In-depth Evaluation of the UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100-97-07:

A Strategic Action Programme for theBinational Basin of the Bermejo River

September 2000

Binational Commission for theDevelopment of the Upper BermejoAnd Grande de Tarija River Basins

Organization of American StatesUnit for Sustainable

Developmentand Environment

United NationsEnvironment Programme

Global Environment

Facility

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

© 2000 UNEP

ISBN:

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational purposes without special permission from UNEP, provided that acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.

No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from UNEP.

This document presents findings and recommendations emanating from the evaluation of the UNEP/GEF project for the formulation of a Strategic Action Programme for the Binational Basin of the Bermejo River. The content of the document does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Binational Commission, the United Nations Environment Programme, the Organization of American States nor the Global Environment Facility.

This report is available from:Division of Environmental Information, Assessment and Early WarningUnited Nations Environment ProgrammeP.O. Box 30552Nairobi. KenyaTel: +(254-2) 624339Fax: +(254-2) 622798E-mail: isabelle.vanderbeck@unep.orgURL: http://www.unep.org/

Printed on recycled paper

ii

A Strategic Action Programme for the Binational Basin of the Bermejo River

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................I

1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION........................................................................5

2. A CONCEPTUAL APPROACH........................................................................................6

3. THE EVALUATION REPORT.........................................................................................8

3.1 The Basis of the Evaluation................................................................................................83.1.1 Published Documents and Work Products........................................................................83.1.2 Meetings with Policy- and Decision-makers...................................................................103.1.3 Field Investigations..........................................................................................................11

3.2 Findings and Recommendations......................................................................................133.2.1 General Remarks on the Bermejo River Project.............................................................133.2.2 Specific Remarks, Findings and Recommendations.......................................................14

3.2.2.1 An Overall Rating............................................................................................143.2.2.2 Cost-Effectiveness, Disbursements and Budget................................................153.2.2.3 Further GEF Support......................................................................................153.2.2.4 Planned versus Actual Outputs........................................................................163.2.2.5 Institutional Arrangements...............................................................................163.2.2.6 Public Participation........................................................................................193.2.2.7 Development Models and the Environment......................................................203.2.2.8 Databases and Decision Support Systems........................................................213.2.2.9 Pilot Demonstration Projects...........................................................................213.2.2.10 Subproducts.....................................................................................................223.2.2.11 The Need for Continuity...................................................................................223.2.2.12 Documentation and Processes.........................................................................233.2.2.13 Prevailing Asymmetries and Some Political Aspects........................................233.2.2.14 Team Work and Cooperation...........................................................................243.2.2.15 Economic, Financial, and Legal Frameworks..................................................253.2.2.16 Project Identification and Evaluation System...................................................263.2.2.17 Future Issues...................................................................................................263.2.2.18 Replication Potential: Disseminating the products and benefits.......................263.2.2.19 Hydrologic Phenomena...................................................................................293.2.2.20 The Large Dam Projects..................................................................................293.2.2.21 A Summary of Key Elements............................................................................303.2.2.22 The SAP Annexes.............................................................................................303.2.2.23 The Global “Water Vision” and SAP Implementation......................................313.2.2.24 The Bottom Line: Critical tasks to be completed..............................................32

4. RATINGS PER PROJECT TOPIC.................................................................................33

… / -

i

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

5. ANNEXES.........................................................................................................................37

ANNEX 1: Terms of Reference of the Evaluation....................................................... 37

ANNEX 2: Consultants' CVs........................................................................................41

ANNEX 3: Basin map .................................................................................................48

ANNEX 4: Project document - project GF/1100-97-07................................................49

Appendix 1: summary of the agreement for multiple use of the resources of the Upper Bermejo and Grande de Tarija rivers basins.............................72

Appendix 2: Costs and technical parameters of reservoir sites................................73

Appendix 3: Summary of the treaty on environment between the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia..............................................74

Appendix 4: Budget in UNEP format.....................................................................75

Appendix 5: Calculation of incremental costs.........................................................77

Appendix 6: Format for quarterly reports (not appended)

Appendix 7: Format for half-yearly reports (not appended)

Appendix 8: Format for terminal report (not appended)

Appendix 9: Format for project expenditure accounts (not appended)

Appendix 10: Format for cash advance statements (not appended)

Appendix 11: Review of UNEP/OAS Bermejo River GEF proposal.........................81

ii

A Strategic Action Programme for the Binational Basin of the Bermejo River

FOREWORD

The Bermejo River Basin shared by Argentina and Bolivia, extends over some 123,000 km 2 and is about the size of the Rhine Basin. The Bermejo River links the Andes to the Paraguay-Parana Rivers, crossing the Chaco Plains during 1,300 km acting as an ecological corridor linking the Andean ecosystem to the Atlantic ecosystem. It is the only river crossing the Chaco plain and as such is responsible for the largest mass of sediment to the Plata river system. Erosion and sedimentation are serious issues in the basin; it has been estimated that the Bermejo Basin produces about 80% of sediments in the Plata River.

Despite its potential, the basin is an economically disadvantaged area in both countries. It has a history of "extractive" exploitation of forests and natural pastures. Incomes are very low and a large proportion of the population is indigenous.

In 1995, the Binational Commission of the Rio Bermejo (Argentina, Bolivia) requested the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) for GEF (Global Environment Facility) assistance in the preparation of a water resources management programme for the binational watershed. Initial funds provided by GEF through a PDF Block B Grant (Project Development Facility Block B grant) helped prepare a project proposal for the formulation of a Strategic Action Program (SAP) for the basin, seeking to solve priority transboundary environmental issues. In March 1997, the GEF approved grant funds to the value of US$2,990,000 for the preparation of a SAP (project GF/1100-97-07) and implementation of demonstration activities. This project was executed between 1997-1999. The Organisation of American States was designated as the agency for the coordination of the execution of the project.

This initial phase identified, implemented and tested sustainable land management practices at the local level, and created a basin-wide expectation for greater civic involvement in resource management and economic development issues. Drawing upon the results of these studies and pilot demonstration projects completed during the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) process and development of the SAP, a new project proposal for the implementation of specific strategic activities that address the principal root causes of soil degradation, has been formulated and submitted to the GEF for financial assistance.

In accordance with UNEP/GEF policy, upon completion and before requesting any further GEF assistance, all GEF projects are to be evaluated by external evaluator(s) contracted by UNEP. Accordingly, the project “Strategic Action Programme for the Binational Basin of the Bermejo River” – GF/1100-97-07 has been evaluated and this report presents the results of the evaluation.

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Bermejo River basin is located in the extreme southern portion of Bolivia, within the Department of Tarija, and in north–central and western portions of Argentina, within portions of the provinces of Chaco, Formosa, Jujuy, and Salta. The Bermejo River basin extends over some 123,000 km 2. The River, originating in the Andes Mountains and flowing some 1,300 km across the Chaco Plains, forms an important ecological corridor linking the Andean ecosystem with the Atlantic ecosystem. Because the Bermejo River is the only major river spanning the Chaco, the river system contributes the largest mass of Andean sediment to the Plata River system. The origin and behavior of the sediment has the potential to dramatically modify water uses in the Bermejo and Plata river systems, not only with respect to river-based and river-dependent activities but also with respect to the structure and dynamics of the riverine ecosystems.

The binational nature of the Bermejo River, and the federal system of organization prevailing in Argentina (based on a confederation of states known as Provinces), gives the basin an inter-jurisdictional character that makes the institutional setting of this project particularly complex. The main government agencies involved include the Binational Commission for Development of the Upper Bermejo River and the Rio Grande the Tarija Basin (Binational Commission), the Regional Commission for the Bermejo River (COREBE), the National Commission for the Pilcomayo and Bermejo River (CONAPIBE), the Provinces of Chaco, Formosa, Jujuy and Salta, and the Department of Tarija

The Binational Commission requested the assistance of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in the creation of a water resources management programme for the binational watershed. Funds provided in part through the Global Environment Facility (GEF) were used to define priority transboundary environmental issues in the basin and formulate a Strategic Action Programme (SAP). The water resources management programme was executed between 1997 and 1999, with UNEP as the Implementing Agency, the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States (OAS) as the Executing Agency, and the Binational Commission as the Local Executing Agency. Through an holistic Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA), the results from the planning studies and pilot demonstration projects provide a rich and diverse basis for a new project proposal designed to implement priority actions defined in the SAP. This programme will promote and facilitate implementation of specific, multifaceted and permanent actions to promote sustainable development in the basin. This evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07, A Strategic Action Programme for the Binational Basin of the Bermejo River, was conducted between May 29 and June 11, 2000, by an Evaluation Mission (EM) (see mission TORs in Annex 1) composed by Eduardo Mestre and Rolando Gaal Vadas (see Consultants CVs in Annex 2).

