the development of a TDA/SAP process between Ecuador and Peru.

57 This is the Andean node of the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network that was established in 2012. SDNS mobilise resources to accelerate learning and integrated solutions for sustainable development.58 The three main outputs are (i) valuation of ecosystem services (water provision and carbon sequestration), (ii) a map of priority areas for conservation, and (iii) a map of social watersheds.59 See https://www.adaptation-fund.org/project/building-adaptive-capacity-climate-change-food-security-nutrition-actions-vulnerable-afro-indigenous-communities-colombia-ecuador-border-area-colombia-ecuador-2/60 The GEF Small Grants Programme in Ecuador does not include as a target are the northernmost provinces.

44 | P a g e

Small scale innovative interventions

152.To achieve outcome 4.1 the strategic allies will be the local organisations were the vermifilters and bioengineering works will be installed.

153.For the vermifilters (pilot 1), in Ecuador the key partners will be: the parrish governments of Tufiño, Angochagua, Mataje who will operate and maintain the treatment

systems, and the municipalities of Tulcán, Ibarra y San Lorenzo and provincial governments of Carchi, Ibarra and

Esmeraldas who will provide cofinancing for the project. 154.In Colombia, the key partners will be:

the Resguardo Indígena del Gran Cumbal (Pasto community), where the vermifilter will be installed, the municipality of Cumbal, who will operate and maintain the treatment system and will provide

cofinancing for the project, and Nariño´s departmental water plan who will provide technical assistance and cofinancing for the

project.155.The installation of the vermifilter in Colombia will be subject to prior consultation because it will be

installed within the Resguardo Indígena del Gran Cumbal. The project budget includes resources for meetings that will be needed to comply with the prior consultation process. A drawback is that the authorities of the Cabildo change every year. Therefore, GOBNAR has initiated and will maintain frequent meeting with the Cabildo Indígena to explain the pilot intervention and its benefits.

156.For the bioengineering works (pilot 3) the key partners are (i) the Ricaurte Municipality which will be responsible for long-term maintenance of the works and will provide cofinancing and (ii) the Junta de Acción Comunal de la vereda Pilispí who will be the direct beneficiaries and will work on the implementation of the bioengineering works.

Risks and Assumptions

157.A total of five risks have been identified, of which

Table 11. Project risks.

Description Type61 Impact and probability62

Mitigation measures Responsible Status63

1. Changes in central and local governments in Ecuador and Colombia during project implementation which may imply that project partners change their priorities and modify their support and contributions to the project.

Political P = 5I = 3

a. Change of central government in Ecuador in May 2021 (about mid-project implementation)

Present project document and advances to the new authorities in SENAGUA and MRE. The project team must ensure ongoing fluent communication with key stakeholders.

UNDP EcuadorProject manager

Without change

b. Change of central government in Colombia in August 2022 (about mid-project

Present project document and advances to the new authorities in MADS and MRE. The project team

UNDP ColombiaProject

Without change

63 Finished, reducing, increasing, without change.

45 | P a g e

Description Type Impact and probability

Mitigation measures Responsible Status

implementation) must ensure ongoing fluent communication with key stakeholders.

manager

c. Changes of parish, municipal and provincial governments in Ecuador in May 2019 (before project start) and May 2023 (before project closure)

Present project document and advances to key local authorities (three provincial governments and parish governments related to pilot implementation). The project team must ensure ongoing fluent communication with key stakeholders.

UNDP EcuadorProject manager

Without change

d. Changes of municipal and regional governments in Colombia in January 2020 (at project start) and 2023 (before project closure)

Present project document and advances to key local authorities (GOBNAR and local governments related to pilot implementation). The project team must ensure ongoing fluent communication with key stakeholders.

UNDP ColombiaProject manager

Without change

2. Insecure environment caused by the presence of illegal armed groups, violent crime and illegal activities threaten the local population and the project team. Project activities may be hindered or obstructed and access to some areas may be impeded.

Social P = 4I = 4

Train project team to operate in challenging security environments64. Conduct conflict analysis at project start.Prepare and implement a security plan to be overseen by security officers from UNDP country offices. Incorporate conflict-sensitive approaches into the multi-year workplan and the annual plans.

UNDP EcuadorUNDP ColombiaProject manager

Without change

3. Inapplicable requests from indigenous peoples for approval of project actions in the framework of prior consultation in Colombia65.

Social P = 3I = 3

To implement actions to ensure highly participatory processes and multi-level dialogue (stakeholder engagement plan and indigenous peoples plan).

Communication specialistUNDP EcuadorUNDP Colombia

Without change

For the small-scale pilot demonstration -- before project start and during project initiation --

GOBNARMADSUNDP Colombia

Without change

64 Project staff must take the online "conflict sensitive course" at UN System Staff College and the BSAFE online course at UNDSS.65 In Colombia prior consultation to ethnic groups (the term used in national regulations) is mandatory by law. However, there have been cases in which local groups request compensation in initiatives that are for their own benefit (e.g., water systems). In the present project, one of the small-scale pilot demonstrations will be implemented in a Pasto community and it is assumed that the SAP (being a binding policy and planning instrument) will require to undergo the formal prior consultation process. From known cases, the requested compensation may overpass the capacity of project proponents. Also, the prior consultation process requires specific allocations of time and funding.

46 | P a g e

Description Type Impact and probability

Mitigation measures Responsible Status

GOBNAR and MADS will keep informed the Cabildo Indígena del Gran Cumbal66 about the project and its benefits for the community. It is envisioned that the cabildo will formally express that prior consultation will not be necessary. Though, the budget includes funds to cover the participatory consultation, if necessary.

Project manager

For the SAP, prepare and implement a participatory planning process and multi-level dialogue. Include personnel67 to work directly with indigenous peoples to encourage local engagement and contributions to the construction of the programme.

Gender, participation and intercultural specialist

Without change

4. Limitations to women participation and involvement68

Cultural P = 3I = 3

To implement affirmative measures to guarantee the involvement of women (gender action plan)

Gender, participation and intercultural specialist

Without change

5. Impacts of climate variability and climate change69

Environmental

P = 3I = 3

To monitor information and alerts from meteorological entities, NOAA and World Meteorological Organization. Incorporate appropriate measures as necessary.Incorporate climate variability and climate change into the TDA and SAP.

Project manager

Without change

66 The cabildos indígena are renewed every year.67 i.e., SAP participation and gender equality assistant and five community workers.68 During PPG, two key issues were identified: (i) women are participating with limitations in the water and irrigation organizations and (ii) they have very limited and unequal participation on decision making in the water and irrigation boards. In particular, irrigation has been a male activity, where the advances in the recognition of women are limited and their participation in organizations and decision-making processes have been unequal. Added to this is that women have domestic responsibilities and care for other members of the family and that men restrict the participation of women of their family to these spaces.69 By 14 March 2019 a weak El Niño was present, weak El Niño conditions were likely to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2019 (~80% chance) and summer (~60% chance). It is probable that during the implementation of the project another ENSO event will occur. This will have direct impact on the hydrological regime of the three transboundary basins.

47 | P a g e

Figure 20. Magnitude of the identified risks.

Stakeholder engagement plan

158.In Mira, Carchi – Guáitara and Mataje, 96, 62 and 53 stakeholders were identified (Annex 16). Most of them are government entities and have a positive attitude towards the project. Only second level Colombian indigenous organisations had a negative attitude towards the project because of the request that all initiatives undergo prior consultation.

159.The TDA/SAP process is very demanding, it will require:a. significant effort of the members of the development teams, andb. ensuring that the range of stakeholders analyse information and proposals (which might be

complex or very technical) and can freely express their comments and recommendations. 160.In this process, the main forms of interaction are in-person workshops and consultation meetings (Figure

18 and Figure 19).161.The other project components will also require stakeholder engagement but might be less demanding

considering that the elements being worked are close to their daily reality.162.Seven general barriers for stakeholder participation were identified, Table 12 summarise these barriers

and the proposed mitigation actions.163.At project start, the communication specialist will prepare a communication strategy with particular

elements for (i) actors and groups of interest, and (ii) intervention sites. The strategy will be operationalized through annual work plans that will be jointly prepared and implemented with the communication teams of the project partners. In addition, guidelines to direct the preparation of group activities, and behaviour and inclusive language will be prepared.

164.The formal involvement of key actors will begin with the project inception workshop. The communication specialist will contribute to organise this meeting. This will be a binational meeting with the project partners.

165.Afterwards, initiation workshops will be organized with key actors of each country. These will be extended meetings (partners, allies and key actors) in which the following aspects will be presented:

48 | P a g e

the adjustments made in the inception workshop, the work plan and budget of the first year, and collaboration procedures will be agreed to start the implementation of the project immediately.

Table 12. Stakeholder engagement barriers and proposed mitigation actions.

1. Time availability. Persons must leave other activities to participate in the project activities and events.For members of the TDA and SAP development teams explain to their employers or nominators the importance of their contribution to the process and request to lessen their workload. Make sure that all meetings / workshops are efficiently planned and managed, with a clear agenda and specific targets. Plan meetings considering the needs and time limitations of the participants.2. Cost of participation. In addition to the cost of time that each person dedicates to the activities and events, there are other associated costs like travel expenses, food and lodging. Some persons will not have the means to cover these expenses.

Provide travel support (reimburse travel expenses) and provide board and lodging to stakeholders that need assistance.

3. Distance. Some groups are in remote areas and have long journeys from their homes to the main localities.

Take into consideration distance and travel time. Allow that people can arrive a day before and provide board and lodging.

4. Communication. This includes difficulty to understand technical matters and complex concepts, language, difficulty expressing ideas (specially in public)Encourage the use of plain language and graphic communication. Complement group meetings with in-person meetings. Ensure in advance that everyone is fluent in Spanish. If necessary, use translators and prepare briefs in the required language.5. Cultural differences.

Identify in advance cultural issues and take measures to accommodate special requirements (e.g., food).Ensure that all meetings and activities are culturally sensitive and use inclusive language. At the beginning of an activity or meeting establish basic rules (e.g., respect different views, political neutrality).

6. Political differences.

Always explain that project activities and meetings are political-neutral. Do not allow the expression of political agendas or statements. At the beginning of an activity or meeting establish basic rules (e.g., respect different views, political neutrality).

7. Insecurity.

Ask participants to indicate in advance their travel plans and to report once the depart and arrive.

166.In these meetings, public and private stakeholders will (i) confirm their contributions and participation in project implementation, and (ii) agree on coordination mechanisms for each outcome.

167.To ensure proper involvement of women´s groups, meetings will be organised to present the project and the interventions to key organizations that have been identified.

168.The gender, participation and intercultural specialist will guide the project team in the development of participatory processes and multi-level dialogue, as well as practices of cultural sensitivity, social inclusion and gender perspective. In addition, this person will organize annual meeting of reflection and self-assessment with key actors and beneficiaries of each project output.

49 | P a g e

Gender equality and empowering women

169.The Gender Global Gap Index of the World Economic Forum (WEF, 2018) that measures the magnitude of the gap between women and men in 149 countries places Colombia and Ecuador in the 40th and 41th places, respectively (Table 13). Colombia has higher ranks in all indicators, except political empowerment.

Table 13. Gender Global Gap Index.

CountryGLOBAL INDEX

ECONOMIC PARTICIPATION

AND OPPORTUNITY

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

HEALTH AND SURVIVAL

POLITICAL EMPOWERMENT

Rank Score(0 - 1) Rank Score

(0 - 1) Rank Score(0 - 1) Rank Score

(0 - 1) Rank Score(0 - 1)

Colombia 40 0.729 39 0.733 1 1.000 1 0.980 59 0.203

Ecuador 41 0.729 82 0.657 59 0.996 58 0.978 35 0.283

0 = disparity, 1 = parity

170.There are women in leadership positions in all the project partners. But, both participation and involvement of women in water governance is less visible although not absent.

171.In Mira and Carchi – Guáitara water access and management is directly related to the gender roles assigned to men and women. Women are associated with drinking water because of their roles in nutrition, household chores, crop care and management of small animal for subsistence. Whereas, men are associated with production activities, mainly agriculture which is linked to irrigation. In contrast, in Mataje there are no organisation related to water conservation and management.

172.The gender analysis found that (i) women are participating with limitations in the water and irrigation organizations and (ii) they have very limited and unequal participation on decision making in the water and irrigation boards. This situation is more severe in irrigation boards, because irrigation has traditionally been a male activity. Official information from Ecuador indicate that only 15% of water boards are headed by women, in irrigation boards only 4% are headed by women.

173.Women face barriers to access, participation and decision making in water governance, mainly due to: (i) lack of access to technical training, (ii) low leadership capacity due to less exposure and training in public spaces, (iii) inequitable power relations in spaces dominated by men where discriminatory practices are carried out and their technical capacities are disparaged, (iv) work overload in the family environment that curb their participation, and (v) denial of gender equality based on cultural beliefs where it is considered that women are not capable to represent all people on technical and political matters.

174.In summary, women face two fundamental barriers: Barrier 1. The role of women in water management and governance is not fully recognized and

accepted, both by a gender perspective (focused on the role of men). Barrier 2. Domestic responsibilities and care for others are an important part of the workload of

women and it can limit their participation in several activities (e.g., meetings, production) if the initiatives to be implemented do not consider this factor or are not suited to it.

175.The gender action plan (Annex 7) delineate the measures to be executed during project implementation, which include the following general measures:

i. At all-time promote a gender responsive approach which seeks to ensure that women and men are given equal opportunities to participate in and benefit from the project’s interventions and promote targeted measures to address inequalities and promote the empowerment of women.

ii. Working groups, management committees and related meetings and participatory processes will promote and facilitate the inclusion of women and men, mutual respect, and collective decision-making among them, with specific measures to ensure women’s priorities and suggestions are included in decision-making processes.

iii. The inclusion of women and men will be promoted in the project implementation team. Inclusive language will be used in the pertinent hiring procedures and documents. At least, one member of

50 | P a g e

the team will have experience in the incorporation of the gender approach into development projects.

iv. The training courses will be inclusive and sensitive to gender and local culture in terms of participation, instructional design and use of language.

v. All project actions will be culturally sensitive and will consider, if necessary, the needs of people with disabilities.

vi. The communication strategy of the project will recognize the concerns and constraints faced by women and men, as well as their perceptions and motivations, to ensure a gender responsive approach.

vii. Communication materials, project documents, and publications will use appropriate gender-sensitive, and culturally inclusive language. The process of documenting the project’s lessons will pay special attention to recording and informing the contribution and role of women in the implemented activities.

viii. The participation in meetings, training courses and other activities will be documented using sex-disaggregated data. If pertinent, this will be applied in the collection of information of consultancies and studies.

176.The gender, participation and intercultural specialist will be responsible for the implementation of the gender action plan.

South-South and Triangular Cooperation

177.The present project is based on south-south cooperation (SSC). The project expresses the interest of Colombia and Ecuador to coordinate common problems. The backbone of the project is the preparation of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and the Strategic Action Programme for the three transboundary basins.

178.The project includes a series of actions for joint development and for the exchange of knowledge, experience and lessons among authorities and key stakeholders. UNDP will catalyse this process by facilitating access to global experiences and motivating alliances among project participants.

Sustainability and Scaling Up

Environmental sustainability

179.The central axis of the project is to catalyse water conservation and IWRM in transboundary basins. The focus of the project is water governance which is the basis for sound transboundary IWRM. The highly participatory approach of the project will contribute to internalize the perspective water conservation at different levels of society.

180.Climate change will affect the transboundary basins and the biodiversity of the area. In this regard, the project will encourage the internalization of climate considerations in the SAP.

181.All actions will be framed within the corresponding strategies and national plans of biodiversity and climate change.