The mission objectives included an assessment of all key activities undertaken in the framework of the Bermejo project. The planned outputs of the project were compared to actual outputs and effectiveness of the results in attaining project objectives. The evaluators also determined the impact of the project and lessons learned from the implementation of the project that would enhance achievement of the GEF’s long term objectives. Additionally, the evaluation team determined: (i) the degree of understanding of the Bermejo River system; (ii) the key environmental, institutional, political, economic, social and technical aspects related to environmental stress and the degree to which they have been incorporated into project activities; (iii) the existence of adequate mechanisms and institutional capacity for joint management of the basin; and, (iv) the degree to which the project objectives were met in a cost-effective manner.

The EM met with both Project Preparation Teams in Buenos Aires (Argentina) and in Tarija (Bolivia) as well as with the main government and non-government stakeholders of the basin. Further, meetings were organized throughout the basin to discuss the project and review material and documents with key individuals and institutions, and visits were made to the Pilot Demonstration Projects at Bartolomé de las Casas and Tariquía in Argentina and in the Valle Central de Tarija in Bolivia.

The general findings and recommendations of the evaluation are:

The project was well conceived and addressed key elements to reduce degradation and promote public awareness and participation;

The project fitted well within the context of the goals of the GEF and its relevant operational strategies and priorities, by providing actual, working examples of the new or refined land management measures to advance the sustainable development of the watershed;

The project provided a good assessment of the current situation (including the identification of conflicts and priorities), a working framework for organizing policy-relevant research and public participation in the basin, and mechanisms for facilitating interaction and discussion among managers and stakeholders;

The project was coherent and in proportion to the resources available for implementation;

The project had a lot to do with people and their environment, contributing answers and positive actions not previously perceived at the regional and even national level;

There was full political support at all levels by both countries. Meetings with high ranking officials confirmed the importance of the project to the region and the very positive institutional reforms that it will trigger;

The project represented a major thrust towards achieving the institutional, legal, and informational foundations that will enhance and restore the environmental functioning of the Bermejo River system, providing natural resources protection within existing ecosystems in both countries.

The specific findings and recommendations are grouped into major topics that include Institutional and Public Participation, Technical, and Financial Management.

Institutional and Public Participation

The project represented progress towards attaining maturity and strengthening institutional arrangements within the Bermejo River Basin;

The project represented progress toward integrating environmental issues into prevailing economic development models;

The project was well-documented through published documents, data and geographic information system-based (GIS) outputs;

The remedial elements identified through the project were well tested, providing important lessons-learned for the region and elsewhere. An important process of dialogue was created between decision-makers and local communities;

The project resulted in a momentum among stakeholders to create a new participatory and legal water resources planning and management paradigm. This is a true example of inter-country project conception, and a very valuable example to be reproduced in other parts of the world;

Good teamwork existed within each country and at the binational level, being based upon qualified personnel and work groups operating at reasonable overheads and with few administrative problems;

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) played a very important role in the project, as participants, partners and/or leaders; however, for the sake of public health, safety and sustainability, existing rules and relationships need to be redefined or remodeled;

The binational mechanisms for promoting better natural resources management at a river basin level should be refreshed, and provision made to better incorporate regional administration and local authority participation on a permanent and systematic basis;

Creation of a Regional Coordinating Committee would continue to provide coordination, programme support, and general supervision of project activities within the basin, including public participation in project activities and incorporation of project findings into institutional and legal frameworks;

Public participation in water resources management was an integral feature of the project and remains a critical issue for the next phase of the project;

At the operational level, a Supervisory and Evaluation Unit, possibly consisting of a sole individual with experience and knowledge of the project, would facilitate communication between participants; however, it would not intervene in matters of sovereignty that remain the responsibility of each participant;

A transparent, phased and planned process of decentralization should be pursued to the extent possible in order to bring river basin management as close as possible to the individual citizen;

The participatory approach adopted for the project proved to be decisive in achieving project objectives; this approach has great potential to be a model in Latin America.

Technical

The pilot demonstration projects proved to be a cost-effective means for controlling sediments originating from human activities; future research should investigate cost-effective means for controlling sediment originating from natural processes;

Six priority problems were identified, including (1) soil degradation, erosion and desertification; (2) water scarcity; (3) water pollution from sewage and discharges of agrochemical residuals; (4) habitat and biodiversity loss and deterioration of terrestrial and aquatic biotic resources; (5) flood-related and other natural disasters; and (6) loss of cultural resources;

Four of the priority problemsin practical termswere addressed faultlessly in terms of scope, depth and perspective. Water management schemes to resolve or mitigate water scarcity and biodiversity protection should receive further attention during the next phase of the project;

The relationships between the causes and effects of those environmental problems considered in the project were successfully identified and proven in the TDA, and incorporated into the objectives and perspectives of the projects set forth in the SAP;

A more in-depth assessment of the benefits and impacts of dam construction, throughout the basin, is recommended before further decisions to proceed with the construction of the proposed impoundments are taken;

The GIS data base was very well prepared and constitutes an exceptional basis for managing water and natural resources within the basin and for coordinating efforts between Argentina and Bolivia;

Decision Support Systems (DSS) can be an indispensable part of a decision-making process in the river basin management and should be developed in the future as an effective planning and management tool;

A comprehensive binational organization is needed, the roots for which exist and were identified through the first phase this project;

The project was in full accord with the principles for sustainable water management presented at the World Water Forum, held in The Hague, Holland, during March 2000.

Financial Management

The pilot demonstration projects and other project activities were cost-effective and are recommended for expansion to a larger scale. There was adequate capacity and proficiency for the financial management of these studies and pilot projects;

International donors and banks should play a role in ensuring implementation of long-term solutions; however, it is important that lending operations and programmes of international donors and banks reflect the principles and considerations expressed in the SAP;

The heritage of the project should be maintained during the transitional period between the end of this project and the approval and disbursement of GEF funds for the implementation phase;

The project was highly rated in terms of timeliness, achievement of results and objectives, delivery of outputs, and completion of activities within budget in a successful and sustainable manner, rating a score of 88.2%; it is highly recommended by the evaluation team for a successful next phase .

1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTIONThe Binational Commission for Development of the Upper Bermejo River and the Rio Grande the Tarija Basin (Binational Commission) requested the assistance of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in seeking financial assistance through the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for the conduct of a water resources management planning programme for the binational watershed. Funds provided in part through the GEF helped to define priority transboundary environmental issues in the basin. These issues formed the basis for preparation of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) that was executed between 1997-1999. UNEP was Implementing Agency and the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States (OAS) was coordinating the execution done at the local level by the Binational Commission. In addition of the holistic Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and the SAP, the results from studies and pilot demonstration projects conducted during this project period have led to a new project proposal for GEF assistance in implementing priority actions within the basin. The purpose of these actions was promoting and facilitating an intensive, multifaceted and permanent series of action to promote sustainable development in the Bermejo River basin.

Notwithstanding, UNEP/GEF policy requires an evaluation, by external evaluators, of the completed portion of the project prior to the granting of further GEF assistance. An In-Depth Evaluation of the UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07, A Strategic Action Programme for the Binational Basin of the Bermejo River, was undertaken between May 29 and June 11, 2000, by an Evaluation Mission (EM) (see TORs in Annex 1) commissioned by UNEP on behalf of the GEF. Messrs Eduardo Mestre and Rolando Gaal Vadas (see Consultants CVs in Annex 2) carried out the mission. This comprehensive mission report is the result of office-based meetings and group discussions, as well as field inspections and discussions with community leaders and pilot project participants. This report complies with the required evaluation report to be submitted to UNEP/GEF.

2. A CONCEPTUAL APPROACHWater and natural resource sustainability is crucial for local, regional and national development. To ensure sustainability of water resources, a holistic approach is required. Such an approach assesses and balances water demands, including environmental requirements for water, with actual water availability within individual drainage systems. Complexity is added when water quality becomes an issue, and water pollution becomes a critical problem to be solved or mitigated, when erosion and sediment transport are phenomena to be addressed at a regional level, and when preservation of biodiversity is a concern. The resulting degree of complexity is such that comprehensive and timely action is neededbased upon clear objectives and strategies, well-designed methodologies for planning and implementation, and extensive public participation and sustainable funding mechanisms. Sustainable water and natural resources management requires sound decision-making supported within a systematic, multidisciplinary and multisectoral, participatory integrated approach. Development of a strategic programme of priority actions, through a comprehensive programme of transboundary diagnostic analysis, is a proven approach to resolving complex water resources issues.

Integrated, productive and sustainable river basin management requires proper study, sound understanding and effective administration of water systems and their internal relationships insofar as these affect the quantity and quality of groundwaters, surface and return-flow waters, and their biotic components, both upstream and downstream. Water systems should be studied and managed as part of the broader environment and in relation to socio-economic demands and potentials, acknowledging the political and cultural context pertaining within a drainage basin. Water itself should be seen as a social, environmental, and economic resource, and each of these three aspects must be represented in the political discourse. Communities should learn the difficulties of managing such a complex system, the trade-offs (there is a point where any increase in benefits to a specific user will be at the expense of another user) represented by different management scenarios, and the means of integrating these issues through broad-based stakeholder participation in the decision-making process. Mechanisms should be sought, whereby; societal stakeholders become informed and organized in such a way as to participate directly in water resources management decision-making (affecting water uses, regulations and protection). This discourse should reflect the interests of local communities and peoples, their livelihoods, and their water and natural resources. Users and managers at all levels must be allowed to have input. Integrated water management involves all stakeholders. It becomes mandatory to dispel the concept that water is primarily the business of government. Notwithstanding, however, governments should help in facilitating the participatory process by identifying representative stakeholders to ensure that water is managed locally in response to the needs and aspirations of the basin communities, within the context of the river system.

The aim of sustainable river basin management is to ensure the sustained, multipurpose use of the basin resources. The basic water needs of peoples and ecosystems should be fulfilled, through the protection of essential ecological and physical processes, and with consideration of the effects on downstream receiving waterbodies (including riverine deltas and coastal zones). Some crucial aspects for sustainable river basin management include: institutional for sustainable river basin management include institutional arrangements; government policies; leadership and political commitment at all levels; social organization and local empowerment; effective public and stakeholder participation in decision-making; decision-making at the lowest appropriate level; transparent processes; commitment to long-term capacity building by external support agencies; recognition of the role of social policy and economic incentives in managing water demand; imaginative and realistic financing tools to support river basin management; and, maintenance, to the extent possible, of the natural dynamics of the hydrological system (i.e., flooding may have beneficial consequences for productivity of fisheries and riparian lands).

Specifically, within the Bermejo River system, four types of decisions affecting the sustainable management of water resources must be considered: 1) how water regulation and operational criteria can improve the environment and land use; 2) how water resources can impact and be impacted by land use practices and development activities; 3) how socioeconomic decisionsusually sectorally-based and fragmentedcan affect critical indicators such as growth, migration, labor, economic diversification and (spatial) distribution, wealth, water resources, and natural ecosystems; and, 4) how regional policies and decisions made at the international, national, subregional and local levels can trigger variations in the sometimes fragile balance between rational use of water, economic and social development, and long-term preservation of the environment.

3. THE EVALUATION REPORT

3.1 The Basis of the Evaluation

3.1.1 Published Documents and Work Products

The EM examined broadly an abundance of good products, including lessons learned from pilot projects and project documentation–including cartography, databases and a functional GIS system. These products provided a clear overall picture of the cost-effectiveness of the project (in terms of programmes and actions implemented, processes created, and the positive momentum established among the complex community of stakeholders and group interests inhabiting the Bermejo River basin, as well as of the total disbursements made during the project period). In addition, the EM examined the project leadership profiles; political positions of governmental stakeholders with regard to the project; the attitudes and postures of the different sectoral stakeholders; governmental and societal capabilities; the technical, political, social, financial, and environmental feasibility of project outputs; the sustainability of the project actions with respect to natural resources management and conservation schemes; institutional support; capacity building; and, public participation and involvement with positive results. There were very few exceptions affecting only specific activities and pilot demonstration projects.

The review was conducted both with the vision of the project as a stand-alone activity, and with the vision of the project as a pilot project from which further actions could, and probably will, radiate in the near future. The experiences, processes, methodologies and approaches adopted during this project are likely to facilitate the conduct of similar projects in other regions of the world.

The EM further concluded that the six main problems identified1 were representative of the state of the basin, the phenomena it is experiencing, and the intensive interactions between humans, the environment and its natural resources. Such interactions that occur in the basin involve institutions and social groups, the water, soil and natural vegetation, and the dynamic interactions of natural forces and natural resources. Other problems related to water management and natural resources management does exist; however, their relative importance is not critical on a watershed basis.

In addition to the evaluation of past programmes, accomplishments and lessons learned, the EM tried, insofar as was possible during the mission and beyond, to evaluate the relevance and selection of the strategies, programmes and actions to be undertaken during the proposed implementation phase of the project. In this regard, the EM reviewed the four components or key elements of the proposed implementation project. 2

Based upon this review, the EM was generally convinced that the four components represented an appropriate framework upon which to build the next phases of this project.

The number of lessons learned as a result of this project are numerous, involving: the overall experiences in institutional terms at the subnational, national and binational levels; the advances in terms of public awareness, as well as in public participation and involvement; the development of processes, approaches, and implementation methodologies; and the pilot-scale results obtained from actions taken to advance the protection of the environment and the rehabilitation of specific areas. All supplied rich lessons, while the results and lessons obtained in terms of the sustainable development of water resources in particular, and of natural resources in general, suggested new routes and strategies to accomplish goals and achieve success. Of course, as foreseen at the time of the Implementation phase project proposal, there is an enormous task ahead.

Some actions implemented as pilot demonstration projects were totally successful, others, as anticipated, did not yield positive results. Sediment control and revegetation measures resulted in the gradual rehabilitation of degraded lands using certain species and approaches, while other measures were less successful. Full public

1 The six issues are (1) degradation of soils, intensive erosion and desertification; (2) scarcity of, and limitations on, water resources; (3) degradation of water quality; (4) habitat and biodiversity losses and deterioration of terrestrial and aquatic biotic resources; (5) losses due to the occurrence of flood-related and other natural disasters; and (6) deterioration of quality of life of the population resident in the basin and loss of cultural resources.

2 The four components are (1) institutional development and strengthening for integrated planning and management; (2) environmental protection and rehabilitation; (3) sustainable development of natural resources; and (4) public awareness, participation and involvement.

involvement, an ideal known to be rather difficult to achieve in practice, was not total, especially in cases where very little could be offered to lure potential participants. However, even in cases where positive results were not achieved or actions were only partially or marginally successful (or even unsuccessful), meaningful lessons were learned that are being seriously taken into account for later phases of the project. In each case, the lessons learned through positive results obtained at a demonstration level could be counted upon to encourage potential, willing participants during the implementation phase. Further, these lessons also encouraged those already convinced of benefits ahead, including some of the actual participants in the demonstration projects, to go a step further. Such dynamics have to be clearly understood because such postures could become fragile if further phases are not implemented appropriately, in both a spatial sense and timely manner.