Social sustainability

182.The project includes a participatory approach and emphasizes the involvement of key stakeholders in water conservation of the transboundary basins. Measures will be taken to ensure that local stakeholders (farmers, indigenous people) are represented and participate in the processes of construction of the TDA and the SAP, in training activities, and in watershed management processes.

183.The TDA/SAP process will facilitate multi-level interaction, dialogue and collaboration. A fundamental element will be that the key stakeholders will collaborate to address common problems and will develop relationships based on trust, which will contribute to strengthening social capital.

51 | P a g e

Institutional sustainability

184.The project is anchored in the water authorities and the ministries of foreign affairs of Colombia and Ecuador, as well as in the Government of Nariño and the three provincial governments of Ecuador. The countries have expressed their interest to support conservation and IWRM in the transboundary basins. There are formal mechanisms to sustain collaborative binational actions, like the Colombo - Ecuadorian Neighbourhood and Integration Commission and the binational ministerial cabinets. There is also the possibility that both countries could establish a binational commission for the transboundary basins.

185.At the national level, the interventions will integrate multiple private and public actors. It is expected that through this networking, the fundamental elements of the project will continue in the institutional agendas.

Financial sustainability

186.GEF resources will be invested in strategic actions to catalyse a robust integrated management of the transboundary basins. The post-project sustainability of the actions is ensured by their integration into the institutional budgets of several stakeholders such as the water authorities, local governments and civil society organizations.

Replicability

187.There is high probability of replicating the lessons learned from the project. GEF resources have been strategically assigned to activities with high potential to catalyse learning. For this purpose, the experience and lessons of the participatory process of preparing the TDA and SAP and the pilot projects will be documented and disseminated through the project website, the portals and channels of the project partners and the IW: LEARN platform. It is expected that the lessons learned from the pilot projects (e.g., vermifilters) will be immediately used in the short term within the transboundary basins and other regions in both countries. The lessons learned from this project will be certainly applicable to various contexts of the planet.

V. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Cost efficiency and effectiveness

188.The project will ensure the cost – effectiveness of GEF resources by allocating such funds to activities and products with high catalyst potential and complement actions with national funds. For example:a. Build upon existing developments. For instance:

To develop the TDA, the project will use the information and results produced by five projects funded by the MacArthur Foundation that work on the Mira and Mataje watershed, as well as the results of the climate change vulnerability analysis to be generated by the Word Food Programme project that works with Afro-descendants and indigenous communities in the Colombia-Ecuador border70.

To develop the SAP, the project will construct upon the binational integrated water resources management plan for the three transboundary basins that was prepared by the MADS and SENAGUA in 2015 (MINAMBIENTE & SENAGUA, 2017) and the institutional arrangements for binational integration of the border zone.

b. Build upon lessons, practices and outcomes of other initiatives such as the GEF implemented in the transboundary river basins shared by Ecuador and Peru71 and the joint Nariño Government – PPD initiative “Sur Sostenible” in the Nariño department.

70 Project “building adaptive capacity to climate change through food security and nutrition actions in vulnerable Afro and indigenous communities in the Colombia-Ecuador border area”, funded by the Adaptation Fund.71 Project “integrated water resources management in the Puyango-Tumbes, Catamayo-Chira and Zarumilla transboundary aquifers and river basins” (GEF ID 5284).

52 | P a g e

c. The demonstration pilots on sewage treatment with vermifilters and landslide control with bioengineering will apply low cost simple solutions that are suitable for implementation by local groups.

d. Focus GEF funding on preparing a feasibility study (output 4.1) to mobilize public financing to improve the operation of rural water boards in Nariño.

e. Design and implement a communication strategy focused on interests and specific communication channels of the key actors, beneficiaries and intervention sites.

f. Systematically document and disseminate lessons and best practices.g. Disseminate news and information through the mechanisms and platforms used by project partners.

The communication teams of the partners and the project will have coordinated work plans and agreed protocols of action.

h. Support the development of lessons and good practices that are highly replicable worldwide

189.In summary, the cost – effectiveness of the project is reflected in the fact that future advances in the implementation of the SAP and the sustainable management of the three transboundary basins can be catalysed with relatively little investment in key strategic actions, with a high degree of synergy and replicability.

Project management

190.UNDP is the implementing agency of the present project. In Ecuador, the executing entity is the Water Secretariat (SENAGUA), which will be in charge of the implementation of the binational components and the national actions in Ecuador. In Colombia, the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MADS) will be the executing entity and therefore, will be responsible of managing the corresponding national actions of the project. In Section VIII the administration arrangements of the project are presented.

191.Project partners will provide support and guidance for the achievement of the various project outcomes, ensuring a fluid and appropriate implementation of both national and binational activities (Table 14).

Table 14. Responsibilities of project partners to provide support and guidance to each project outcome.

Outcome Responsible partners for support and guidance

1. Priority transboundary issues affecting quality and quantity of water, its vulnerability to climate change and variability and barriers for IWRM, and their immediate and root causes, have been identified, including a governance and stakeholder analysis to further inform the SAP process.

TDA and SAP development headed by MADS and SENAGUA, with direct engagement of GOBNAR, CORPONARIÑO, GAD Carchi, GAD Esmeraldas, GAD Imbabura, MNE, IDEAM, INAMHI, the ministries of foreign affairs of both countries and WWF-Colombia.

2. Priority actions required for achieving IWRM of the Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara basins identified and integrated to the binational, national and sub-national development plans in both countries.3. Improved individual and institutional capacities in both countries to apply IWRM in the binational basins.

MADS and SENAGUA

4.1. Integrated water resource management and sustainable land use reduce pollution, improve water use efficiency and protect/restore aquatic ecosystems in the Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara river basins and their aquifers.

Demonstration pilots will be implemented by GOBNAR, GAD Carchi, GAD Esmeraldas, GAD Imbabura, MNE, IDEAM, INAMHI and WWF-Colombia.

4.2. Learning generated through replicable innovative interventions supports the SAP development and decision making.

MADS and SENAGUA

53 | P a g e

192.The project will be based in the city of Quito and there will be satellite office in Ibarra, Ecuador. SENAGUA will provide office space to house the project unit. There will be a satellite office in Pasto (Colombia), whose office space will be provided by CORPORNARIÑO. The project team will be distributed among the three offices.

193.The project team will have thirteen persons (, Annex 4) to be hired with GEF funds. The contracts will be under the modality of annual contracts, subject to renewal based on performance evaluation and the criteria established in the contracts by UNDP. The TDA/SAP specialist will be hired for 30 months to organise and implement the TDA / SAP process. The SAP participation and gender equality assistant and five community workers will be hired for 16 months to work with local groups during SAP development. The team will be reduced to four people72 during the last quarter of the final year, a period that will be focused on the closure of the project.

194.To ensure the maximum benefit from the programmatic approach of the present project, a series of coordination mechanisms will be established with the existing initiatives and projects and those that will develop later. This includes:a. Annual coordination meetings with relevant GEF projects and other donors.b. Participation in International Water Conferences (IWC).c. Letters of understanding with projects and relevant initiatives of other donors.

Agreement on intellectual property rights and use of logo on the project’s deliverables and disclosure of information

195.To accord proper acknowledgement to the GEF for providing grant funding, the GEF logo will appear together with the UNDP logo on all promotional materials, other written materials like publications developed by the project, and project hardware. Any citation on publications regarding projects funded by the GEF will also accord proper acknowledgement to the GEF. Information will be disclosed in accordance with relevant policies notably the UNDP Disclosure Policy73 and the GEF policy on public involvement74.

72 i.e., (1) binational coordinator, (2) gender, participation and intercultural specialist, (3) monitoring and evaluation specialist and (4) administrative and financial assistant.73 See http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/transparency/information_disclosurepolicy/74 See https://www.thegef.org/gef/policies_guidelines

54 | P a g e

VI. PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

This project will contribute to the following Sustainable Development Goal (s): SDG 6 Clean water and sanitation. Direct contribution to targets 6.5 and 6.B75 and some contribution to target 6.376.SDG 14 Life below water. Some contribution to target 14.177.SDG 15 Life on land. Direct contribution to targets 15.1 and 15.978.

This project will contribute to the following country outcome included in the UNDAF/Country Programme Document: Colombia. UNDAF 2015-2019. Outcome environmental sustainability. Colombia will have succeeded in increasing resilience and socio-environmental sustainability to address the effects of climate change, make sustainable use of natural resources and effectively manage disaster risks.Ecuador. UNDAF 2019-2022. Outcome 2. By 2022, Ecuador has strengthened its regulatory, political and institutional frameworks to improve sustainable, participatory and gender-sensitive management of natural resources, promoting more responsible patterns of production and consumption, in a context of climate change. Indicator 2.8. Number of public policy instruments designed and / or implemented at the national or local level to promote the environmental sustainability of the country, on issues of sustainable use of natural resources and biodiversity conservation, climate change, management of chemicals and hazardous waste, international waters and the promotion of renewable energies. Include, through public policy for the mainstreaming of education for sustainable development.Baseline 11. Target 38

This project will be linked to the following output of the UNDP Strategic Plan:Output 1.4.1 Solutions scaled up for sustainable management of natural resources, including sustainable commodities and green and inclusive value chains.Output indicator c. Number of shared water ecosystems (fresh or marine) under cooperative management.

Objective and Outcome Indicators(no more than a total of 15 -16 indicators)

Baseline Midterm Target End of Project Target

Data Collection Methods and Risks/Assumptions

Project Objective:To promote integrated water resources management (IWRM)

Mandatory Indicator 1: Number of shared water ecosystems (fresh or marine) under cooperative management between

0 0 3 transboundary watersheds (Mira, Mataje and Carchi-

Presidential declarations, reports of binational cabinet meetings or formal instrument adopting the SAP.

75 Target 6.5 By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate.Target 6.B Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management.76 Target 6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally.77 Target 14.1 By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution.78 Target 15.1. By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements.Target 15.9. By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts.

55 | P a g e

Objective and Outcome Indicators(no more than a total of 15 -16 indicators)

Baseline Midterm Target End of Project Target

Data Collection Methods and Risks/Assumptions

in the Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara river basins shared by Colombia and Ecuador by strengthening the institutional and managerial capacities at the regional, local and community levels for achieving environmental and socioeconomic benefits.

Colombia and Ecuador. Guáitara) Risks: Security risks in the target area hinder

project implementation. Complex security environment in the

target area result in tension between both governments.

Assumptions: Both countries maintain their political

commitment to advance collaborative management of transboundary water resources.

It is a priority in the political agenda of both countries to address the major anthropogenic pressures that negatively affect the three transboundary watersheds.

There is good communication and collaboration among government agencies and local governments in both countries.

The changes resulting from the national and local elections do not affect working relations and commitments.

Mandatory indicator 2: Number of direct project beneficiaries.

0 >50,000 (beneficiaries of pilot interventions and project actions)

>1,160,000 when SAP is approved

Census results and population projections for overall population per transboundary watershed. Record of persons that participate in project actions; to be continuously documented.

Risks:Same as above.Assumptions:Same as above

56 | P a g e

Objective and Outcome Indicators(no more than a total of 15 -16 indicators)

Baseline Midterm Target End of Project Target

Data Collection Methods and Risks/Assumptions

Indicator 3: Number of specific binational commitments to address critical aspects of conservation and sustainable use of water resources and to advance IWRM in the three transboundary basins.

1 1 >379 Presidential declarations, reports of binational cabinet meetings or formal instruments signed by pertinent authorities (national and local authorities).

Risks:Same as above.Assumptions: Key stakeholders are motivated to advance

IWRM in the transboundary basins. Political factors do not limit collaboration

among key organizations and local and national authorities.

Outcome80 1Priority transboundary issues affecting quality and quantity of water, its vulnerability to climate change and variability and barriers for IWRM, and their immediate and root causes, have been identified, including a governance and stakeholder analysis to further inform the SAP process.

Indicator 4: TDA approved by the Project Board.

0 End of second year: draft TDA is ready.

TDA approved at the beginning of year 3.

Project Board minutes.

Risks:Key public and private organizations do not share or disclose data and information that is central to develop the TDA.Assumptions: Key stakeholders are engaged and actively

participate in the development of the TDA. The members of the TDA development

team are granted sufficient time to contribute to the process by their employers.

79 At least three instruments will be agreed:- Binational workplan that includes commitments to make SAP implementation viable.- Binational protocol for monitoring water quality.- Binational protocol to exchange and share hydrometeorological information of transboundary watersheds.80 Outcomes are short to medium term results that the project makes a contribution towards, and that are designed to help achieve the longer-term objective. Achievement of outcomes will be influenced both by project outputs and additional factors that may be outside the direct control of the project.

57 | P a g e

Objective and Outcome Indicators(no more than a total of 15 -16 indicators)

Baseline Midterm Target End of Project Target

Data Collection Methods and Risks/Assumptions

Indicator 5: Percentage of women in the TDA Development team

0 >40% >40% Means of verification: Register of participation in each event

(physical document with signatures) Spreadsheet file with the recordsRegister participants in each event, including their name, age, sex, nationality, identity card number, telephone number, e-mail, organization (if they belong to one), and signature. Data will be compiled and systematized into an electronic spreadsheet file. Number of events each person attend will be also registered (in table format).

Risks:Security risks in the target area limit participation of local stakeholders.Assumptions:Women are motivated to participate in the TDA development team.

Indicator 6: project specificPercentage of people from non-state entities81 in the TDA Development team

0 >30% >30% Same as above

Risks:Same as aboveAssumptions:Local groups and stakeholders are motivated to be part of the TDA development team.

Outcome 2Priority actions required for achieving IWRM of the Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara basins identified and integrated to the binational, national and sub-national development plans in both countries.

Indicator 7: SAP formally endorsed by the governments of Colombia and Ecuador

0 End of third year: core SAP elements discussed with local stakeholders.

SAP adopted at the beginning of year 4

Project Board minutes acknowledging SAP. Presidential declarations, reports of binational cabinet meetings or formal instrument adopting the SAP.

Risks:Complex security environment in the target area result in tension between both governments.

81 i.e., Entities that are independent of the government such as civil society organizations, farmers associations or community groups.58 | P a g e

Objective and Outcome Indicators(no more than a total of 15 -16 indicators)

Baseline Midterm Target End of Project Target

Data Collection Methods and Risks/Assumptions

Assumptions: Both countries maintain their political

commitment to advance collaborative management of transboundary water resources.

The changes resulting from the national and local elections do not affect working relations and commitments.

Indicator 8: Number of people (local key actors) involved in the SAP consultation process

0 As above>150

>250 Means of verification: Register of participation in each event

(physical document with signatures) Spreadsheet file with the recordsRegister participants in each event, including their name, age, sex, nationality, identity card number, telephone number, e-mail, organization (if they belong to one), and signature. Data will be compiled and systematized into an electronic spreadsheet file. Number of events each person attend will be also registered (in table format).

Risks:Security risks in the target area impede participation of local stakeholders.Assumptions: Community workers build relationships of

trust with local groups. Political agendas and interests do not limit

participation and contribution of local groups.

People provide their personal information and sign the register book.

Indicator 9: Percentage of women in the SAP Development team

0 >40% >40% Means of verification: Register of participation in each event

(physical document with signatures) Spreadsheet file with the recordsRegister participants in each event, including their name, age, sex, nationality, identity card

59 | P a g e

Objective and Outcome Indicators(no more than a total of 15 -16 indicators)

Baseline Midterm Target End of Project Target

Data Collection Methods and Risks/Assumptions

number, telephone number, e-mail, organization (if they belong to one), and signature. Data will be compiled and systematized into an electronic spreadsheet file. Number of events each person attend will be also registered (in table format).

Risks:Security risks in the target area limit participation of local stakeholders.Assumptions:Women are motivated to participate in the SAP development team.

Outcome 3Improved individual and institutional capacities in both countries to apply IWRM in the binational basins.