Further, it is relevant that the documentation, in general, highlights these lessons. Given the diversity, richness, and abundance of topics, processes and lines of action contained within this documentation, the widespread distribution of the project materials to different interest groups through capsules and short documents is strongly recommended. Such materials will, by no means, substitute for the complete project documentation, but could disseminate, in a systematic manner, the principle findings of the project throughout the planet.

The EM reviewed several hundred pages of text, tables and maps. Together with the human exchanges that the project facilitated at several levels and across numerous sectors, these documents contributed to the positive overall evaluation result: the project should, by all means, continue into an implementation phase. The project, yielding positive results within its time span, was valuable in proving that the Bermejo River basin was a good choice for a large-scale project to be undertaken by UNEP, OAS, and GEF in collaboration with the teams, individuals and resources of Argentina and Bolivia. The methodologies chosen for both general studies and specific demonstration activities also yielded positive results at the community level, proving the value of a next phase within the Bermejo River basin. In addition, the success of the demonstration projects strongly suggests that the proposed course of action selected as most appropriate for full-scale implementation is the right one, in terms of the selected projects and their typology, the amounts of disbursements at stake, and the incremental approach that has been wisely determined as the right way to follow upon past actions.

3.1.2 Meetings with Policy- and Decision-makers

The EM, in conjunction with the national Project Preparation Team leaders, held meetings with key stakeholders. At the national level, meetings were held with Dr. Víctor Pochat and Ambassador García Moritán of Argentina. At the provincial level, meetings were held with several Ministers, Vice-Ministers and Secretaries, and their staffs, in Chaco, Formosa, Salta, and Tarija Prefecture. The EM also met with representatives of NGOs in Formosa, Orán, and Tariquía; and with key participants in the formulation of the SAP, including the Institute for Agricultural Water Resources (IARH) in Buenos Aires, the National Parks Secretariat in Salta, the National Institute for Agricultural technology (INTA) in Resistencia and Bartolomé de las Casas, and the Bolivian Inter-University Institute for Water Resources (INIBREH) and ZONISIG Project staff in Tarija. In all cases, conversations were frank and to the point. Many issues were raised and positions were ratified. Nonetheless, the overall result of these meetings was positive, and served to highlight the ways relevant public servants and societal stakeholders envisioned the basin´s problems and future, the problem-solving approaches, and future project activities. Their commitment to participate and contribute to the next phases of the project is, in the EM’s view, a direct positive result of the efforts exerted by both national teams and the strategies they had adopted for this particular and critical aspect of the project. This is a measure of the success of the project and provides optimism for the following round of activities and disbursements proposed for the implementation phase.

Mr. Victor Pochat (Vice Minister for Water Resources in Argentina) stated that the Bermejo River basin project is of strategic importance for Argentina and its Federal Government. He praised the efforts made, while acknowledging in very clear terms the underlying obstacles still to be resolved. He was particularly concerned about how to reform the Binational Commission into an operating basin organization with enough broad representation and adequate capacity to cope with an international agenda. The Vice Minister also was deeply concerned about facilitating meaningful ways to incorporate local and subregional stakeholders, especially the Provincial Governments and their pertinent institutions, into the basin management process. In addition, he was concerned about future funding for the project as a whole, and the possibilities of third party funding were briefly mentioned. Two relevant points were raised with respect to the future of the three large-scale dams projected–and already politically committed–for the Upper Basin, mostly in Bolivian territory;

namely, (1) the implementation of an integrated scheme for the evaluation of impacts and a clear definition of benefits, and (2) the availability of finance to be provided by Argentina in terms of its agreement with Bolivia. The other relevant points raised had to do with concerns (over the benefits, impacts, and costs) of attempting to control sediment transport on a basin scale. Mr. Pochat is a great enthusiast of the project; his enthusiasm for the project was far greater than his concerns. He is absolutely convinced of the importance of the project to the country and the positive institutional reforms that the project will trigger.

Political support for the Bermejo River basin project at national level was also expressed by Ambassador García Moritán, at the Chancellery. He mentioned the Argentine commitment and support for building the three proposed dams. The Ambassador expressed a positive reaction to the project’s progress and indicated similar concerns to those of Dr. Pochat with respect to the need to reform Binational Commission. He also mentioned his concern about how, and to what extent, COREBE should participate in the next phases of the project. In general, the Ambassador was supportive of proposals to study feasible institutional arrangements in the Bermejo River basin.

Interviews with the Ministers and Vice-Ministers of Chaco, Formosa and Salta were also relevant and very supportive. The provincial government of Chaco has developed capacity to intervene in and decide on matters within the basin, and, given its strong position on provincial autonomy, was clearly conscious of the international implications of such a position. In Formosa, the principle issue of concern was that the provincial government, having been elected by the people, retains solely responsible for planning, programming and executing studies, projects and actions within its jurisdictional portion of the basin. In the Province of Salta, the provincial government had adopted an autonomous position similar to that of Chaco, although they were oriented toward supporting large-scale federal projects, such as the construction of the three proposed dams. Interviews with public servants were not scheduled to be conducted in Bolivia; however, Eng. O’Connor elaborated the position of Bolivian officials toward the project and its proposed future activities. The proposed dams were very important to the political, economic and financial future of Bolivia, contributing an important source of revenue through increased labor and economic opportunities in the short term and substantial longer-term benefit to the region. The Bolivian officials were fully aware of the limited direct benefits to Bolivia to be achieved from regulated water flows and sediment control, when such benefits are compared to expected benefits in Argentina. For this reason, environmental impacts arising from the dams were a concern, necessitating an full-scale environmental assessment prior to any possible construction.

3.1.3 Field Investigations

Field visits were made to the pilot demonstration projects at Bartolomé de las Casas (Vinal control), Tariquía, and the Valle Central de Tarija. A visit to Los Toldos was not possible due to inclement weather. Nevertheless, based upon the field investigations and project reports, the pilot projects, in most cases, were determined to have been successful. Pilot projects for water-soil-vegetation management, conducted mostly with public participation and involvement, proved to be cost-effective means for controlling sediments originated from human activities. The benefits to be derived in terms of reduced operation and maintenance costs associated with existing infrastructure (e.g., such as the useful life of reservoirs) justified the investments in sediment control measures. (Given that public participation is a positive feature of the Bermejo River basin project, consideration should be given to including the reservoir operators as contributors to the project during future phases.) Additional benefits included improved quality and quantity of agricultural outputs, increased areas of productivity, reduced losses of organic materials and nutrients from the soils, reduced vegetative cover losses, reduced soil compaction, and increased soil water-retention capacities.

The EM recommends examination in greater detail of the technical and economic possibilities for structural interventions and techniques for mitigating isolated erosion incidents at various points within the basin. In some cases, the unit costs of sediment control in Upper Central Valley of Tarija appear to be dramatically lower than those of sediment removal in the Plata River Delta. However, because the costs and benefits were extrapolated from small-scale projects affecting limited control areas, replication of these measures in other, similar locations would represent an important consideration in establishing a basin-wide system of sediment control. Notwithstanding, the EM wants to emphasize that the field projects helped demonstrate that water/soil/vegetation control is relatively inexpensive, can be profitable and help in poverty mitigation, and will contribute to the reduction in mass of sediment flowing downstream. A valuable and expected lesson was learned: sediment control can be a solid possibility in local terms, with local and even subregional impacts.

Despite the success in controlling human-induced soil loss, a comprehensive sediment control programme that could reduce the present, very high rates of sediment transport throughout the basin is not presently seen as a

possibility, from a financial and technical perspective, given that controlling sediments originating from natural, geological processes is not financially feasible. The upper sub-basins tributary to the Bermejo River, such as the Iruya and Tarija rivers, are situated in areas where geological features determine that hydric erosion will continue. The soils in these sub-basins are very young, active, and unstable, exhibiting a transitory condition wherein their profile is being continually modified. In addition, studies conducted during the project have shown that a significant amount of colloids is present–accounting for roughly 20% of the sediment transported downstream. The removal of these sediments, and the nutrients associated with them, is questionable. Under such conditions, massive amounts of sediment may continue to be supplied downstream. Consequently, it would be advisable to investigate cost-effective means of controlling sediment losses within the geologically active areas of the basin, as well as research the negative and positive effects of these sediments and nutrients within the estuarine system of the Mar del Plata. Working together with nature, and understanding its mechanics, should continue to be a permanent orientation for a comprehensive basin management plan.