Indicator 10: Number of government officials trained in transboundary water management

0 >20 >20 Means of verification: Register of participation in each event

(physical document with signatures) Spreadsheet file with the recordsRegister participants in each event, including their name, age, sex, nationality, identity card number, telephone number, e-mail, organization, and signature. Data will be compiled and systematized into an electronic spreadsheet file. Number of events each person attend will be also registered (in table format).

Risks:NoneAssumptions:Government officials (central and local governments) are motivated to engage into transboundary water management and hydro-diplomacy

Indicator 11:Number of people from water and irrigation boards trained (>30% women)

0 >100 >200 Same as above

Risks:Security risks in the target area limit participation of local stakeholders.Assumptions:

60 | P a g e

Objective and Outcome Indicators(no more than a total of 15 -16 indicators)

Baseline Midterm Target End of Project Target

Data Collection Methods and Risks/Assumptions

Members of water and irrigation boards are motivated to improve their skills.

People provide their personal information and sign the register book.

Indicator 12:Number of indigenous and Afro-descendant persons trained

0 >50 >100 Same as above

Risks:Same as aboveAssumptions: Indigenous peoples and afro-descendants

are interested in water management and governance and motivated to participate in training activities.

People provide their personal information and sign the register book.

Indicator 13: Number of instruments for institutional and financial sustainability of training of water users

0 >1 >2 (water school, technical training of water and irrigation boards)

Resolutions or collaboration agreements signed by local or national entities (e.g., municipalities, provincial government, universities) to sustain training of water users. Must include budget allocations and/or financial mechanism.

Risks:Government expenditure cuts in Ecuador due to ongoing economic problems.Assumptions:Local or national entities are willing to invest in long-term efforts to improve the capacities and skills of water users.

Outcome 4.1Integrated water resource management and sustainable land use reduce pollution, improve water use efficiency and protect/restore aquatic ecosystems in the Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara river basins and their aquifers.

Indicator 14: The discharge of each treatment plant complies with the pertinent national standard.

0 >1 comply with national standards

4 treatment plants comply with national standards (installed in Anchocagua, Cumbal, Mataje and Tufiño)

Effluent analysis done by independent laboratory at initiation of operation and every six months afterwards.

Risks:Contributions of local groups (e.g., complementary funding, land site, sewer connections) do not materialise. Assumptions:Local operators adopt the new technology and

61 | P a g e

Objective and Outcome Indicators(no more than a total of 15 -16 indicators)

Baseline Midterm Target End of Project Target

Data Collection Methods and Risks/Assumptions

adequately operate the vermifilters

Indicator 15. Total volume of sewage treated by vermifilters in the four localities (Tufiño, Mataje, Anchocagua and Cumbal) (m3/year)

0 >4,000,000 m3/year

> 11,000,000 m3/year

Operation logbook of each treatment plant.

Risks:Contributions of local groups (e.g., complementary funding, land site, sewer connections) do not materialise. Assumptions:Wastewater treatment systems act efficiently and effectively in both countries

Indicator 16: Number of people accessing hydrometeorological information of the transboundary basins

0 > 5,000 visits per year

> 10,000 visits per year

Number of cumulative monthly visitors in the web-based platform. Report of the web analysis programme

Risks:Hydrometeorological equipment can be vandalised or access to them can be hindered by security issues.Assumptions: Local stakeholders are interested in using

the information. Local stakeholders have the means to

access the web-based platform.

Indicator 17: Surface (ha) protected from landslides with bioengineering

0 >2,000 ha 9,490 ha Measurement of surface protected by bioengineering. Reports from WWF-Colombia.

Risks:Security risks in the target area limit participation of local stakeholders.Assumptions:There are no extreme weather events during project implementation.

Indicator 18: Public investment (USD) that finances

0 0 >USD2,000,000 Confirmed funding to implement public investment project. Letter from Government of

62 | P a g e

Objective and Outcome Indicators(no more than a total of 15 -16 indicators)

Baseline Midterm Target End of Project Target

Data Collection Methods and Risks/Assumptions

improvements in water systems in Nariño Nariño.

Risks:Government expenditure cuts in Colombia.Assumptions:Elections of central and regional governments do not change interest in investing in water systems in Nariño.

Outcome 4.2Learning generated through replicable innovative interventions supports the SAP development and decision making.

Indicator 19: project specificNumber of people (men and women, by country) who have participated in events for the dissemination of lessons and best practices (e.g., workshops, IWC)

0 >200 (>30% women)

>500 (>30% women)

Means of verification: Register of participation in each event

(physical document with signatures) Spreadsheet file with the recordsRegister participants in each event, including their name, age, sex, nationality, identity card number, telephone number, e-mail, organization, and signature. Data will be compiled and systematized into an electronic spreadsheet file. Number of events each person attend will be also registered (in table format).

Risks:Security risks in the target area limit participation of local stakeholders.Assumptions:Stakeholders are interested in the project´s lessons.

Indicator 20:Number of visitors per month (annual average) recorded in the network of electronic platforms used to disseminate project´ learnings and best practice

Visits 0Unique visits 0

Visits >2000Unique visits >1500

Visits >4000Unique visits >3000

Number of monthly visitors (annual average) in each used platform (e.g., web page, You Tube channel). Report of the web analysis programme.

Risks:NoneAssumptions:Local groups have proper access to the Internet and social networks.

63 | P a g e

VII. MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) PLAN

196.The project results as outlined in the project results framework will be monitored annually and evaluated periodically during project implementation to ensure the project effectively achieves these results. Supported by outcome 4.1, the project monitoring and evaluation plan will also facilitate learning and ensure knowledge is shared and widely disseminated to support the scaling up and replication of project results.

197.Project-level monitoring and evaluation will be undertaken in compliance with UNDP requirements as outlined in the UNDP programme and operations policies and procedures (POPP) and the UNDP Evaluation Policy82. The UNDP Country Office will work with the relevant project stakeholders to ensure UNDP M&E requirements are met in a timely fashion and to high quality standards. Additional mandatory GEF-specific monitoring and evaluation requirements (as outlined below) will be undertaken in accordance with the GEF monitoring and evaluation policy and other relevant GEF policies83.

198.In addition to these mandatory UNDP and GEF M&E requirements, other M&E activities deemed necessary to support project-level adaptive management will be agreed during the Project Inception Workshop and will be detailed in the Inception Report. This will include the exact role of project target groups and other stakeholders in project monitoring and evaluation activities including the GEF Operational Focal Point and national/regional institutes assigned to undertake project monitoring. The GEF Operational Focal Point will strive to ensure consistency in the approach taken to the GEF-specific M&E requirements (notably the GEF Tracking Tools) across all GEF-financed projects in the country. This could be achieved for example by using one national institute to complete the GEF Tracking Tools for all GEF-financed projects in the country, including projects supported by other GEF Agencies.

Oversight and monitoring responsibilities

Binational coordinator of the project

199.The binational coordinator of the project (CBP) is responsible for day-to-day project management and regular monitoring of project results and risks, including social and environmental risks. The CBP will ensure that all project staff maintain a high level of transparency, responsibility and accountability in the monitoring, evaluation and reporting of project results. The CBP will inform the Project Board, the UNDP Country Office in the host country and the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor of any delays or difficulties as they arise during implementation so that appropriate support and corrective measures can be adopted.

200.The CBP will develop annual work plans based on the multi-year work plan included in Annex 1, including annual output targets to support the efficient implementation of the project. The CBP will ensure that the standard UNDP and GEF monitoring and evaluation requirements are fulfilled to the highest quality. This includes, but is not limited to: ensuring the results framework indicators are monitored annually in time for evidence-based reporting in the GEF

Project Implementation Report (PIR), and that the monitoring of risks and the various plans/strategies developed to support project implementation (e.g., gender

action plan, stakeholder engagement plan) occur on a regular basis. 201.The CBP will encourage that the project target groups and key stakeholders, including the GEF Operational Focal Points in

Colombia and Ecuador, be involved as much as possible in project monitoring and evaluation actions.

Project board

202.The Project Board will take corrective action as needed to ensure the project achieves the desired results. The Project Board will hold project reviews to assess the performance of the project and appraise the annual workplan for the following year.

203.In the third year, the board will analyse the results of the project midterm review (MTR) and the corresponding response from the administration. The level of progress in the achievement of outcomes will be assessed and risks and challenges faced by the project implementation will be identified, including the risks for post-project sustainability. The Project Board

82 http://web.undp.org/evaluation/policy.shtml83 https://www.thegef.org/documents/policies

64 | P a g e

will take the necessary corrective measures to ensure that the project meets the set goals and achieves the outcomes outlines in the PRODOC.

204.In the project’s final year, the Project Board will hold an end-of-project review to capture lessons learned and discuss opportunities for scaling-up or replicate project outcomes and disseminate the lessons learned to relevant audiences. This final review meeting will also discuss the findings outlined in the project terminal evaluation (TE) and the corresponding management response.

Project implementing partner

205.The Implementing Partner is responsible for the overall monitoring and evaluation of the project interventions. The Water Secretariat of Ecuador and the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia, through their corresponding National Directors, will be responsible for providing all required information and data necessary for timely, comprehensive and evidence-based project reporting, including both results and validation of project financial reports (Combined Delivery Report) prepared by the UNDP country office.

206.The implementing partner will strive to ensure that, where appropriate, the monitoring of project indicators will be carried out by national institutions and is aligned with national systems so that the data used and generated by the project supports national systems.

UNDP country office

207.The UNDP country office in the host country will support the binational project coordinator as needed, including through annual supervision missions. These supervision missions will take place according to the schedule outlined in the annual workplan. Supervision mission reports will be circulated to the project team and project board within one month of the mission. The UNDP country office in Ecuador will initiate and organize key GEF monitoring and evaluation activities including the annual GEF PIR, the independent midterm review and the independent terminal evaluation. The UNDP country office in Ecuador will also ensure that the standard UNDP and GEF monitoring and evaluation requirements are fulfilled to the highest quality. In addition, the UNDP office in Colombia will monitor and evaluate the actions carried out in Colombia, as well as (i) supporting the preparation of the PIR, and (ii) ensuring engagement from project partners and country office in the independent midterm review and the independent terminal evaluation.

208.The UNDP country offices in Colombia and Ecuador are responsible for complying with all UNDP project-level monitoring and evaluation requirements as outlined in the UNDP POPP. This includes:

To ensure that the UNDP quality assurance assessment is applied annually. To ensure that annual targets at the output level are developed and monitored and reported using the UNDP corporate

systems. To periodically update the ATLAS risk log, and To update annually the UNDP gender marker, based on gender mainstreaming progress reported in the GEF PIR and the

result-oriented annual report (ROAR).209.Any quality concerns flagged during these monitoring and evaluation activities (e.g., annual GEF PIR quality assessment

ratings) must be addressed by the UNDP country offices in Colombia and Ecuador and the CBP. 210.The UNDP country offices in Colombia and Ecuador will retain all monitoring and evaluation records for this project for up

to seven years after project financial closure to support ex-post evaluations undertaken by the UNDP Independent Evaluation Office and/or the GEF Independent Evaluation Office.

UNDP-GEF unit

211.As required, the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor and the UNDP GEF Directorate will provide additional support for the monitoring and evaluation, and assurance of the quality of project implementation, as well as the solution of problems that may arise.

65 | P a g e

Audit

212.The project will be audited as per UNDP financial regulations and rules and applicable audit policies on National Implementation Modality (NIM) projects84.

Additional GEF monitoring and reporting requirements

Inception workshop and report

213.There will be an inception workshop after (i) the project document has been signed by the corresponding parties of each country, and (ii) the CBP has been hired. The inception workshop will serve to: a. Orient the project stakeholders in the project strategy and discuss changes in the general context that may influence

project implementation.b. Discuss the roles and responsibilities of the project team, including reporting and communication lines, and

mechanisms for conflict resolution.c. Review the results framework and, if pertinent, adjust the indicators, means of verification and monitoring plans.d. Discuss reporting, monitoring and evaluation roles and responsibilities, and if pertinent, adjust the monitoring and

evaluation budget, identify national / regional entities that could be involved in the monitoring and evaluation actions of the project, discuss the role of the GEF operational focal points in project monitoring and evaluation.

e. Update and review responsibilities for monitoring project plans and strategies, including the risk log, UNDP's Social and Environmental Screening Procedure (SESP), safeguards requirements, project grievance mechanism, gender plan, knowledge management strategy, communication strategy and other relevant strategies.

f. Review financial reporting procedures and mandatory requirements and agree on the arrangements for the annual audit.

g. Plan and schedule the meetings of the project board and finalise the annual work plan for the first year.214.The CBP will prepare the inception report no later than two weeks after the inception workshop. The final version of the

inception report will be cleared by the UNDP country office in Ecuador and the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor, and then approved by the Steering Committee.

GEF project implementation report

215.The binational project coordinator, the UNDP Country Offices in Ecuador and Colombia, and the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor will provide objective input to the annual GEF PIR covering the reporting period July (of the previous year) to June (of the current year) for each year of project implementation. The CBP will ensure that the indicators included in the project results framework are monitored annually in advance of the PIR submission deadline so that progress can be reported in the GEF project implementation report. Any environmental and social risks and related management plans will be monitored regularly, and progress will be reported in the PIR.

216.The PIR that is submitted to the GEF every year must be in English and it will be presented to the project board. The UNDP country office in Ecuador will coordinate as necessary, the inputs for the PIR of the GEF operational focal points and other key stakeholders, as appropriate. The quality rating of the previous year’s PIR will be used to inform the preparation of the subsequent PIR.

217.The final PIR of the project, together with the report of the terminal evaluation and the corresponding management response will be the final package of the project report. The final report project package will be analysed with the project board of the project during the final review meeting to identify lessons learned and opportunities to expand the outcomes.

84 See guidance here: https://popp.undp.org/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/UNDP_POPP_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY/Public/FRM_Financial%20Management%20and%20Execution%20Modalities_National%20Implementation.docx&action=default

66 | P a g e

Learning and knowledge generation

218.Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention area, through networks and exchange forums. The project will identify and participate, as necessary and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and other networks that can be beneficial to the project. The project will identify, analyse and share the learning that could be beneficial for the design and implementation of similar projects and the lessons will be widely disseminated. There will be a continuous exchange of information between this project and other projects of similar approach in the same country, region and worldwide.

219.The lessons from the project will be collected into three documents which systematise experiences: Application of the TDA / SAP process in the three transboundary watersheds. Advancing governance in the transboundary watersheds. Visibility and strengthening of the role of women in water management.

220.These documents will be (i) in a dissemination format (e.g., visually appealing, plain language) to be accessible to a wide audience, and (ii) available to be downloaded from the web. Each document will include summaries in Spanish, Awá pit, Kichwa and English.

221.In addition, a memoir of the project that systematises both achievements and learnings will be prepared. The memoir will be in a simple and very graphic format, so that it is accessible to the general public. The document will have executive summaries in Spanish, Awá pit, Kichwa and English and it will be available to be downloaded from the web.

GEF Core Indicators

222.In line with its objective and the corresponding focal areas / GEF programmes, the present project will apply the GEF-7 Core indicators submitted along with the CEO Endorsement request for this project.

223.The baseline core indicators – submitted as Annex 2 to this project document – will be updated by the binational project coordinator and handed to the consultants responsible for the midterm review and terminal evaluation, before the beginning of the respective review/evaluation missions. The updated core indicators will be submitted to the GEF along with the completed midterm review report and terminal evaluation report.

Independent midterm review

224.An independent mid-term review process will begin after the second PIR has been submitted to the GEF, and the MTR report will be submitted to the GEF in the same year as the third PIR.

225.The MTR findings and the management response will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s duration.

226.The terms of reference, the review process and the MTR report will follow the standard templates and guidance prepared by the UNDP Independent Evaluation Office for GEF-financed projects85. As noted in this guidance, the evaluation will be “independent, impartial and rigorous”. The consultants that will be hired to undertake the assignment will be independent from organizations that were involved in designing, executing or advising on the project to be evaluated. The GEF Operational Focal Points of Colombia and Ecuador and other stakeholders will be involved and consulted during the midterm review process. Additional quality assurance support will be available from the UNDP-GEF Directorate. The final MTR report will be available in English and will be cleared by the UNDP Country Office in Ecuador and the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Adviser and approved by the project board.

Terminal evaluation

227.An independent terminal evaluation will be carried out upon completion of all major project outputs and activities. The terminal evaluation process will begin three months before the operational closure of the project, facilitating that the evaluation mission proceeds while the project team is still operating, but making sure that the project is close enough to its conclusion, so that the evaluation team reach conclusions on key aspects such as the sustainability of the outcomes

85 http://web.undp.org/evaluation/guidance.shtml#gef

67 | P a g e

achieved. It is expected that the terminal evaluation is performed in the third quarter of the fourth year of the project, and that the operational closure is carried out during the last quarter of the same year (Annex 1).

228.The CBP will remain on contract until the TE report and the management responses have been finalized. The terms of reference terms, the evaluation process and the final TE report will follow the standard formats and guidelines of the UNDP Independent Evaluation Office for GEF-financed projects86. As stipulated in this guidance, the evaluation will be “independent, impartial and rigorous”. The consultants that will be hired for this task will be independent from the entities that participated in the design, implementation or advising of the project. The GEF operational focal points of Colombia and Ecuador and other stakeholders will be involved and consulted during the terminal evaluation process. Additional quality assurance support will be available from the UNDP-GEF directorate.

229.The terminal evaluation report will be cleared by the UNDP country office in Ecuador and the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor and approved by the project board. The TE report will be available to the public in English on the UNDP Evaluation Resource Centre (ERC).

230.The UNDP country office in Ecuador will include the project terminal evaluation within the country office evaluation plan and will upload the final report of the terminal evaluation in English to the UNDP Evaluation Resource Centre, as well as the corresponding management response. Once the documents have been uploaded to the ERC, the UNDP Independent Evaluation Office will perform a quality evaluation and will validate findings and grades that are in the TE and will rate the quality of the TE report. The UNDP independent evaluation office assessment report will be sent to the GEF independent evaluation office together with the terminal evaluation report.

231.The UNDP country office in Ecuador will retain all monitoring and evaluation records of the present project for up to seven years after its financial closure to support ex-post evaluations that can be carried out by the UNDP independent evaluation office and/or the GEF independent evaluation office.

Final report

232.The project’s terminal PIR along with the terminal evaluation report and corresponding management response will serve as the final project report package. The final project report package will be analysed with the project board during an end-of-project review meeting to discuss lesson learned and opportunities for scaling up the outcomes.

Mandatory GEF monitoring and evaluation requirements and budget

GEF M&E requirements Primary responsibility Indicative costs to be charged to the Project Budget87 (USD)

Time frame

GEF grant Co-financing

Inception Workshop UNDP Country Office in Ecuador

USD11,200 USD10,000 Within two months of project document signature

Inception Report Binational coordinator None None Within two weeks of inception workshop

Standard UNDP monitoring and reporting requirements as outlined in the UNDP POPP

UNDP Country Office in Ecuador

None None Quarterly, annually

Risk management Binational coordinatorUNDP Country Offices in Colombia and Ecuador

None None Quarterly, annually

Monitoring of indicators in Binational coordinator USD16,000 USD16,000 Annually before

86 http://web.undp.org/evaluation/documents/guidance/GEF/UNDP-GEF-TE-Guide.pdf87 Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff time and travel expenses.

68 | P a g e

GEF M&E requirements Primary responsibility Indicative costs to be charged to the Project Budget (USD)

Time frame

GEF grant Co-financing

project results framework PIR

GEF Project Implementation Report (PIR)

Binational coordinator, UNDP Country Office in Ecuador and UNDP-GEF team

None None Annually

Lessons learned and knowledge generation

Binational coordinator None None Annually

Monitoring of environmental and social risks, and corresponding management plans as relevant

Binational coordinator, Gender, participation and intercultural specialist and UNDP Country Office in Ecuador

USD16,00088 None On-going

Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Binational coordinator, Gender, participation and intercultural specialist and UNDP Country Office in Ecuador

None None On-going

Gender Action Plan Binational coordinator, Gender, participation and intercultural specialist and UNDP Country Office in Ecuador

None None On-going

Addressing environmental and social grievances

Binational coordinator, UNDP Country Office in Ecuador and Project Board

None None On-going

Project Board meetings Project BoardUNDP Country Office in EcuadorBinational coordinator

USD6,000 USD20,000 At minimum annually

Supervision missions UNDP Country Office in Ecuador

None89 USD10,000 Annually

Oversight missions UNDP-GEF team NoneError:Referencesource not

found

USD10,000 Troubleshooting as needed

GEF Secretariat learning missions/site visits

UNDP Country Office in Ecuador, Binational coordinator and UNDP-GEF team

None USD10,000 To be determined.

Mid-term update of GEF core indicators

Binational coordinator USD 10,000 None Before mid-term review mission takes place.

Independent Mid-term Review (MTR) and management response

UNDP Country Office in Ecuador, project team and UNDP-GEF team

USD36,000 USD5,000 Between 2nd and 3rd

PIR.

88 Indicated in the budget as: “annual assessment of compliance with social and environmental safeguards”. See corresponding budget note.89 The costs of UNDP Country Office and UNDP-GEF Unit’s participation and time are charged to the GEF Agency Fee.

69 | P a g e

GEF M&E requirements Primary responsibility Indicative costs to be charged to the Project Budget (USD)

Time frame

GEF grant Co-financing

Terminal update of GEF core indicators

Binational coordinator USD 10,000 None Before terminal evaluation mission takes place

Independent Terminal Evaluation (TE) included in UNDP evaluation plan, and management response

UNDP Country Office in Ecuador, project team and UNDP-GEF team

USD48,000 USD5,000 At least three months before operational closure

TOTAL indicative COST Excluding project team staff time, and UNDP staff and travel expenses

USD 153,200 (3.97% of GEF

grant)

USD86,000

VIII. GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS 233.Roles and responsibilities of the project’s governance mechanism . The project will be implemented following UNDP’s

national implementation modality (NIM supported), according to the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement between UNDP and the governments of Colombia and Ecuador, and the Country Programme. The host country will be Ecuador.

234.The Implementing Partner for this project are the Water Secretariat of Ecuador (SENAGUA) and the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MADS) in Colombia. The Implementing Partner is responsible and accountable for managing this project, including the monitoring and evaluation of project interventions, achieving project outcomes, and for the effective use of UNDP resources.

235.The Implementing Partner is responsible for: Approving and signing the multiyear workplan; Approving and signing the combined delivery report at the end of the year; and, Signing the financial report or the funding authorization and certificate of expenditures.

236.SENAGUA, as implementing partner, will administer the agreed binational activities on behalf of both countries and will be the executing entity to implement the corresponding Ecuadorian national activities. In Colombia, the executing entity will the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MADS) for the corresponding Colombian national activities.

237.The project partners in Colombia are (i) MADS, (ii) the Government of Nariño, (iii) CORPONARIÑO, (iv) the Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies, (v) the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and (vi) WWF-Colombia. In Ecuador, the project partners are (i) SENAGUA, (ii) the Decentralized Autonomous Government of the Carchi province, (iii) Decentralized Autonomous Government of the Imbabura province, (iv) Decentralized Autonomous Government of the Esmeraldas province, (v) the Commonwealth of northern Ecuador (MNE), (vi) INAMHI and (vii) the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

238.The project organisation structure is as follows:

70 | P a g e

Figure 21. Project organization chart.

71 | P a g e

Project board

239.The Project Board (also called Project Steering Committee) is responsible for making by consensus, management decisions when guidance is required by the project manager (here called binational coordinator), including recommendations for UNDP/Implementing Partner approval of project plans and revisions, and addressing any project level grievances. In order to ensure UNDP’s ultimate accountability, Project Board decisions should be made in accordance with standards that shall ensure management for development results, best value money, fairness, integrity, transparency and effective international competition. In case a consensus cannot be reached within the Board, final decision shall rest with the UNDP Programme Manager. The terms of reference of the Project Board are in Annex 4.

240.Specific responsibilities of the Project Board include:i. Provide overall guidance and direction to the project, ensuring it remains within any specified constraints;

ii. Address project issues as raised by the project manager;iii. Provide guidance on new project risks, and agree on possible countermeasures and management actions to address

specific risks; iv. Agree on project manager’s tolerances as required;v. Review the project progress, and provide direction and recommendations to ensure that the agreed deliverables are

produced satisfactorily according to plans;vi. Appraise the annual project implementation report, including the quality assessment rating report; make

recommendations for the workplan; vii. Provide ad hoc direction and advice for exceptional situations when the project manager’s tolerances are exceeded;

and viii. Assess and decide to proceed on project changes through appropriate revisions.

241.In addition, in this project, it is the responsibility of the Project Board to:a. Observe the development of the TDA / SAP process,b. Keep informed high-level authorities (e.g., ministries, office of the president) of the development and

achievements of the TDA / SAP process,c. Adopt the TDA that is submitted by the TDA development team, andd. Coordinate the steps for the high-level endorsement of the SAP.

242.The composition of the Project Board must include the following roles:

Executive

243.The Executive is an individual who represents ownership of the project who will chair the Project Board. This role can be held by a representative from the Government Cooperating Agency or UNDP. In the present project the executive is SENAGUA through the Undersecretary of Social Affairs and Water Resources Articulation.

244.The Executive is ultimately responsible for the project, supported by the Senior Beneficiary and Development partner. The Executive’s role is to ensure that the project is focused throughout its life cycle on achieving its objectives and delivering outputs that will contribute to higher level outcomes. The executive must ensure that the project gives value for money, ensuring cost-conscious approach to the project, balancing the demands of beneficiary and suppler.

245.Specific responsibilities of the executive, as part of the above responsibilities for the Project Board, are:i. Ensure that there is a coherent project organisation structure and logical set of plans;

ii. Set tolerances in the annual workplan and other plans as required for the Project Manager;iii. Monitor and control the progress of the project at a strategic level;iv. Ensure that risks are being tracked and mitigated as effectively as possible;v. Brief relevant stakeholders about project progress;

72 | P a g e

vi. Organise and chair Project Board meetings.

Development partner

246.The Development partner is an individual or group representing the interests of the parties concerned which provide funding and/or technical expertise to the project (designing, developing, facilitating, procuring, implementing). The Development partner’s primary function within the Board is to provide guidance regarding the technical feasibility of the project. The Development partner role must have the authority to commit or acquire resources required. If necessary, more than one person may be required for this role. Typically, the implementing partner, UNDP and/or donor(s) would be represented under this role. In this project, the Development partner will be the UNDP Resident Representative in Ecuador.

247.Specific Responsibilities of the development partner, as part of the above responsibilities for the Project Board, are:i. Make sure that progress towards the outputs remains consistent from the development partner´s perspective;

ii. Promote and maintain focus on the expected project output(s) from the point of view of development partner management;

iii. Ensure that the development partner resources required for the project are made available;iv. Contribute opinions on Project Board decisions on whether to implement recommendations on proposed changes;v. Arbitrate on, and ensure resolution of, any development partner priority or resource conflicts.

Senior Beneficiary

248.The Senior Beneficiary is an individual or group of individuals representing the interests of those who will ultimately benefit from the project. The Senior Beneficiary’s primary function within the Board is to ensure the realization of project results from the perspective of project beneficiaries. The Senior Beneficiary role is held by a representative of the government or civil society. In this project, the Senior Beneficiary will be represented by the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia -- through the Director of integrated management of water resources --, CORPONARIÑO and a representative of Ecuador´s three provincial governments90.

249.The Senior Beneficiary is responsible for validating the needs and for monitoring that the solution will meet those needs within the constraints of the project. The Senior Beneficiary role monitors progress against targets and quality criteria. This role may require more than one person to cover all the beneficiary interests. For the sake of effectiveness, the role should not be split between too many people.

250.Specific Responsibilities of the Senior Beneficiary, as part of the above responsibilities for the Project Board, are:i. Prioritize and contribute beneficiaries’ opinions on Project Board decisions on whether to implement

recommendations on proposed changes;ii. Specification of the beneficiary’s needs is accurate, complete and unambiguous;

iii. Implementation of activities at all stages is monitored to ensure that they will meet the beneficiary’s needs and are progressing towards that target;

iv. Impact of potential changes is evaluated from the beneficiary point of view;v. Risks to the beneficiaries are frequently monitored.

251.The Project Board is formed by the following people: (i) Director of integrated management of water resources of MADS (Senior Beneficiary), (ii) a representative of Ecuador´s provincial governments (Senior Beneficiary), (iii) CORPONARIÑO (Senior Beneficiary), (iv) Undersecretary of Social Affairs and Water Resources Articulation of SENAGUA (Executive) and (v) the UNDP Resident Representative in Ecuador (Development partner). In addition, the ministries of foreign affairs and the GEF focal points of each country will participate as observers. The UNDP Regional Technical Advisor in governance of waters and oceans will participate in the meetings as part of its quality assurance role to provide advice and guidance. The binational coordinator of the project will act as secretary of the committee, but without vote. In its first meeting, the Steering Committee will agree its operating procedures.

90 At project start UNDP Ecuador will request that the three provincial governments designate their representative to the board.

73 | P a g e

Technical Committee

252.The Technical Committee is an inter-institutional binational coordination space. Its main role is to provide technical guidance to the binational coordinator and the project unit in support to the achievement of the project outcomes. In addition, this entity reviews and pre-approves the annual work plans and budgets before they are submitted for consideration of the Project Board.

253.The technical committee will be formed by formally designed delegates from the Government of Nariño, CORPONARIÑO, IDEAM, GAD Imbabura, GAD Esmeraldas, GAD Carchi, MNE, INAMHI, and WWF-Colombia. When appropriate, the programme officers or other UNDP specialists will participate. The members of the Technical Committee will decide on inviting other entities that consider relevant. The committee will be co-chaired by the national directors of the project in Colombia and Ecuador. In its first meeting, the Technical Committee will agree its operating procedures.

254.If necessary, working groups will be established to facilitate inter-institutional coordination. The members of the committee will decide about the creation, mandate and composition of working groups.

National Directors

255.The National Directors of the project will be government officials formally designated by MADS in Colombia and SENAGUA in Ecuador. These persons will be responsible for the execution of the project according to what is established in the PRODOC and the approved work plans. The national directors will supervise the implementation of the national actions of the project and establish guiding and coordination actions with the Binational Coordinator, facilitate coordination and cooperation with the various relevant national entities, participate (when necessary) in the processes of recruitment / acquisition of staff, goods and services for the project, and is the person who authorizes the expenditure to be executed.

Project Management Unit

256.The project management unit is headed by the binational coordinator and includes eight members ().

Binational coordinator

257.The Binational Coordinator or Project Manager has the authority to run the project on a day-to-day basis on behalf of the Project Board within the constraints laid down by the board. The binational coordinator is responsible for day-to-day management and decision-making for the project. This person’s prime responsibility is to ensure that the project produces the results specified in the project document, to the required standard of quality and within the specified constraints of time and cost.

258.The Implementing Partner appoints the project manager, who should be different from the Implementing Partner’s representative in the Project Board.

259.The function of the CBP will finalize when the terminal evaluation report and other documentation required by GEF and UNDP have been completed and submitted to UNDP (including the operational closure of the project). The CBP will ensure fluid communication and coordination with the national directors, UNDP and the project partners, as well as other entities that contribute to project execution (e.g., local governments, civil society organizations, international cooperation). The CBP will oversee the implementation of the TDA / SAP process (outcomes 1 and 2).