Notwithstanding, the EM was convinced that the establishment of protected areas in sensitive regions such as Tariquía and Baritú (together with the linking corridor whose importance for controlling a considerable upstream risk area–a challenge in and of itself) is a fundamental action necessary to minimize soil loss and habitat degradation in the basin. Despite the high priority strategies for managing sediment loss in the Upper Bermejo River basin, the national teams and relevant stakeholders have not failed to consider the Middle Bermejo (a system of its own, fragile and complex, that requires particular and permanent attention) and Lower Bermejo River basins, where socioeconomic development will be raising risk levels in at least half of the priority problem areas identified by the project (e.g., degradation of soils, intensive erosion and desertification; water resource scarcity; water quality degradation; and habitat and biodiversity losses and deterioration of terrestrial and aquatic biotic resources). The Provincial Action Plan of the Province of Chaco, is an excellent example of the types of activities proposed in the Middle and Lower Bermejo River basins. In this plan, specific activities are being implemented to ensure biodiversity conservation within a system of sustainable production and community-based ecosystem protection. Forest production research (forest rehabilitation and protection); development of regulations, community agreements and measures to restore endemic flora and fauna; and implementation of rural water-soil management measures, environmental protection policies and cultural activities to promote public awareness and participation have been introduced with the support of local communities.

With regard to the degradation of soils and intensive erosion and desertification, its intensity, genesis, and downstream evolution are both fascinating and challenging. An overall solution to the problem is not yet practical or feasible, given present technologies, costs and capabilities, but positive preventive and control actions, in different sub-regions are possible, desirable and may be cost-effective. The structural and non-structural activities in the Central Valley of Tarija and the sub-Andean, Yungas region for reducing sediment production caused by human activities have been very effective in reducing erosion and production of sediments. However, continuing efforts are essential to successfully control soil losses in these areas at risk from human or natural actions.

Water quality was a topic of moderate concern. While there were no overall water quality problems identified in the basin, localized concerns were reported. Nevertheless, a clear vision for pollution prevention is necessary to avoid future crises. In certain areas where water quantity is scarce, water quality is a problem of highest priority. Two main human-related pollution sources have been reported: (1) urban and industrial raw sewage discharges in the Upper, Middle and Lower Bermejo River basins along specific river reaches, and (2) agrochemical residual discharges (primarily of organophosphates and organochlorines), affecting the bottom sediments and benthos, throughout the basin including the Plata River estuary. Other pollution sources exist or may appear in the future, but most are likely to be of marginal importance. Cattle raising, industry, activities related to oil and gas production and refining, and mining activities remain in an underdeveloped condition within the Bermejo River basin.

The TDA considered water quality to be a priority problem to be mitigated. Despite the drawbacks imposed by insufficient monitoring and inadequate information, outside of the data gathered during the project, water pollution control was recommended to be approached in a comprehensive manner. Within the recommended environmental protection and rehabilitation activities, the SAP was definitive in identifying actions needed to improve water quality by means of a specific set of activities addressing contamination prevention and pollution control, as well as the rehabilitation of currently degraded waterbodies. Water pollution control represents the fifth major area of disbursements proposed in the SAP. However, actions and investments in this area must be reviewed, taking into account: (1) priority and funding; (2) extent and magnitude of actions to be taken; and (3) the effects of such actions in comparison with the total present and expected need for

water, environmental impacts, and quality of human life. Possibilities for third party funding, should be analyzed as suggested in Annex H of the SAP.

In a project such as this, there is always scope for consideration of additional topics, discussions with additional people, and visits to additional sites to be reviewed by an Evaluation Mission. However, the EM is confident that a representative sample was obtained and information, insights and experience derived from the meetings, field trips and documents reported on herein comfortably support the evaluation task.

3.2 Findings and Preliminary Recommendations

3.2.1 General Remarks on the Bermejo River Project

As an overall vision, the project was well conceived and addressed the components and elements to reduce environmental degradation, including the integration of environmental concerns into economic development activities on a sustainable basis and the promotion of the public awareness and participation.

The project as a whole fitted well within the context of the goals of the GEF, and the operational strategies and priorities of the project appeared to be highly relevant to those of the GEF. These included the assessment and remediation of physical and biological alterations of the riverine ecosystem (e.g., modification and destruction of water, land and biological resources) and the setting of management objectives for priority problems. Selected projects were well designed for the effective reclamation of eroded lands, pastures and forests, the rational management of natural forests, and the exploitation of newly forested areas or newly irrigated areas. The project also provided actual, working examples of the new or refined land management actions necessary to advance sustainable development in the watershed.

The Bermejo River basin project provided a good assessment of the current situation (including the identification of conflicts and priorities), as well as a useful framework for organizing relevant policy-focused research and public participation within the basin. It also provided mechanisms for the interaction of, and discussion among and between, managers and stakeholders.

The project was coherent and in proportion to the resources available for its implementation. Project planning for subsequent implementation phases was rooted in the real problems to be solved and was realistic, reflecting the local situation.

The project had a lot to do with humans and their environment. The project undoubtedly contributed to the identification of many questions and viewpoints, as well as to the identification of possible answers and positive actions that were not previously recognized at regional and even national levels. In the next phases of the project, a mature level of participation can be expected to be achieved if the projects defined in the SAP are actually implemented. The EM is convinced that, in time, a need to reinforce and redefine institutional arrangements will appear, in which the interaction of the stakeholders (from both governmental institutions and agencies and nongovernmental organizations, spanning a multitude of locations and concerns across the regional social spectrum) should succeed in becoming a valuable means of adding willpower, resources, capabilities, tools, and organizational impetus to successfully and timeously meeting the challenges that will arise. Stakeholders must meet on a regular basis, assess situations and promote sound decision-making. Actions determined to be implemented should be derived from consensus. A sense of a regional community, that shares problems, needs and the potential to resolve challenges, must soon develop. The project was designed to promote such changes in the ways stakeholders refer and interact with each other within the Bermejo River basin. Regional solidarity will grow, with enormous benefits, allowing for sustainable development without necessarily slowing the growth rates of pertinent social and economic activities.

3.2.2 Specific Remarks, Findings and Recommendations

3.2.2.1 An Overall RatingThe EM, believes that the project should, by all means, continue. The EM also believes that the project represents a step forward in the holistic management of the Bermejo River basin. The project also contributes to achieving the necessary institutional, legal, and informational foundations to enhance and restore the environmental functioning of the river system, and provide natural resources protection within existing ecosystems (i.e., the montane, humid forest, arid Chaco/savannah, sub-humid Chaco, and humid Chaco ecosystems identified in the TDA). The EM recognizes that these efforts must continue and expand. The lists

of activities programmed within the SAP include a well-balanced mixture of activities: projects, studies and proposals to define and implement tools that may cope with the complex reality that prevails in the binational basin of the Bermejo River. In terms of timeliness, achievement of results and objectives, production of outputs, and completion of proposed activities, the project was executed within budget and delivered significant and sustainable impact. The project is very well rated (with a weighted average rating of 88.2%) and is highly recommended by the evaluation team for a successful next phase.

3.2.2.2 Cost-Effectiveness, Disbursements and BudgetOverall, the most important aspects of this multidisciplinary programme were completed in a cost-effective manner, given the following constraints: the amount of financial resources provided through GEF funding; the amount of financial resources provided through country-level counterpart funding, and the total disbursements available to be made. Given these constraints, the results obtained, in terms of actions, pilot projects, documents (including the SAP itself with its supporting materials), and the processes initiated through the technical programme (i.e., the technical, social, cultural, economic, political, and environmental results of the project) were achieved effectively and efficiently.

As the activities have been achieved in such a cost-effective manner, the EM would recommend few, if any, changes in the financial management of the project, especially in terms of disbursements for substantive outputs such as studies and pilot projects. Expenditures on administrative and overhead charges were moderate and appropriate, based upon a detailed review of disbursements made.