260.The terms of reference of the CBP are found in Annex 4, specific responsibilities include:

a. Provide direction and guidance to project team and, if required, the project partners;b. Liaise with the Project Board to assure the overall direction and integrity of the project;c. Identify and obtain any support and advice required for the management, planning and control of the project;d. Responsible for project administration;e. Plan the activities of the project and monitor progress against the project results framework and the approved

annual workplan;

74 | P a g e

f. Mobilize personnel, goods and services, training and micro-capital grants to initiative activities, including drafting terms of reference and work specifications, and overseeing all contractors’ work;

g. Monitor events as determined in the project monitoring schedule plan/timetable, and update the plan as required;h. Manage requests for the provision of financial resources by UNDP, through advance of funds, direct payments or

reimbursement using the fund authorization and certificate of expenditures;i. Monitor financial resources and accounting to ensure the accuracy and reliability of financial reports;j. Be responsible for preparing and submitting financial reports to UNDP on a quarterly basis;k. Manage and monitor the project risks initially identified and submit new risks to the project board for

consideration and decision on possible actions if required, update the status of these risks by maintaining the project risks log;

l. Capture lessons learned during project implementation; m. Prepare the annual workplan for the following year; and update the Atlas Project Management module if external

access is made available.n. Prepare the GEF PIR and submit the final report to the Project Board;o. Based on the GEF PIR and the project board review, prepare the annual workplan for the following year.p. Ensure the midterm review process is undertaken as per the UNDP guidance, and submit the final MTR report to

the Project Board.q. Identify follow-on actions and submit them for consideration to the Project Board;

261.Ensure the terminal evaluation process is undertaken as per the UNDP guidance, and submit the final TE report to the Project Board.

262.The CBP will have a signature delegation as a valid requirement in financial administrative processes up to USD60,000 for the following processes:a. Requests for payment for fees, consulting products and goods and services from suppliers,b. Requests for purchase orders of goods and / or equipmentc. Requests for individual and company contracts, andd. Others that do not exceed the authorized limit value.

Thematic specialists

263.There will be four thematic specialists (), who will coordinate specific outcomes and will work together with the project partners and other participating entities. These persons will have cross-cutting functions to all project outcomes but will also have specific duties. i. The TDA/SAP specialist (ETS) will be responsible of implementing the TDA/SAP process (outcomes 1 and 2).ii. The gender, participation and intercultural specialist (EGP) will be responsible of promoting and coordinating the

effective participation of diverse key stakeholders, direct beneficiaries and local groups, as well as the implementation of the stakeholder engagement plan and the gender action plan. In addition, this person will be (i) co-responsible for the preparation of the TDA and the SAP and (ii) responsible of outcome 3.

iii. The monitoring and evaluation specialist (EME) will coordinate actions to document and monitor the project activities and will be directly responsible of the execution of the monitoring and evaluation plans. In addition, this person will provide support and follow-up to the pilot interventions (outcome 4.1).

iv. The communication specialist (COM) will be responsible of outcome 4.2.264.There will be two persons to provide administrative, logistic and financial support: (i) administrative and financial assistant

(AFA) and (ii) administrative assistant (ADM).265.The binational coordinator, the EME and the AFA will be based in the main office in the host country. The EGP, COM and

ADM will be based in the satellite office in the other country. The EGP will serve as national leader of the project in Colombia.

75 | P a g e

266.For the preparation of the Strategic Action Programme, a temporary team will be recruited consisting of (i) an SAP participation and gender equality assistant and (ii) five community workers. These persons will be contracted for 16 months to undertake communication and consultation actions with local groups in support of SAP preparation. The SAP participation and gender equality assistant will be based in the host country.

Project Assurance

267.UNDP provides a three – tier supervision, oversight and quality assurance role – which is funded by the GEF agency fee – involving UNDP staff in the country offices and at regional and headquarters levels. Project Assurance must be totally independent of the project management function. The quality assurance role supports the project board and project management unit by carrying out objective and independent project oversight and monitoring functions. This role ensures appropriate project management milestones are managed and completed. The project board cannot delegate any of its quality assurance responsibilities to the project manager. This project oversight and quality assurance role is covered by the GEF Implementing Agency.

268.The UNDP quality assurance team, among other actions, will revise and analyse project reports and the draft annual workplan and budget, after they are pre-approved by the Technical Committee and before they are submitted to the Project Board and will make recommendations to optimize the project performance.

Governance role for project target groups

269.The EGP will organize semi-annual meetings (both virtual and in-person) with the key stakeholders and direct beneficiaries of each project outcome. In these meetings, the progress will be jointly reviewed, and comments, feedback and recommendations will be received for the execution of the project. In addition, there will be specific meetings with (i) women´s organizations (to be held annually) and (ii) key stakeholders implementing pilot interventions (see page 41). The CBP and the EME will participate in these meetings. The outcomes of these meetings will be reported to the Project Board.

IX. FINANCIAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

270.The total cost of the project is USD 49,580,120. This is financed through a GEF grant of USD 3,850,000 and USD 45,730,120 in parallel co-financing. UNDP, as the GEF Implementing Agency, is responsible for the execution of the GEF resources and the cash co-financing transferred to UNDP bank account only.

271.The binational budget will be administered by the host country (i.e., Ecuador). However, to expedite project implementation, for Colombian country level activities (e.g., workshops, missions, acquisition of goods and services), UNDP-Ecuador will share the chart of accounts (COA) codes to apply the payments through annual letters of financial authorization (UNDP-Ecuador to UNDP-Colombia). These letters will be issued once the project board approves the annual workplan based on the PRODOC and will have the format indicated in Annex 14.

Parallel co-financing

272.The actual realization of project co-financing will be monitored during the midterm review and terminal evaluation process and will be reported to the GEF. The planned parallel co-financing will be used as follows:

Co-financing sourceCo-financing

categoryCo-

financing type

Co-financing amount

Planned Activities/Outputs Risks

Risk Mitigation Measures

GAD Angochagua Public (local government)

Grant USD258,478

Contributions to TDA / SAP process and investment in pilot project 1 (outcome 4.1)

1 A

In kind USD5,000

Participate in TDA / SAP process

76 | P a g e

Co-financing sourceCo-financing

categoryCo-

financing type

Co-financing amount

Planned Activities/Outputs Risks

Risk Mitigation Measures

CORPONARIÑO Public Grant USD63,677

Contributions to all project outcomes and investment in pilot project 1 (outcome 4.1)

None None

Government of Nariño

Public (local government)

In kind USD17,396,715

Contribution to all project outcomes and investment in pilot projects 1 and 3 (outcome 4.1)

2 A

Grant USD1,587,935

Ipiales municipality Public (local government)

Grant USD199,149

Contributions to all project outcomes and investment in pilot project 1 (outcome 4.1)

2 A

Ricaurte municipality Public (local government)

In kind USD10,252

Contribution to pilot project 3 (outcome 4.1)

2 A

Ibarra municipiality Public (local government)

In kind USD375,566

Contribution to pilot project 1 (outcome 4.1)

1 A

San Lorenzo municipality

Public (local government)

In kind USD50,000

Contributions to TDA / SAP process and investment in pilot project 1 (outcome 4.1)

1 A

Tulcan municipality Public (local government)

Grant USD6,636,200

Contributions to all project outcomes and investment in pilot project 1 (outcome 4.1)

1 A

In kind USD7,819

GAD Carchi Public (local government)

Grant USD2,682,783

Contributions to TDA / SAP process and investment in pilot project (outcome 4.1)

1 A

In kind USD13,090

Participate in TDA / SAP process

GAD Esmeraldas Public (local government)

Grant USD2,741,620

Contributions to TDA / SAP process and investment in pilot project (outcome 4.1)

1 A

In kind USD10,358

Participate in TDA / SAP process

GAD Imbabura Public (local government)

Grant USD4,005,702

Contributions to TDA / SAP process and investment in pilot project (outcome 4.1)

1 A

In kind USD35,167

Participate in TDA / SAP process

GAD Tufiño Public (local government)

Grant USD33,250

Contributions to TDA / SAP process and investment in pilot project (outcome 4.1)

1 A

77 | P a g e

Co-financing sourceCo-financing

categoryCo-

financing type

Co-financing amount

Planned Activities/Outputs Risks

Risk Mitigation Measures

In kind USD 969

Participate in TDA / SAP process

SENAGUA Public Grant USD1,042,498

Contributions to all project outcomes

3 A

MAE Public Grant USD1,204,491

Contributions to all project outcomes

3 A

MADS Public Grant USD5,105,601

Contributions to all project outcomes

None None

In kind USD18,426

INAHMI Public Grant USD169,229

Contributions to all project and investment in pilot project 2 (outcome 4.1)

3 A

In kind USD 830,770

IDEAM Public In kind USD800,000

Contributions to all project and investment in pilot project 2 (outcome 4.1)

None None

ALTROPICO NGO Grant USD 375

Contribution to all project activities

None None

WWF Colombia NGO Grant USD425,000

Contributions to all project and investment in pilot project 3 (outcome 4.1)

None None

UNDP Ecuador Implementing agency

In kind USD20,000

Contribution to all project outcomes

None None

TOTAL USD45,730,120

Notes: [1] Change of local government in May 2019 (before project start) [2] Change of local government in January 2020 (about project start) [3] Change of central government in Ecuador in May 2021 (about mid-project implementation) [4] Values have been rounded [A] Present the project to new authorities and promote operational and financial support

UNDP Direct Project Services as requested by Government

273.The governments of Colombia and Ecuador have requested that UNDP provide support services to the national implementation modality to be applied. At the request of the execution entities, UNDP may provide Direct Project Services (DPS), according to its specific policies and conveniences. In this case, each executing entity will sign a specific standard letter of agreement (LOA) for the services to be provided and their respective costs (Annex 13). In accordance with GEF requirements, the costs of the services (i.e., direct project costs or DPC) will be part of the administration costs of the project of the corresponding executing agency identified in the project budget. UNDP and the governments of Colombia and Ecuador recognize that these services are not mandatory and will only be provided in full compliance of the UNDP direct cost recovery policies. DPC will be annually charged by using the UNDP universal price list (UPL).

Budget Revision and Tolerance

274.As per UNDP requirements outlined in the UNDP programme and operations policies and procedures (POPP), the project board will agree on a budget tolerance level for each plan under the overall annual work plan allowing the project manager to expend up to the tolerance level beyond the approved project budget amount for the year without requiring a revision

78 | P a g e

from the Project Board. Should the following deviations occur, the Project Manager and UNDP Country Office will seek the approval of the UNDP-GEF team to ensure accurate reporting to the GEF: a) Budget re-allocations among components in the project with amounts involving 10% of the total project grant or more; b) Introduction of new budget items/or components that exceed 5% of original GEF allocation.

275.Any over expenditure incurred beyond the available GEF grant amount will be absorbed by non-GEF resources (e.g. UNDP TRAC or cash co-financing).

Refund to GEF

276.Should a refund of unspent funds to the GEF be necessary, this will be managed directly by the UNDP-GEF Unit in New York.

Project Closure

277.Project closure will be conducted as per UNDP requirements outlined in the UNDP POPP.91 On an exceptional basis only, a no-cost extension beyond the initial duration of the project will be sought from in-country UNDP colleagues and then the UNDP-GEF Executive Coordinator.

Operational completion

278.The project will be operationally completed when the last UNDP-financed inputs have been provided and the related activities have been completed. This includes the final clearance of the Terminal Evaluation Report (that will be available in English) and the corresponding management response, and the end-of-project review Project Board meeting. The Implementing Partner through a Project Board decision will notify the UNDP Country Office in the host country when operational closure has been completed. At this time, the relevant parties will have already agreed and confirmed in writing on the arrangements for the disposal of any equipment that is still the property of UNDP.

Transfer or disposal of assets

279.In consultation with the NIM Implementing Partner and other parties of the project, UNDP programme manager (UNDP Resident Representative) is responsible for deciding on the transfer or other disposal of assets. Transfer or disposal of assets is recommended to be reviewed and endorsed by the project board following UNDP rules and regulations. Assets may be transferred to the government for project activities managed by a national institution at any time during the life of a project. In all cases of transfer, a transfer document must be prepared and kept on file92.

Financial completion

280.The project will be financially closed when the following conditions have been met: (a) The project is operationally completed or has been cancelled, (b) the Implementing Partner has reported all financial transactions to UNDP, (c) UNDP has closed the accounts for the project, (d) UNDP and the Implementing Partner have certified a final Combined Delivery Report (which serves as final budget revision).

281.The project will be financially completed within 12 months of operational closure or after the date of cancellation. Between operational and financial closure, the implementing partner will identify and settle all financial obligations and prepare a final expenditure report. The UNDP Country Office in the host country will send the final signed closure documents including confirmation of final cumulative expenditure and unspent balance to the UNDP-GEF Unit for confirmation before the project will be financially closed in Atlas by the UNDP Country Office.

91 see https://info.undp.org/global/popp/ppm/Pages/Closing-a-Project.aspx92 See https://popp.undp.org/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/UNDP_POPP_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY/Public/PPM_Project%20Management_Closing.docx&action=default.

79 | P a g e

80 | P a g e

X. TOTAL BUDGET AND WORK PLAN

TOTAL BUDGET AND WORK PLANAtlas[1] Proposal or Award ID: 00085035 Atlas Primary Output Project ID: 00092085Atlas Proposal or Award Title: IWRM MIRA MATAJE AND CARCHI GUAITARAAtlas Business Unit ECU10Atlas Primary Output Project Title IWRM MIRA MATAJE AND CARCHI GUAITARAUNDP-GEF PIMS No. 5753Implementing Partner SENAGUA

Binational budget

GEF Component/Atlas Activity

Responsible Party/ (Atlas

Implementing Agent)

Fund ID Donor name

Atlas Budgetary Account

Code

ATLAS Budget Description

Amount Year 1 (USD)

Amount Year 2 (USD)

Amount Year 3 (USD)

Amount Year 4 (USD) Total (USD)

See Budget Note:

Component 1 - Generation of knowledge, information management and diagnostic

analysis of the current status of the transboundary water resources (surface and

ground waters) of the Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara binational basins.

SENAGUA 62000 GEF

71200 International Consultants 7,000.00 - - - 7,000.00 1

71300 Local Consultants 42,750.00 53,750.00 - - 96,500.00 2

71400 Contractual Services - Individual 50,428.80 75,869.60 61,869.60 44,723.40 232,891.40 3

71600 Travel 5,700.00 5,700.00 5,700.00 5,700.00 22,800.00 4

72100 Contractual Services - Companies 20,000.00 180,000.00 - - 200,000.00 5

72400 Communications 2,640.00 2,640.00 2,640.00 2,640.00 10,560.00 6

75700 Training 46,720.00 39,600.00 - - 86,320.00 7

Total 175,238.80 357,559.60 70,209.60 53,063.40 656,071.40

Component 2 - Strategic planning to strengthen governance for transboundary IWRM in Mira, Mataje and Carchi-Guáitara

binational watersheds and aquifers.

SENAGUA 62000 GEF

71200 International Consultants 7,000.00 - - - 7,000.00 8

71300 Local Consultants - - 28,800.00 - 28,800.00 9

71400 Contractual Services - Individual

55,545.96 74,263.16 126,263.16 57,650.36 313,722.64 10

71600 Travel 6,200.00 6,200.00 15,400.00 6,200.00 34,000.00 11

72400 Communications 2,640.00 2,640.00 2,640.00 2,640.00 10,560.00 12

74100 Professional services - - - 14,000.00 14,000.00 13

74200 Audio Visual&Print Prod Costs

- - - 3,000.00 3,000.00 14

75700 Training - 35,150.00 105,300.00 30,700.00 171,150.00 15

Total 71,385.96 118,253.16 278,403.16 114,190.36 582,232.64

81 | P a g e

Component 3 - Capacity building at public, private and community level enabling the shared IWRM of Mira, Mataje and Carchi-

Guáitara river basins.