The key issue with respect to the financial management of the project relates to the selection of the right projects for the implementation phase of the project. International banks and donors might play a positive role in the implementation of the SAP, especially to ensure implementation of long-term solutions. However, it is important that operations and programmes undertaken by international donors and banks (such as The World Bank and the Inter American Development Bank) comply with the principles and considerations expressed in the Strategic Action Programme for the Binational Basin of the Bermejo River.

The EM was convinced that there is a need to moderately increase disbursements. The increased disbursements would provide for the continuity and strengthening of the work teams, increasing technical and non-technical capacities, and additional equipment to support certain specific office and field activities to enhance productivity and efficiency.

Notwithstanding, the EM was concerned that the project teams are at risk of breaking up if no provision is made to keep them operational during the transition to the implementation phase of the project. For the EM, this is a critical aspect that may endanger the continuity of the entire process. In this regard, the EM recommends that, inter alia, UNEP considers the provision of bridging finance, given that the level of funding involved is likely to be relatively modest. Such a solution also would reduce the anxiety being experienced in both project work team given the uncertainty of continued funding through the GEF. It is important that the personal situation of these individuals who have contributed so greatly to the success of the project not be overlooked.

3.2.2.3 Further GEF SupportThe EM is absolutely convinced that there is a clear need for further GEF support. The number of possible lines of actions arising from the SAP formulation process require that funds continue to be made available to implement the strategies from both international and domestic sources. There are also grounds for incorporating funding from other relevant participants with interests in funding or promoting sustainable development in the basin. (Some specific activities and projects contained within the broad outline of actions recommended to be implemented in the SAP, might be considered for investment through international lending agencies, including mitigation plans for the management of flooding and other natural disasters; pollution prevention, control, and water quality improvement; rehabilitation of waterbodies; prevention and control of erosion and sedimentation; implementation of integrated water management plans; and sustainable water resources development and utilization projects.) The need for further external financial resources to leverage country-level funds was understood by both work teams, who indicated that such funding was being sought pursuant to the recommendations set forth in the SAP. The EM is convinced that a review of Annex H to the SAP will be persuasive in this regard. Nevertheless, financial resources remain an issue, and a sensitive one given the demands already being placed on country and local government finances. For the EM, the careful selection of projects that could be funded by other parties–i.e., The World Bank or the Inter-American Development Bank–is a critical task that will determine the degree of leadership likely to be maintained as a result of the SAP formulation process. As noted, projects such as some of the infrastructure projects might be

candidates for third party funding, with appropriate linkages to related SAP implementation activities, and help to ensure the successful implementation of the long-term objectives and orientation of the project as a whole.

3.2.2.4 Planned versus Actual OutputsThe original project experienced the expected evolution as the TDA was completed and further actions aimed at preparing the SAP were begun. Nevertheless, the pilot demonstration project results, and the results of several workshops and intense interactions with stakeholders–sometimes harsh but fruitful in the long runwere all closely linked. All of the originally-planned activities were completed, most of them successfully including the formulation of the SAP, and the outputs either met, or in a few cases, exceeded expectations. In specific activities, mostly local pilot projects, some failures were experienced, but, on the whole, the results were positive in terms of lessons learned. Also, some drawbacks were inevitable. On a task per task basis, the results and outputs were mostly positive and a greater than 95% rating was awarded. Further insight into the project’s success are provided by the EM in the remaining sections of this report, especially with regard to planned and actual outputs.

3.2.2.5 Institutional Arrangements A complex institutional scenario exists in the Bermejo River basin. Country-level institutions interact with binational and regional institutions, not always within a favorable context. Key institutional stakeholders are the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, the Ministries that are currently in charge of water and natural resources management and protection (which, themselves have undergone changes during the past few years), the Binational Commission for Development of the Upper Bermejo River Basin and the Río Grande de Tarija (Binational Commission), the Regional Commission for the Bermejo River (COREBE), 3 the National Commission for the Pilcomayo and Bermejo River (CONAPIBE), the provincial/prefectural governments and respective ministries related to water and natural resources in the Basin (whether riparian or not), and local municipal governments.

The Binational Commission is responsible for promoting development and improved management, and interacting with other government levels, within a portion of the Bermejo River basin. The Commission is limited to undertaking those actions agreed by both countries within the Upper Bermejo River Basin and the Río Grande de Tarija. It lacks operating and executive capacity and must depend upon the Executive Secretaries of COREBE and CONAPIBE for support. The Binational Commission requires strengthening so as to more effectively influence development strategies in the basin, and to include environmental sustainability and reduction of transboundary impacts within its ambit. Provinces, Departments and Municipal governments are not directly represented on the Binational Commission, and societal stakeholder participation is yet to be formalized.

Country-level participation in the Binational Commission is equally complex. Because natural resources are a responsibility of the national government in Bolivia; issues pertaining to natural resources use are brought to the Binational Commission by CONAPIBE. In contrast, in Argentina where natural resources issues are within the purview of the Provinces, issues that may affect such resources are brought to the Binational Commission by COREBE. COREBE integrates the concerns of six Provinces, two of which are non-riparian. Unfortunately, COREBE has not worked as a basin organization, with an integrated agenda and organizational structure fostering integrated and sustainable shared water resources management. COREBE has been unable to induce Provincial participation in the decision-making process on pertinent topics within the ambit of the Commission. In addition, federal basin legislation is weak in Argentina, and binational level legislation is limited to agreements on multiple use infrastructure.

Notwithstanding, public participation in Argentina, introduced as part of the SAP formulation project, has allowed the development of an interjurisdictional coordination mechanism. Operating under the auspices of the high level public officials responsible for water resources, natural resources and the environment, in the Provinces, this mechanism could form the basis for developing country-level consensus and representation to be integrated into COREBE and the Binational Commission. Traditionally, the Governmental Work Group for the Formulation of the SAP (GTGSAP) has had heavy Provincial participation, but limited participation from

3 COREBE is a federal, interjurisdictional agency created by Argentina to integrate national and provincial government concerns with respect to large-scale water management projects. Provincial representation includes the riparian provinces of Chaco, Formosa, Jujuy and Salta as well as, for historic reasons, the provinces of Santa Fe and Santiago del Estero.

COREBE and the Binational Commission. GTGSAP has provided a useful means to articulate Provincial concerns during the development of the SAP. The GTGSAP has proven to be a forum for hearings, participation and decision-making with regard to the SAP, and defining an appropriate basin organization within the present institutional arrangements.

To build upon these efforts, further efforts are needed to enable the Binational Commission to meet the challenges of integrated river basin and aquifer management. An effective basin organization must be acceptable to and compatible with the overall administrative structure of each country and its regional and local authorities, while, simultaneously, pursuing a higher level of effectiveness. An high level of transparency, accountability and stakeholder participation in decision-making is recommended. This will increase the availability of data and information as well as the capacities to employ these data to support development and problem-solving throughout the region. It will also enhance the potential for defining and implementing mechanisms to obtain reliable and sustained financing. Parallel improvements are needed in the institutional arrangements at the country, regional, and local levels. To achieve such changes, the legal framework may have to be reformulated in order to encourage the badly-needed coordinating mechanisms required to articulate sectoral and jurisdictional concerns so that pro-active river basin management may be achieved. 4

The Bermejo River basin project represents a step toward providing strong and mature institutional arrangements within the Bermejo River basin. The project promoted improvements in capacity, organizational, and operational aspects of basin management, and, in doing so, complemented the institutional roles of the participating organizations. The project also contributed to the promotion of confidence building measures between Argentina and Bolivia, resulting in shared perspectives and compatible information formats. Many more steps remain to be taken in the future, including the institutional evolution or reformation noted above. This is clearly envisioned in the SAP and its proposed implementation activities. To accomplish these goals, the EM recommends that, in subsequent project phases, this objective approach be continued, recognizing the political and socioeconomic sensitivities involved.