SENAGUA 62000GEF

71400 Contractual Services - Individual

42,131.40 44,623.20 44,623.20 39,331.20 170,709.00 16

71600 Travel 4,800.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 19,200.00 17

72100 Contractual Services - Companies

- 65,000.00 5,000.00 - 70,000.00 18

72400 Communications 2,640.00 2,640.00 2,640.00 2,640.00 10,560.00 19

75700 Training - 40,000.00 - - 40,000.00 20

Total 49,571.40 157,063.20 57,063.20 46,771.20 310,469.00

Component 4 - Innovative interventions for testing the socio-economic and

environmental benefits from applying the IWRM at selected sites of the Mira, Mataje

and Carchi-Guáitara river basins.

SENAGUA 62000GEF

71200 International Consultants - 23,000.00 - 30,000.00 53,000.00 21

71300 Local Consultants 8,000.00 21,000.00 18,000.00 36,000.00 83,000.00 22

71400 Contractual Services - Individual

66,263.64 69,085.44 69,085.44 62,495.04 266,929.56 23

71600 Travel 16,500.00 16,500.00 16,500.00 16,500.00 66,000.00 24

72100 Contractual Services - Companies

11,000.00 6,000.00 6,000.00 6,000.00 29,000.00 25

72400 Communications 6,440.00 6,440.00 6,440.00 6,440.00 25,760.00 26

72800 InfoTech Equipment 22,717.40 - - - 22,717.40 27

74200 Audio Visual&Print Prod Costs

- - - 40,000.00 40,000.00 28

75700 Training 63,887.00 66,100.00 33,400.00 88,100.00 251,487.00 29

Total 194,808.04 208,125.44 149,425.44 285,535.04 837,893.96

PMC UNDP 62000 GEF

71400 Contractual Services - Individual

1,817.45 1,817.45 1,817.45 1,817.45 7,269.80 30

73100 Rental & Maintenance-Premises

1,457.00 1,457.00 1,457.00 2,504.20 6,875.20 31

74596 Direct project costs 28,479.00 39,923.00 33,022.00 23,326.00 124,750.00 32

74100 Professional Services 2,500.00 7,500.00 2,500.00 7,500.00 20,000.00 33

Total 34,253.45 50,697.45 38,796.45 35,147.65 158,895.00

Total binational budget 525,257.65 891,698.85 593,897.85 534,707.65 2,545,562.00

Ecuador national activities budgetGEF Responsible Fund Donor Atlas ATLAS Budget Description Amount Year Amount Year 2 Amount Year Amount Year 4 Total (USD) See Budget

82 | P a g e

Component/Atlas Activity

Party/ (Atlas

Implementing Agent)

ID nameBudgetary Account

Code1 (USD) (USD) 3 (USD) (USD) Note:

Component 1 SENAGUA 62000 GEFTotal - - - - -

Component 2 SENAGUA 62000 GEFTotal - - - - -

Component 3 SENAGUA 62000 GEF

72100 Contractual Services - Companies - 70,000.00 10,000.00 - 80,000.00 34

75700 Training - 40,000.00 10,000.0 - 50,000.00 35

Total - 110,000.00 20,000.00 - 130,000.00

Component 4 SENAGUA 62000 GEF

71500 UN Volunteers - 12,442.00 - - 12,442.00 36

71600 Travel - 23,868.00 - - 23,868.00 37

72100 Contractual Services - Companies - 220,000.00 - - 220,000.00 38

72400 Communications 4,032.00 4,032.00 39

72500 Supplies - 51,750.00 - - 51,750.00 40

72800 InfoTech Equipment - 125,660.00 - - 125,660.00 41

72100 Contractual Services - Companies - 30,000 - - 30,000.00 42

71300 Local Consultants - 32,248.00 32,248.00 43

Total - 500,000.00 - - 500,000.00

PMC UNDP 62000 GEF71400 Contractual Services - Individual - 14,234.00 332.00 14,566.00 44

Total - 14,234.00 332.00 - 14,566.00

Total Ecuador national budget - 624,234.00 20,332.00 - 644,566.00

Summary budget to be administered in Ecuador

Source Country Amount Year 1 (USD)

Amount Year 2 (USD)

Amount Year 3 (USD)

Amount Year 4 (USD) Total (USD)

83 | P a g e

GEF 525,257.65 1,515,932.85 614,229.85 534,707.65 3,190,128

GAD Angochagua Ecuador 26,348 105,391 105,391 26,348 263,478

Ibarra municipality Ecuador 37,557 150,226 150,226 37,557 375,566

San Lorenzo municipality Ecuador 5,000 20,000 20,000 5,000 50,000

Tulcan municipality Ecuador 1,661,005 1,661,005 1,661,004 1,661,005 6,644,019

GAD Carchi Ecuador 673,968 673,969 673,968 673,968 2,695,873

GAD Esmeraldas Ecuador 687,995 687,994 687,995 687,994 2,751,978

GAD Imbabura Ecuador 1,010,217 1,010,217 1,010,218 1,010,217 4,040,869

GAD Tufiño Ecuador 3,422 13,687 13,688 3,422 34,219

SENAGUA Ecuador 260,625 260,624 260,625 260,624 1,042,498

MAE Ecuador 301,123 301,122 301,123 301,123 1,204,491

INAMHI Ecuador 100,000 400,000 400,000 99,999 999,999

ALTROPICO Ecuador 94 94 93 94 375

UNDP Ecuador Ecuador 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000

Total 5,295,111.65 6,802,761,85 5,901,060.85 5,314,558.65 23,313,493

84 | P a g e

TOTAL BUDGET AND WORK PLANAtlas[1] Proposal or Award ID: 00114639 Atlas Primary Output Project ID: 00112583Atlas Proposal or Award Title: IWRM MIRA MATAJE AND CARCHI GUAITARAAtlas Business Unit COL10Atlas Primary Output Project Title IWRM MIRA MATAJE AND CARCHI GUAITARAUNDP-GEF PIMS No. 5753Implementing Partner MADS

Colombia national activities budget

GEF Component/Atlas Activity

Responsible Party/ (Atlas

Implementing Agent)

Fund ID Donor name

Atlas Budgetary Account

Code

ATLAS Budget DescriptionAmount Year 1 (USD)

Amount Year 2 (USD)

Amount Year 3 (USD)

Amount Year 4 (USD)

Total (USD) See Budget Note:

Component 1 GEFTotal - - - - -

Component 2 GEFTotal - - - - -

Component 3 GEFTotal - - - - -

Component 4 MADS 62000 GEF

71300 Local Consultants - 9,666.00 - - 9,666.00 4571400 Contractual Services - Individual - 15,787.00 - - 15,787.00 4671500 UN Volunteers - 24,000.00 24,000.00 - 48,000.00 4771600 Travel - 29,989.00 12,000.00 - 41,989.00 4872100 Contractual Services - Companies - 373,000.00 - - 373,000.00 4972300 Materials and Goods - 21,125.00 - - 21,125.00 5072800 InfoTech Equipment - 90,000.00 - - 90,000.00 5173100 Rental & Maintenance-Premises - 7,500.00 - - 7,500.00 5274200 Audio Visual&Print Prod Costs - 3,333.00 - - 3,333.00 5375700 Training 10,000.00 19,600.00 - - 29,600.00 54

Total 10,000.00 594,000.00 36,000.00 - 640,000.00

PMC UNDP 62000 GEF 71400 Contractual Services - Individual 241.00 16,742.00 2,889.00 - 19,872.00 55Total 241.00 16,742.00 2,889.00 - 19,872.00

Total Colombia national budget 10,241.00 610,742.00 38,889.00 - 659,872.00

85 | P a g e

Summary budget to be administered in Colombia

Source CountryAmount Year 1 (USD)

Amount Year 2 (USD)

Amount Year 3 (USD)

Amount Year 4 (USD)

Total (USD)

GEF 10,241 610,742 38,889 659,872

CORPONARIÑO Colombia 6,368 25,471 25,470 6,368 63,677

Government of Nariño Colombia 4,746,163 4,746,162 4,746,163 4,746,162 18,984,650

Ipiales municipality Colombia 19,914 79,660 79,660 19,915 199,149

Ricaurte municipality Colombia 1,025 4,101 4,101 1,025 10,252

MADS Colombia 1,281,006 1,281,007 1,281,007 1,281,007 5,124,027

IDEAM Colombia 80,000 320,000 320,000 80,000 800,000

WWF Colombia Colombia 42,500 170,000 170,000 42,500 425,000

Total 6,187,217 7,237,143 6,665,290 6,176,977 26,266,627

86 | P a g e

Summary of Funds: 93

Source Country Amount Year 1 (USD)

Amount Year 2 (USD)

Amount Year 3 (USD)

Amount Year 4 (USD) Total (USD)

GEF 535,498.65 2,126,674.85 653,118.85 534,707.65 3,850,000CORPONARIÑO Colombia 6,368 25,471 25,470 6,368 63,677Government of Nariño Colombia 4,746,163 4,746,162 4,746,163 4,746,162 18,984,650Ipiales municipality Colombia 19,914 79,660 79,660 19,915 199,149Ricaurte municipality Colombia 1,025 4,101 4,101 1,025 10,252MADS Colombia 1,281,006 1,281,007 1,281,007 1,281,007 5,124,027IDEAM Colombia 80,000 320,000 320,000 80,000 800,000WWF Colombia Colombia 42,500 170,000 170,000 42,500 425,000GAD Angochagua Ecuador 26,348 105,391 105,391 26,348 263,478Ibarra municipality Ecuador 37,557 150,226 150,226 37,557 375,566San Lorenzo municipality Ecuador 5,000 20,000 20,000 5,000 50,000Tulcan municipality Ecuador 1,661,005 1,661,005 1,661,004 1,661,005 6,644,019GAD Carchi Ecuador 673,968 673,969 673,968 673,968 2,695,873GAD Esmeraldas Ecuador 687,995 687,994 687,995 687,994 2,751,978GAD Imbabura Ecuador 1,010,217 1,010,217 1,010,218 1,010,217 4,040,869GAD Tufiño Ecuador 3,422 13,687 13,688 3,422 34,219SENAGUA Ecuador 260,625 260,624 260,625 260,624 1,042,498MAE Ecuador 301,123 301,122 301,123 301,123 1,204,491INAMHI Ecuador 100,000 400,000 400,000 99,999 999,999ALTROPICO Ecuador 94.00 94.00 93.00 94.00 375UNDP Ecuador Ecuador 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000Total 11,482,328.65 14,039,904.85 12,566,350.85 11,491,535.65 49,580,120

93 Summary table should include all financing of all kinds: GEF financing, cofinancing, cash, in-kind, etc...

87 | P a g e

Budget notes1. TDA/SAP process trainer. Prepare and implement a binational training workshop (three-days’ workshop) and to facilitate the TDA initiation workshop (one-day workshop). USD500/day

x 10 days to prepare and implement workshops + USD2,000 for travel expenses.

2. 7,000.00 Consultant to compile IWRM information for the TDA. USD5,000 honorarium and USD2,000 for travel expenses. 7,000.00 Consultant to compile social information for the TDA. USD5,000 honorarium and USD2,000 for travel expenses. 12,500.00 Consultant in water resources to support TDA preparation. USD250/day x 50 days total allocation. Travel expenses will be covered as part of the workshops´ budgets 12,500.00 Consultant in biodiversity to support TDA preparation. USD250/day x 50 days total allocation. Travel expenses will be covered as part of the workshops´ budgets 12,500.00 Consultant in climate change to support TDA preparation. USD250/day x 50 days total allocation. Travel expenses will be covered as part of the workshops´ budgets 25,000.00 Thematic report 1. Governance of water and irrigation boards with a gender approach and intercultural analysis. Individual contract. Lead consultant with support

team. USD25,000 all costs included. 20,000.00 Thematic report 4. Identification of innovative domestic water supply technologies applicable in rural areas of the transboundary basins. Individual contract, all costs

included.3. 67,420.80 Binational coordinator. Time allocated to this outcome.

22,953.60 Participation and gender specialist. Time allocated to this outcome. 36,636.00 TDA/SAP specialist. Time allocated to this outcome. 29,308.80 Monitoring and evaluation specialist. Time allocated to this outcome. 24,023.40 Communication specialist. Time allocated to this outcome. 9,240.00 Administrative assistant. Time allocated to this outcome 29,308.80 Administrative and financial assistant. Time allocated to this outcome 10,000.00 Translation of TDA document into English. USD50/page (500 words in A4 page x USD0.1 per word) x 200 pages. 4,000.00 Editing of TDA document. USD20/page x 200 pages. Includes publishing in high quality PDF format.

4. 8,000.00 Land travel of project team in project area. 4,000.00 Airplane tickets for project team. USD500/ticket x 2 tickets/year. 10,800.00 Reimbursement of travel expenses of project team. USD90/day x 30 days/year.

5. 120,000.00 Thematic report 2. Diagnosis and prospective of supply, demand, water balance and water quality in the transboundary basins Ecuador-Colombia. All costs included. 80,000.00 Thematic report 3. Vulnerability to water pollution of the Tulcán - Ipiales aquifer. All costs included.

6. 10,560.00 Landline and mobile communications. Landline USD30/month per office x two offices. Mobile phone service USD30/month per office x two offices. Two satellite phones (rental and service) USD 100/month

7. 16,600.00 Training workshop on the TDA/SAP methodology. Three-day workshop. 35 people, including TDA development team (26 persons), TDA support consultants (5 persons), project team (3 persons) and trainer (1 person). Four nights per person to cover accommodation, food, venue and workshop materials (USD 90 per person per night x 35 persons x 4 nights = USD12,600) plus USD 4,000 to cover travel support expenses of participants.

2,700.00 TDA initiation workshop. Linked to TDA/SAP training workshop. Cost of one additional day of TDA development team (25 persons), TDA support consultants (4 persons), and trainer (1 person). USD 90 per person per night x 30 persons x 1 night.

12,180.00 Workshop to identify priority transboundary problems and impacts. Two-day workshop. 34 persons, including TDA development team (26 persons), TDA support consultants (5 persons), and project team. Three nights per person to cover accommodation, food, venue and workshop materials (USD 90 per person per night x 34 persons x 3 nights = USD9,037) plus USD 3,000 to cover travel support expenses of participants.

15,240.00 Causal chain analysis workshop. Three-day workshop. 34 persons, including TDA development team (26 persons), TDA support consultants (5 persons), and project team. Three nights per person to cover accommodation, food, venue and workshop materials (USD 90 per person per night x 34 persons x 4 nights = USD12,240) plus USD 3,000 to cover travel support expenses of participants.

15,240.00 Thematic reports meeting. Three-day workshop. 34 persons, including TDA development team (26 persons), TDA support consultants (5 persons), and project team. Three nights per person to cover accommodation, food, venue and workshop materials (USD 90 per person per night x 34 persons x 4 nights = USD12.240) plus USD 3,000 to cover

88 | P a g e

travel support expenses of participants. 12,180.00 Workshop to validate the causal chain analysis and SAP linkage. Two-day workshop. 34 persons, including TDA development team (26 persons), TDA support

consultants (5 persons), and project team. Three nights per person to cover accommodation, food, venue and workshop materials (USD 90 per person per night x 34 persons x 3 nights = USD9,180) plus USD 3,000 to cover travel support expenses of participants.

12,180.00 TDA review meeting. Two-day workshop. 34 persons, including TDA development team (26 persons), TDA support consultants (5 persons), and project team. Three nights per person to cover accommodation, food, venue and workshop materials (USD 90 per person per night x 34 persons x 3 nights = USD9,180) plus USD 3,000 to cover travel support expenses of participants.

8. 7,000 TDA/SAP process trainer. Prepare and implement a binational training workshop (three-days’ workshop) and to facilitate the SAP initiation workshop (one-day workshop). USD500/day x 10 days to prepare and implement workshops + USD2,000 for travel expenses.

9. 28,800 Facilitation team to support consultation workshops. Honorarium USD 200 per day per facilitator. Two facilitators per workshop x 12 one-day workshops = 24 working days. Time allocation to prepare workshop and memoirs 2 facilitators x 3 days x 12 one-day workshops = 72 working days. Total working days = 96. Total honorarium USD 19,200. Travel expenses = USD800/workshop x 12 workshops = 9,600.

10. 67,420.80 Binational coordinator. Time allocated to this outcome. 32,135.04 Participation and gender specialist. Time allocated to this outcome. 36,636.00 TDA/SAP specialist. Time allocated to this outcome. 29,308.80 Monitoring and evaluation specialist. Time allocated to this outcome. 14,526.00 Communication specialist. Time allocated to this outcome. 13,860.00 Administrative assistant. Time allocated to this outcome 36,636.00 Administrative and financial assistant. Time allocated to this outcome 27,200.00 Participation and gender equality assistant to support local consultation and engagement activities. USD1,700/month x 16 months. First two months to communicate

results of the TDA, 12 months for SAP consultation, and last two months to communicate SAP. 33,600.00 Community workers. Local persons to work with indigenous peoples in Colombia. Three persons, one to work with each group (i.e., Awa, Pasto, African Americans).

USD700 per person per month (USD500 honorarium + USD200 to cover local travel). Sixteen months per person. First two months to communicate results of the TDA, 12 months for SAP consultation, and last two months to communicate SAP.

22,400.00 Community workers. Local persons to work with indigenous peoples in Ecuador. Two persons, one to work with Awa and African-descendants and another to work with indigenous peoples in the highlands. USD700 per person per month (USD500 honorarium + USD200 to cover local travel). Sixteen months per person. First two months to communicate results of the TDA, 12 months for SAP consultation, and last two months to communicate SAP.

11. 12,500 Land travel of project team in project area. USD1,500 per year. Increased to USD8,000 in year three to support SAP consultation 8,000 Airplane tickets for project team. USD500/ticket x 4 tickets/year. 13,500 Reimbursement of travel expenses of project team. USD90/day x 30 days/year. 60 days in year three to support SAP consultation

12. 10,560 Landline and mobile communications. Landline USD30/month per office x two offices. Mobile phone service USD30/month per office x two offices. Two satellite phones (rental and service) USD 100/month

13. 10,000 Translation of SAP document into English. USD50/page (500 words in A4 page x USD0.1 per word) x 200 pages. 4,000 Editing of SAP document. USD20/page x 200 pages. Includes publishing in high quality PDF format.

14. 3,000 Prepare and print policy brief. Prepare concise document in plain language summarising the SAP. Print 2,000 copies for local distribution plus publish in high quality PDF format for online distribution.

15. 21,000 Meetings with indigenous peoples in Colombia. About 10 meetings in local communities with each group (three groups). USD700 per meeting to cover food and travel support if required.

12,360 Training workshop on the TDA/SAP methodology. Two-day workshop focused on SAP development. 26 people, including SAP development team (20 persons), TDA support consultants (2 persons), project team (3 persons) and trainer (1 person). Four nights per person to cover accommodation, food, venue and workshop materials (USD 90 per person per night x 26 persons x 4 nights = USD9,360) plus USD 3,000 to cover travel support expenses of participants.

2,340 SAP initiation workshop. Linked to previous TDA/SAP training workshop. Cost of one additional day of SAP development team (20 persons), TDA support consultants

89 | P a g e

(2 persons), project team (3 persons) and trainer (1 person). USD 90 per person per night x 26 persons x 1 night = USD3,900 9,250 Strategic thinking meeting 1 to define vision, objectives and targets. Two-day workshop. 25 persons, including SAP development team (20 persons), SAP support

consultants (2 persons), and project team (3 personas). Three nights per person to cover accommodation, food, venue and workshop materials (USD 90 per person per night x 25 persons x 3 nights = USD6,750) plus USD 2,500 to cover travel support expenses of participants.

11,500 Strategic thinking meeting 2 to outline intervention strategy and action alternatives. Three-day workshop. 25 persons, including SAP development team (20 persons), SAP support consultants (2 persons), and project team (3 personas). Four nights per person to cover accommodation, food, venue and workshop materials (USD 90 per person per night x 25 persons x 4 nights = USD9,000) plus USD 2,500 to cover travel support expenses of participants.

16,800 Consultation workshops in the Carchi - Guáitara watershed. Three one-day workshops (one to present SAP proposal and provide background information, two to analyse SAP proposal and generate comments and recommendations). Each workshop: [1] venue and food = 60 persons x USD20 = 1,200. [2] accommodation 30 persons x USD50/person x 2 nights = 3000. [3] refund travel costs 30 persons x USD30/person = 900. [4] unforeseen expenses USD500.

16,800 Consultation workshops in the Mataje watershed. Three one-day workshops (one to present SAP proposal and provide background information, two to analyse SAP proposal and generate comments and recommendations). Each workshop: [1] venue and food = 60 persons x USD20 = 1,200. [2] accommodation 30 persons x USD50/person x 2 nights = 3000. [3] refund travel costs 30 persons x USD30/person = 900. [4] unforeseen expenses USD500.

16,800 Consultation workshops in the upper Mira watershed. Three one-day workshops (one to present SAP proposal and provide background information, two to analyse SAP proposal and generate comments and recommendations). Each workshop: [1] venue and food = 60 persons x USD20 = 1,200. [2] accommodation 30 persons x USD50/person x 2 nights = 3000. [3] refund travel costs 30 persons x USD30/person = 900. [4] unforeseen expenses USD500.

16,800 Consultation workshops in the lower Mira watershed. Three one-day workshops (one to present SAP proposal and provide background information, two to analyse SAP proposal and generate comments and recommendations). Each workshop: [1] venue and food = 60 persons x USD20 = 1,200. [2] accommodation 30 persons x USD50/person x 2 nights = 3000. [3] refund travel costs 30 persons x USD30/person = 900. [4] unforeseen expenses USD500.

28,000 Meetings with indigenous peoples in Ecuador. About 10 meetings in local communities with Awa, 5 meetings with African-descendants, and 25 meetings with indigenous peoples in the highlands. USD700 per meeting to cover food and travel support if required.

8,000 Meetings for high-level consultation in both countries. Two meetings per country. USD2,000 per meeting to cover venue, food, and travel support of local authorities if necessary.

11,500 Final SAP review meeting. Three-day workshop. 25 persons, including SAP development team (20 persons), SAP support consultants (2 persons), and project team (3 personas). Four nights per person to cover accommodation, food, venue and workshop materials (USD 90 per person per night x 25 persons x 4 nights = USD9,000) plus USD 2,500 to cover travel support expenses of participants.

16. 42,699.84 Binational coordinator. Time allocated to this outcome. 30,604.80 Participation and gender specialist. Time allocated to this outcome. 9,159.00 TDA/SAP specialist. Time allocated to this outcome. 29,308.80 Monitoring and evaluation specialist. Time allocated to this outcome. 14,526.00 Communication specialist. Time allocated to this outcome. 9,240.00 Administrative assistant. Time allocated to this outcome 35,170.56 Administrative and financial assistant. Time allocated to this outcome

17. 8,000 Land travel of project team in project area. 4,000 Airplane tickets for project team. USD500/ticket x 2 tickets/year. 7,200 Reimbursement of travel expenses of project team. USD90/day x 20 days/year.

18. 20,000 Training course on water governance. Contract to implement transboundary water governance training course. Includes: (1) prepare training course pertinent to local conditions (prepare training materials, case studies and presentations) and (2) implement one course (30 trainees). The course will have 12 working days divided in four sessions of three days each. Each session will include lectures and field work. Includes [1] honorarium for course preparation (15 working days at USD 400/ day = 6,000), [2] honorarium for course implementation (16 working days at USD400/day = 6.400. Includes four days per course considering arriving one day in advance to prepare course logistics and facilities), [3] accommodation (16 nights at USD120/night = 1,920), [4] travel expenses (USD4,000 estimating USD1,000 per trip, international travel might be needed), and [5] contingency amount (USD 1,680).

30,000 Technical training for irrigation and potable water board members. USD30,000. Develop two training courses for irrigation and potable water boards. Conduct a

90 | P a g e

training needs assessment of target groups using inputs from thematic report 1 and the needs assessment prepared for the water schools. Develop curriculum and training materials. Develop training of trainers´ course and materials. Implement training of trainers’ course. Oversee a test run with specific groups in Colombia and Ecuador, and adjust curriculum and materials as needed. Prepare the institutional and financial arrangements to anchor this type of training into local entities (e.g., SENA, CAMAREN). USD30,000. All costs included (honorarium and travel expenses).

20,000 Training to mainstream gender in water governance. USD20,000 to prepare, based on needs assessment (thematic report 1), a short training course to promote participation of women in water governance. The target audience will be the water and irrigation boards. The course contents will include gender and intercultural matters in water governance. Develop curriculum and training materials. Develop training of trainers´ course and materials. Implement training of trainers’ session (persons from project partners). Oversee a test run with specific groups in Colombia and Ecuador, and adjust curriculum and materials as needed.

19. 10,560 Landline and mobile communications. Landline USD30/month per office x two offices. Mobile phone service USD30/month per office x two offices. Two satellite phones (rental and service) USD 100/month.

20. 20,000 Training course on water governance. Facilities for transboundary water governance training course. The course tender 30 trainees for 16 working days, but the project will cover the costs of 20 participants. Per course cost: [1] Accommodation and venue = 20 persons x 16 days x USD50 per person per day (to cover food, lodging and venue) = USD16,000. [2] Travel. USD 4000 per course to cover local transportation (e.g., minibus for field trip) and travel support to participants (if required).

10,000 Technical training for irrigation and potable water board members. USD10,0000 all costs included. Test run of two courses for irrigation / potable water boards. Rough estimate of USD5,000 per course (one course in Colombia and another in Ecuador). Detailed budget to be prepared when course is developed. Costs include materials (e.g., printouts), venue (food and lodging if required) and reimbursement of travel costs if required.

10,000 Training to mainstream gender in water governance. USD10,0000 all costs included. Test run of two short training courses to promote participation of women in water governance in irrigation / potable water boards. Rough estimate of USD5,000 per course (one course in Colombia and another in Ecuador). Detailed budget to be prepared when course is developed. Costs include materials (e.g., printouts), venue (food and lodging if required) and reimbursement of travel costs if required.

21. 30,000.00 Independent final assessment. International consultant includes honorarium travel (national and international), food and lodging. 23,000.00 Independent mid-term review. International consultant, includes honorarium, travel (national and international), food and lodging.

22. 16,000.00 Annual assessment of compliance with social and environmental safeguards, including verification of the implementation of the security plan and conflict-sensitive approaches in annual workplans. Annual amount to be used in various forms like contract surveys, prepare maps or compile primary information.

16,000.00 Annual measurement of project indicators. Annual amount to be used in various forms like contract field measurements (e.g., water quality), prepare maps or compile primary information.

18,000.00 Independent final assessment. National consultant (specialist), includes honorarium, travel, food and lodging. 13,000.00 Independent mid-term review. National consultant (specialist), includes honorarium travel, food and lodging. 10,000.00 Mid-term Core indicators to be update before midterm review 10,000.00 Terminal Core indicators to be updated before terminal evaluation

23. 43,963.20 Administrative and financial assistant. Time allocated to this outcome 13,860.00 Administrative assistant. Time allocated to this outcome 44,947.20 Binational coordinator. Time allocated to this outcome. 29,052.00 Communication specialist. Time allocated to this outcome. 58,617.60 Monitoring and evaluation specialist. Time allocated to this outcome. 67,330.56 Participation and gender specialist. Time allocated to this outcome. 9,159.00 TDA/SAP specialist. Time allocated to this outcome.

24. 6.000,00 Airplane tickets for project team. USD500/ticket x 3 tickets/year. 6.000,00 Airplane tickets for project team. USD500/ticket x 3 tickets/year. 10.000,00 Land travel of project team in project area. 10.000,00 Land travel of project team in project area. 8.000,00 Reimbursement of travel expenses of project team. USD100/day x 20 days/year. 12.000,00 Reimbursement of travel expenses of project team. USD100/day x 30 days/year. 8.000,00 Fuel for SENAGUA's vehicles and maitenance when used for project purposes

91 | P a g e

6.000,00 Van or Bus rental for field and programmatic missions25. 5,000.00 Development of project website according to IW: LEARN guidelines, linked web portals of project partners.

24,000.00 Maintenance and operation of project website (outsourced).26. 5,760.00 Landline and mobile communications. Landline USD30/month per office x two offices. Mobile phone service USD30/month per office x two offices.

20,000.00 Online communications service (e.g., WebEx, SKYPE for business) - USD 200/month + high-speed internet service USD100/month per office x two offices + webhosting USD200/year.

27. 10,000.00 Equipment and software for communication and online collaboration of project team. One server + two teleconference equipment + software 7,600.00 Equipment and software for website and social-media platforms. Two servers (USD4,000) + dos video cameras (USD1,400) + dos voice recorders (USD200) + software

to edit video, audio and images (USD1,000) + website administration software (USD1,000). 5,117.40 Equipment for project office (computers, printers, software)

28. 25,000.00 Prepare and distribute project memoirs. Prepare and edit a communication document accessible to the general public (visually appealing, plain language) and three short videos that summarise the project achievements and lessons, including testimonies of key stakeholders and beneficiaries. The document will be in high-quality PDF format for online distribution and browsing. The short videos will be made available through IW: LEARN, the project partners websites and YouTube.

15,000.00 Prepare and edit learning documents (three documents). The documents will be in a format to be accessible to the general public (visually appealing, plain language). Each document will include summaries in Spanish, Awa pit, Kichwa and English. The documents will be in high-quality for web browsing and download.

29. 41,600.00 Annual meeting of the watersheds working group of the Binational Technical Committee of Environmental Affairs Colombia - Ecuador. Two-day meeting. 20 persons, including project team. Three nights per person to cover accommodation, food, venue and workshop materials (USD 90 per person per night x 30 persons x 3 nights = USD9,180) plus USD 5,000 to cover travel support expenses of participants.

40,000.00 Binational closing event with key stakeholders and beneficiaries. One-day public event ("experience fair") to exchange experiences and share lessons learned in the project. USD30,000 to cover locale, materials, refreshments, and travel support and food and lodging for participants from rural communities.

11,200.00 Inception workshop. Airplane tickets USD800/ticket x 6 tickets. DSA USD220/day x 2 days x 10 persons. Venue + meals + materials USD2000 16,000.00 Initiation workshop with local stakeholders on each country (two workshops). USD8,000 / workshop. Includes materials, venue, food and lodging and travel support

for participants from distant rural areas. 32,000.00 In-person annual meetings of the technical committee. The budget allocation will cover venue and meeting materials and a contingency amount to cover travel

expenses. 6,000.00 In-person meetings of the project board. During project preparation it was agreed that board members will cover their travel and accommodation costs. The budget

allocation will cover venue and meeting materials and a contingency amount to cover travel expenses. 27,000.00 Onsite meetings for self-assessment and reflection with local key stakeholders implementing pilot interventions. Includes refreshments, venue, materials and travel

support if necessary. Three meetings per pilot intervention. USD 3,000 per meeting. 16,000.00 Onsite meetings with women´s groups 47,400.00 Participation in IW2020 and IWC2022. Five persons per meeting (two from each country + project coordinator). Six-days trip (two days for travel). Cost per person =

USD3,000/ticket + 6 days x 240 DSA/day + 300 various expenses (e.g., visa) = USD4,740/person x 5 persons = USD14,220/meeting. 14,287.00 Train project team in conflict sensitivity and conflict-sensitive planning. Support from UN security staff to train project team and to guide (a) the preparation of the

project´s security plan, (b) conduct conflict analysis for the project, (c) mainstream conflict-sensitive approach into the project´s multi-year workplan and the first annual workplan, and (d) draft guidelines to mainstream a conflict-sensitive approach into the annual planning cycle. The budget allocation includes travel expenses, materials and technical support as required.