Argentina’s key issues for a successful project implementation relate far more to the creation and strengthening of basin institutions, and especially to building an inter-jurisdictional basin agency including the four provinces with proprietary water and natural resources rights, than is the case in Bolivia. Unless the Provinces are adequately involved, the project might encounter increasing obstacles during the implementation phase. Bolivian institutional issues are not so determinant for successful project execution and depend more on interpersonal relations, which do not present an obstacle to this phase.

To achieve sustainable management in the Bermejo River basin it is necessary for the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia, as well as the provinces and departments, to formulate and implement a comprehensive and balanced programme of coordinated actions. Within the existing framework of the Binational Commission, it is strongly recommended that a Basin Committee be created, to include and enhance the participation and commitment of the appropriate national authorities of Argentina and Bolivia, as well as the Provinces of Formosa, Salta, Chaco and Jujuy, and the Department of Tarija. This proposed Committee could supervise the implementation of the cross-sectoral integration activities proposed in the SAP. It is important to guarantee an healthy Provincial participation in accordance with water rights set forth in Provincial and National Constitutions of Argentina. These rights, in turn, determine the Provincial role in water and natural resources management. Emphasis on creating the proposed Basin Committee should be given during the implementation project as a means of catalyzing and encouraging a more effective cross-sectoral and cross-jurisdictional role for governmental stakeholders in the management of water resources and related development within the basin on a sustainable basis.

Further, creation of an Integrated Working Group in each country–integrating the concerns and views of both governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders–would supplement the Committee on the country level. These Groups would have a relevant role in fostering a wide-ranging participation among key societal and economic stakeholders, to improve dialogue and the decision-making process. In this sense, a review of features expected to be included in the Steering Committee, Regional Coordinating Committee, and Regional Advisory Committee becomes essential.

Notwithstanding the foregoing proposals, it is the view of the EM that Argentina needs to improve its institutional framework to provide direct benefits for the Bermejo River basin and beyond. Although water

4 The need for mediation among users, and the satisfactory resolution of upstream and downstream conflicts, are important concerns required to be addressed in such a scheme.

legislation does exist at the Provincial level, such legislation could be harmonized under a National Water Law, as well as supplementary legislation that could provide a sound basis for implementing modern water resources management principles. The benefits of such legislation should be investigated and considered during the implementation project. This project would also have a very important role in institutional strengthening and capacity building for water institutions in Argentina and might prove a great catalyst for institutional reforms, including pertinent reforms such as empowering the Binational Commission.

In summary, the Bermejo River basin project is a world-class example of a participatory approach to project conception and implementation. Participating stakeholders in Bolivia and Argentina boast an impressive combination of federal government organizations, provincial and departmental government organizations, municipal government organizations, universities and academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations of diverse origins and interests, and international organizations. As long as all of the key stakeholders remain involved in the implementation of the project, there is great potential for success. The participatory approach to this project proved to be decisive in achieving project objectives and has great potential to be a model for Latin America.

3.2.2.6 Public ParticipationThe SAP formulation process was characterized by an extensive and broadly based participation by representatives of municipal, provincial or departmental, and national Governments, academic and research institutions, private sector representatives and non-governmental organizations. A Public Participation Programme was implemented, in which worshops and seminars played an important role.

The EM had the opportunity to review pertinent material from the workshops that had taken place since December 1997. Workshops proved to be an excellent means of promoting participation and publicity, as well as a means of simultaneously testing strategies and proposals. The workshops also revealed possible objections to projects and decisions proposed for adoption, and generated ample feedback relating to the needs, viewpoints, ideals and fears of the basin communities.

Public awareness, participation and involvement were among the most relevant results of the Bermejo River basin project, as they have played a relevant role throughout the process. Undoubtedly, the workshops played a vital role in the success of the SAP formulation project and have helped remodel and reorient the project for the implementation phase. Workshops were conducted in both countries as an essential element of the public participation programme. The participation process was facilitated by a series of three consultative workshops in Argentina (in the City of Salta, Province of Salta, between December 3 and 5, 1997; in the City of Formosa, Province of Formosa, between May 27 and 29, 1998; and in the City of San Salvador de Jujuy, Province of Jujuy, between November 25 and 27, 1998) and by six seminars and workshops in Tarija, Bolivia. More than 1,000 individuals participated. Because of their regional character, the workshops promoted stakeholder participation on a multidisciplinary basis, and with a commitment to document their conclusions and recommendations. Many stakeholders also indicated a willingness to commit resources to the implementation of the SAP. Specialists and community stakeholders, public servants, and a wide array of NGOs participated. Motivational tools, evaluation methodologies, and a well-defined communication strategy resulted in an ample array of conclusions, recommendations and proposals being derived from these sessions. Each workshop resulted in a published and widely-disseminated document summarizing the objectives, conclusions and recommendations from each workshop; integrating selected themes arising from each workshop, including project proposal forms identifying shared responsibilities for specific recommendations to be considered in formulating the SAP; and documenting the follow-up system to be employed by the project team. All participants evaluated each workshop, and their very favorable opinion permeated the whole exercise. However, some skepticism exists with respect to follow-up action to implement the workshop conclusions and recommendations. A very relevant lesson learned is that it is important to always articulate a strong and permanent link between the workshops (their scope, objectives, strategy and implementation) and the concrete actions that must derive from them if commitments are assumed.

Of the recommendations made at the workshops and seminars, the EM wishes to underline the need to reinforce the integration among, and links between, institutions, organizations and professionals in the basin. A network of participants is gradually being created wherein different stakeholders remain in touch with each other. Stakeholders have clearly expressed their interest in involving themselves in the planning and implementation process, and some have indicated their willingness to take a lead.

Of the fears and concerns expressed by the participants, many were related to pollution and the weakness of actions taken to resolve pollution problems; land usage and its interaction with water and natural resources,

especially with respect to agricultural and cattle ranching uses in the central portions of Chaco and Formosa; economic activity in the primary production sector and its affect on industrial development; migration patterns, including international migrations within the basin; natural resources utilization and protection; wildlife protection, especially as it relates to protecting the national heritage of the basin communities; protection of existing natural areas and biological or bio-geographic corridors at risk; construction of large dams and their real benefits versus drawbacks; and insufficient knowledge of the fluvial dynamics of the River and the availability of water, especially in dry Upper Basin and dry Chaco Middle Basin. Each of these concerns is embodied in the TDA and SAP, particularly with regard to such critical topics as irregular seasonal runoff and sediment production and transport. Nevertheless, the initial orientations and conceptions of these issues were modified through public participation and the pilot demonstration projects. A better understanding of the causes–anthropogenic or natural–and actual possibilities for control was achieved as a result of points raised by stakeholders. Their remarks helped to identify restrictions on water resources development in the basin, and helped to define priorities such as the need to undertake integrated water resources planning and sustainable development in an holistic context. Public participation also helped detail priorities such as flooding and hydrologic disasters, water pollution and environmental improvement; and erosion and sedimentation control.

The feedback from workshops nourished the TDA and SAP, improving their perspectives, and refining their tasks and goals. The EM strongly recommends that such workshops continue to be used as a means of maintaining the links among participants. The EM foresees that the benefits already obtained will increase in future, and reassure those participants who were afraid that their inputs would be forgotten. Public participation provides a mechanism through which stakeholders may achieve a great degree of influence over the choice of actions and investments made within the Bermejo River basin. It also may facilitate consensus for proposed solutions, and, in the end, empower decisions made not only by water and natural resources experts alone, but by the community at large, better ensuring that a desirable future will actually be achieved.

3.2.2.7 Development Model sand the Environment

The project was also a step toward integrating environmental issues into prevailing economic development models, even given that widely differing models used in Argentina and Bolivia. Economic expansion in Argentina is currently slowing down, but perspectives, arising from the South American Common Market—Mercosur, suggest that the northern provinces may benefit from the development of an economic corridor along the transport routes from Brazil to Chile, which pass through the four Provinces in the basin. Agriculture–rain-fed as well as irrigated, cattle raising, and commercial and light industrial activities are expected to grow, although some doubts exist with regard to the possibilities for real capital-intensive economic growth given its effects on the labor market and natural resources. In Bolivia, economic activity is growing at a slow pace. However, new agricultural and gas production enterprises may redefine the economy over the next few years. In both countries, development will translate into higher water demands and exert pressures on the basin’s environment. Hence, there is a need for an understanding of economic phenomena and their dynamic environmental effects. Integrating environmental issues into the complex socio-economic environment of the basin. Public awareness, participation and involvement are under way, have already achieved results. However, this involvement must be permanent; thus, the activities already programmed into the SAP are very relevant to the successful implementation of the project.