30. 2,247.36 Binational coordinator. Time allocated to this outcome. 5,022.44 Administrative and financial assistant (will also assist in travel arrangements). Time allocated to this outcome

31. 6,875.20 Office services and maintenance32. 124,750.00 Direct project costs (DPC) for binational activities to be used as requested by the countries33. 10,000.00 Annual financial audits. USD2,500/year.

5,000.00 Translation of final assessment report 5,000.00 Translation of midterm review report

92 | P a g e

34. 70,000.00 Water school. Develop binational water school. Conduct a training needs assessment of target groups (e.g., irrigation and potable water boards, watershed organizations and interest groups). Develop curriculum and training materials. Develop training of trainers´ course and materials. Implement training of trainers’ course. Provide advice and support during test run of the water school. Asses achievements and lessons of the test run and adjust curriculum and materials as needed. USD70,000. All costs included (honorarium and travel expenses).

10,000.00 Water school. Prepare at least ten short videos (about 3 minutes per video) with key messages on watershed management, water cultivation and best practice in irrigation and potable water boards (using results of thematic report 1).

35. 50,000.00 Water school. Test run of binational water school. Rough estimate. Detailed budget to be prepared when course is developed. USD10,000 for materials (e.g., printouts) + USD20,00 for venue (food and lodging if required) + USD20,000 for travel (minibus, reimbursement of travel costs if required).

36. 12,442.00 Pilot 2. INAMHI. Local personnel for field data collection.37. 23,868.00 Pilot 2. INAMHI. Travel fund to cover national travel and travel to Colombia.38. 220,000.00 Pilot 1. Ecuador. Three wastewater treatment plants. Contract site studies and purchase each wastewater treatment plant. See allocation for each site in Annex 11 of

the PRODOC.39. 4,032.00 Pilot 2. INAMHI. Contract data transmission service40. 51,750.00 Pilot 2. INAHMI. Spare parts to rehabilitate and repower existing hydro-meteorological stations41. 125,660.00 Pilot 2. INAMHI. Computer server, uninterruptible power supply, satellite data reception system, smartphones, one automatic hydrological station, redundancy

system.42. 30,000.00 Pilot 1. Ecuador. Site studies for wastewater treatment plants (USD10,000 per study x 3 sites)43. 32,248.00 Pilot 2. INAMHI. Consultant to develop electronic notepad system (USD12,770) and a consultant to develop algorithms for the treatment and quality control of

hydrometeorological information (USD19,478).44. 14,566.00 Administrative and financial assistant (will also assist in travel arrangements). Time allocated to support national activities.45. 8,000.00 Pilot 2. IDEAM. Consultant to adapt web-based geovisor to integrate information from both countries (local consultant for works).

666.00 Pilot 3. WWF. Trainer work at heights (local consultant for works). 1,000.00 Pilot 3. WWF. Web developer to modify core web platforms (Ricaurte municipality, Government of Nariño, CORPONARIÑO) to make results public. Local consultant

for works46 15,787.00 Pilot 3. WWF. Biodiversity and climate change specialist (12 months). Responsible for technical support and guidance of the pilot.47. 48,000.00 Pilot 2. IDEAM. Two persons for 24 months (USD1,000 per person per month) to support collection and processing of hydrometeorological information.48. 36,000.00 Pilot 2. IDEAM. Payment of local transportation (car, boat, mules) and travel expenses of personnel

5,989.00 Pilot 3. WWF. Airplane and bus tickets, food and lodging.49. 150,000.00 Pilot 1. Colombia. Wastewater treatment plant in Cumbal. Contract site study and purchase one wastewater treatment plant.

18,000.00 Pilot 2. IDEAM. Construction of cable of a rope bridges (tarabitas) 85,000.00 Pilot 3. WWF. Situation analysis, design of participatory ecological restoration roadmap, and provision of training and on-site daily guidance to local groups to

implement actions. 120,000.00 Pre-feasibility study and public investment funding proposal to improve the performance of rural aqueduct service providers in the Guambuyaco and Obando

subregions of the Nariño department50. 21,125.00 Pilot 3. WWF. Personal protective equipment, tools (e.g., shovels, wheelbarrows), construction materials for structures (e.g., cement, iron rods, gravel), fertilizers,

consumables for plant nurseries.51. 90,000.00 Pilot 2. IDEAM. Water quality monitoring equipment. Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) USD60,000 and two robust multi-parameter sensing probes

(2xUSD15,000)52. 7,500.00 Pilot 3. WWF. Rental of warehouse to store materials and tools53. 3,333.00 Pilot 3. WWF. Preparation and printing of communication material (e.g., bioengineering process, achievements)54. 20,000.00 Meetings to comply with prior consultation process in Colombia, correspond to pilot interventions in Cumbal (pilot 1). Lumpsum to cover food, materials and travel

support if required. Detailed budget to be prepared at project start. Prior consultation to be applied before pilot implementation. 9,600.00 Pilot 3. WWF. Three workshops for local groups on preventing and managing erosion, ecological restoration, climate-related risks, bioengineering and work at

93 | P a g e

heights55. 19,872.00 Administrative and financial assistant (will also assist in travel arrangements). Time allocated to support national activities.

94 | P a g e

XI. LEGAL CONTEXT

282.This project forms part of an overall programmatic framework under which several separate associated country level activities will be implemented. When assistance and support services are provided from this Project to the associated country level activities, this document shall be the “Project Document” instrument referred to in: (i) the respective signed SBAAs for the specific countries; or (ii) in the Supplemental Provisions to the Project Document attached to the Project Document in cases where the recipient country has not signed an SBAA with UNDP, attached hereto and forming an integral part hereof. All references in the SBAA to “Executing Agency” shall be deemed to refer to “Implementing Partner.”

283.This project will be implemented by SENAGUA (“Implementing Partner”) in accordance with its financial regulations, rules, practices and procedures only to the extent that they do not contravene the principles of the Financial Regulations and Rules of UNDP. Where the financial governance of an Implementing Partner does not provide the required guidance to ensure best value for money, fairness, integrity, transparency, and effective international competition, the financial governance of UNDP shall apply.

284.Any designations on maps or other references employed in this project document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNDP concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

XII. RISK MANAGEMENT

285.Consistent with the Article III of the SBAA [or the Supplemental Provisions to the Project Document], the responsibility for the safety and security of the Implementing Partner and its personnel and property, and of UNDP’s property in the Implementing Partner’s custody, rests with the Implementing Partner. To this end, the Implementing Partner shall:a) put in place an appropriate security plan and maintain the security plan, taking into account the security

situation in the country where the project is being carried;b) assume all risks and liabilities related to the Implementing Partner’s security, and the full implementation

of the security plan.286.UNDP reserves the right to verify whether such a plan is in place, and to suggest modifications to the plan

when necessary. Failure to maintain and implement an appropriate security plan as required hereunder shall be deemed a breach of the Implementing Partner’s obligations under this Project Document.

287.The Implementing Partner agrees to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that no UNDP funds received pursuant to the Project Document are used to provide support to individuals or entities associated with terrorism and that the recipients of any amounts provided by UNDP hereunder do not appear on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999). The list can be accessed via http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/aq_sanctions_list.shtml.

288.4. The Implementing Partner acknowledges and agrees that UNDP will not tolerate sexual harassment and sexual exploitation and abuse of anyone by the Implementing Partner, and each of its responsible parties, their respective sub-recipients and other entities involved in Project implementation, either as contractors or subcontractors and their personnel, and any individuals performing services for them under the Project Document.(a) In the implementation of the activities under this Project Document, the Implementing Partner, and each of its sub-parties referred to above, shall comply with the standards of conduct set forth in the Secretary General’s Bulletin ST/SGB/2003/13 of 9 October 2003, concerning “Special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse” (“SEA”).

95 | P a g e

(b) Moreover, and without limitation to the application of other regulations, rules, policies and procedures bearing upon the performance of the activities under this Project Document, in the implementation of activities, the Implementing Partner, and each of its sub-parties referred to above, shall not engage in any form of sexual harassment (“SH”). SH is defined as any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offense or humiliation, when such conduct interferes with work, is made a condition of employment or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

289.In the performance of the activities under this Project Document, the Implementing Partner shall (with respect to its own activities), and shall require from its sub-parties referred to in paragraph 4 (with respect to their activities) that they, have minimum standards and procedures in place, or a plan to develop and/or improve such standards and procedures in order to be able to take effective preventive and investigative action. These should include: policies on sexual harassment and sexual exploitation and abuse; policies on whistleblowing/protection against retaliation; and complaints, disciplinary and investigative mechanisms. In line with this, the Implementing Partner will and will require that such sub-parties will take all appropriate measures to:i. Prevent its employees, agents or any other persons engaged to perform any services under this Project Document, from engaging in SH or SEA;ii. Offer employees and associated personnel training on prevention and response to SH and SEA, where the Implementing Partner and its sub-parties referred to in paragraph 4 have not put in place its own training regarding the prevention of SH and SEA, the Implementing Partner and its sub-parties may use the training material available at UNDP;iii. Report and monitor allegations of SH and SEA of which the Implementing Partner and its sub-parties referred to in paragraph 4 have been informed or have otherwise become aware, and status thereof;iv. Refer victims/survivors of SH and SEA to safe and confidential victim assistance; andv. Promptly and confidentially record and investigate any allegations credible enough to warrant an investigation of SH or SEA. The Implementing Partner shall advise UNDP of any such allegations received and investigations being conducted by itself or any of its sub-parties referred to in paragraph 4 with respect to their activities under the Project Document, and shall keep UNDP informed during the investigation by it or any of such sub-parties, to the extent that such notification (i) does not jeopardize the conduct of the investigation, including but not limited to the safety or security of persons, and/or (ii) is not in contravention of any laws applicable to it. Following the investigation, the Implementing Partner shall advise UNDP of any actions taken by it or any of the other entities further to the investigation.

290.b) The Implementing Partner shall establish that it has complied with the foregoing, to the satisfaction of UNDP, when requested by UNDP or any party acting on its behalf to provide such confirmation. Failure of the Implementing Partner, and each of its sub-parties referred to in paragraph 4, to comply of the foregoing, as determined by UNDP, shall be considered grounds for suspension or termination of the Project.

291.Social and environmental sustainability will be enhanced through application of the UNDP Social and Environmental Standards (http://www.undp.org/ses) and related Accountability Mechanism (http://www.undp.org/secu-srm).

292.The Implementing Partner shall: (a) conduct project and programme-related activities in a manner consistent with the UNDP Social and Environmental Standards, (b) implement any management or mitigation plan prepared for the project or programme to comply with such standards, and (c) engage in a constructive and timely manner to address any concerns and complaints raised through the Accountability Mechanism. UNDP will seek to ensure that communities and other project stakeholders are informed of and have access to the Accountability Mechanism.

293.All signatories to the Project Document shall cooperate in good faith with any exercise to evaluate any programme or project-related commitments or compliance with the UNDP Social and Environmental Standards. This includes providing access to project sites, relevant personnel, information, and documentation.

294.The Implementing Partner will take appropriate steps to prevent misuse of funds, fraud or corruption, by its officials, consultants, responsible parties, subcontractors and sub-recipients in implementing the project or

96 | P a g e

using UNDP funds. The Implementing Partner will ensure that its financial management, anti-corruption and anti-fraud policies are in place and enforced for all funding received from or through UNDP.

295.The requirements of the following documents, then in force at the time of signature of the Project Document, apply to the Implementing Partner: (a) UNDP Policy on Fraud and other Corrupt Practices and (b) UNDP Office of Audit and Investigations Investigation Guidelines. The Implementing Partner agrees to the requirements of the above documents, which are an integral part of this Project Document and are available online at www.undp.org.

296.In the event that an investigation is required, UNDP has the obligation to conduct investigations relating to any aspect of UNDP projects and programmes. The Implementing Partner shall provide its full cooperation, including making available personnel, relevant documentation, and granting access to the Implementing Partner’s (and its consultants’, responsible parties’, subcontractors’ and sub-recipients’) premises, for such purposes at reasonable times and on reasonable conditions as may be required for the purpose of an investigation. Should there be a limitation in meeting this obligation, UNDP shall consult with the Implementing Partner to find a solution.

297.The signatories to this Project Document will promptly inform one another in case of any incidence of inappropriate use of funds, or credible allegation of fraud or corruption with due confidentiality.

298.Where the Implementing Partner becomes aware that a UNDP project or activity, in whole or in part, is the focus of investigation for alleged fraud/corruption, the Implementing Partner will inform the UNDP Resident Representative/Head of Office, who will promptly inform UNDP’s Office of Audit and Investigations (OAI). The Implementing Partner shall provide regular updates to the head of UNDP in the country and OAI of the status of, and actions relating to, such investigation.

299.UNDP shall be entitled to a refund from the Implementing Partner of any funds provided that have been used inappropriately, including through fraud or corruption, or otherwise paid other than in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Project Document. Such amount may be deducted by UNDP from any payment due to the Implementing Partner under this or any other agreement. Recovery of such amount by UNDP shall not diminish or curtail the Implementing Partner’s obligations under this Project Document.

300.Where such funds have not been refunded to UNDP, the Implementing Partner agrees that donors to UNDP (including the Government) whose funding is the source, in whole or in part, of the funds for the activities under this Project Document, may seek recourse to the Implementing Partner for the recovery of any funds determined by UNDP to have been used inappropriately, including through fraud or corruption, or otherwise paid other than in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Project Document94.

301.Each contract issued by the Implementing Partner in connection with this Project Document shall include a provision representing that no fees, gratuities, rebates, gifts, commissions or other payments, other than those shown in the proposal, have been given, received, or promised in connection with the selection process or in contract execution, and that the recipient of funds from the Implementing Partner shall cooperate with any and all investigations and post-payment audits.

302.Should UNDP refer to the relevant national authorities for appropriate legal action any alleged wrongdoing relating to the project, the Government will ensure that the relevant national authorities shall actively investigate the same and take appropriate legal action against all individuals found to have participated in the wrongdoing, recover and return any recovered funds to UNDP.

303.The Implementing Partner shall ensure that all of its obligations set forth under this section entitled “Risk Management” are passed on to each responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient and that all the clauses under this section entitled “Risk Management Standard Clauses” are included, mutatis mutandis, in all sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into further to this Project Document.

94 The term “Project Document” as used in this clause shall be deemed to include any relevant subsidiary agreement further to the Project Document, including those with responsible parties, subcontractors and sub-recipients.

97 | P a g e

XIII. ANNEXES

Annex 1. Multi Year Work PlanAnnex 2. GEF core indicators at baselineAnnex 3. Overview of Technical ConsultanciesAnnex 4. Terms of ReferenceAnnex 5. UNDP Social and Environmental Screening ProcedureAnnex 6. Stakeholder Engagement Plan Annex 7. Gender Action PlanAnnex 8. Indigenous People Action PlanAnnex 9. DefinitionsAnnex 10. Literature citedAnnex 11. Pilot projects to be implementedAnnex 12. Terms of reference for pre-feasibility analysisAnnex 13. Letter of agreement template (LOA)Annex 14. Situation analysis of water resources in the transboundary basinsAnnex 15. List of relevant policies and regulations.Annex 16. SGP projects in the area.

98 | P a g e