3.2.2.8 Databases and Decision Support SystemsThe GIS developed for the project includes digital cartography at a scale of 1:250,000 for the entire basin, with overlay mapping of the geology, geomorphology, soils, land uses, vegetation, infrastructure, climate, human settlements, socio-economic indicators, drainage network, environmental zones at the “large unit” level; and susceptibility to the production and transport of sediments. The GIS was technically very well conceived and implemented, and provides a sound basis from which to support water and natural resources management decision-making throughout the basin. An exceptional result was achieved in the co-ordination of efforts between Argentina and Bolivia. This was achieved as a result of having a clearly defined policy on information systems, well-defined processes and protocols for creating the system, and a defined need for a reliable and integrated information system to support decision-making. In future, these same types of strategies and procedures must be adopted to manage and distribute the information available through the GIS for the benefit of stakeholders. The future GIS should enrich the types and volume of geographic data available with analytical data layers tracking the water balance within the basin using data from the measurement networks, and with other related data such as infrastructure inventories, data on water and natural resources utilisation rates, and inclusion of additional information of resource development and management projects would be among the most relevant.

Beyond the ability of the GIS to act as a repository for information, the system should be incorporated into a Decision Support Systems (DSS). DSS can become an indispensable part of the decision-making process in the river basin management by highlighting complex patterns of interactions between the natural and human ecosystems, and interactions among management decisions. The DSS would supplement the GIS as an effective planning and management tool, perhaps with the added benefit of including an Expert System to make these tools more available to stakeholders.

3.2.2.9 Pilot Demonstration ProjectsCommunity-based mechanisms for the protection of water resources, soil and vegetation, demonstrated by means of pilot projects, generally yielded positive results. While certain groups or individuals initially were indifferent or negative toward such projects, quite a few adopted a more positive attitude when they viewed the results. Lessons learned through this line of action were very beneficial to the success of the project. However, now that expectations have arisen, new challenges must be faced which can only be addressed by maintaining the momentum that has been generated. The actions must carry on.

3.2.2.10 SubproductsSeveral subproducts5 were generated through the conduct of the project, some of which are likely to fall outside of the scope of the GEF. For example, urban land use planning has been determined to be a critical issue requiring resolution, especially in areas with risk of flooding. Likewise, issues related to the retention of sediments in the upstream reaches of the basin were identified that affected income creation opportunities for marginal populations, especially in rural areas, through the utilization of water provided from barrages, changes in cattle-raising patterns through utilization of pastures created from vegetation rehabilitation practices, and integrating water and natural resource management measures into wastewater treatment systems and/or tourism activities. Such possibilities could mitigate or reverse migration patterns by increasing economic activity in the basin through a rational, sustainable and productive approach to basin management. Most of those subproducts are rather intimately linked with an improvement in natural resources management, with water, soil and vegetation playing key roles. The EM recommends that efforts be made to identify those tasks, processes, projects, and activities, as well as the likely participants, necessary to realize these synergies using extra-GEF mechanisms such as the development banks, bilateral agreements, commitments by national, regional and local government agencies, and the stakeholders within and beyond the basin. Care should be taken to avoid encouraging activities that may be attractive in the short run but which could have deleterious long term results (i.e., increasing cattle-raising beyond the natural carrying capacities of the grazing lands, or encouraging ecotourism that leads to an increase in water demands in marginal areas where water scarcity is critical).

3.2.2.11 The Need for ContinuityWith regard to the subproducts, efforts that are yet to be finished should be carried out without interruption. The EM is convinced of the positive impact that the products and subproducts have contributed to this project. Even unsuccessful pilot demonstration projects yielded valuable and useful lessons.

Many things are at stake. For example, some work items must be concluded during the next phase, while other actions that have been completed require further investment for the next steps to be completed and maximum benefits achieved. The project potential is great, and the EM would like to think that the best is yet to come. Certainly, the support of the GEF–UNEP–OAS has successfully fostered action and cooperation between parties and stakeholders in both countries through the fruitful efforts of the project teams in Argentina and Bolivia. However, the next steps have to be implemented without delay to avoid losing the momentum that has been established. Of course, the lessons learned and processes that have been designed or have arisen will still be very valuable, and should be widely disseminated among different groups involved in natural resources management and regional development and protection throughout the world, utilizing the existing capacities of UNEP, OAS and GEF, but the Bermejo River basin will be the poorer.

3.2.2.12 Documentation and ProcessesThe project materials, documents, data and GIS are excellent outputs, as was the integration of this information into the TDA and SAP, through a rather complex technical and participatory mechanism. We

5 The EM decided to call these results subproducts and not byproducts because these types of benefits, derived from the project itself, were, in most cases, expected outcomes of the project design, although some have increased in importance and extended beyond original vision.

emphasize that the project documentation should be widely disseminated. The EM supports actions, already taken, to distribute a considerable number of CD-ROMs containing an interactive programme to access documents and graphic materials. Further such steps are recommended, including publication of information on the internet and in the media, in specialized journals, and at various fora, to ensure wide exposure for the project and to capitalize its benefits, the processes tested, and lessons learned. Given that similar situations exist within the region and throughout the world, these lessons could benefit numerous other communities at this time. An important process of dialogue between decision-makers and local communities has been created, can be broadened and deepened as issues and topics become more clear and substantial to stakeholders on both sides. A rich interaction is likely to occur as things continue, and as the SAP seeks to provide answers and means to cope with demands, agreements, and partnerships or joint ventures. The EM is confident that the activities chosen for the next phase will contribute to providing these answers and means.

A momentum has been created to better link the interests of the multiple actors and stakeholders. This whole process was a success and should seriously be taken into account in future projects in other parts of the world.

The EM verified that good teamwork existed in each country and that the binational links were working, although some improvement could be introduced. The project personnel were qualified, and the numbers of work groups remained low, so that overheads and administrative problems were minimal. In the EM’s opinion, work group dimensions should not be increased significantly, and their reinforcement for next phases should be heavily oriented toward acquiring and retaining highly qualified personnel with excellent technological support in the form of field and office information and communication systems.

3.2.2.13 Prevailing Asymmetries and Some Political AspectsThe asymmetries between countries need to be addressed at a more fundamental level, without damaging the present links, efforts and results, which are commendable. It is quite clear that exogenous issues differ within each country, but most have to do with politics and policy matters, as well as cultural backgrounds and “coyunturas” (prevailing social, economic, political, and environmental conditions). Coordinating and articulating existing forces within the basin to create a necessary synergy is a complex task. This is true of domestic government policies that have created and will create future pressures and stresses aimed at defining the roles to be played by national, provincial and local authorities in Argentina. The laws are clear, but efforts have to be made in defining roles. In Bolivia, this dynamic differs in intensity and perspective, with interactions among prefectures and counties needing to be taken into account.

Relationships between governmental institutions and nongovernmental agencies are numerous and of paramount importance. In most cases such relationships are appropriate. However, the normal differences in concept, strategies, project execution and activities have to be resolved at an early stage to avoid creation of stresses and inefficiencies. Many differences have to do with project management, and timing, resources and leadership responsibilities. This seems to be more relevant in the case of Argentina. At any rate, it is important to observe that NGOs have played very important roles in certain areas, as participants, partners, and leaders. Efforts should be made to improve interrelationships between NGOs in both countries so that NGOs could assume leadership roles in certain project activities; the EM is aware that NGOs are playing such roles in some basins in Latin America where their participation is welcomed. However, for the sake of safe, healthy and sustainable interaction, it is essential to establish clear rules and guidelines in advance. Activities to be carried by Government (for legal or political reasons) should be clearly identified, and, in consequence, allow for public participation and involvement.

3.2.2.14 Team Work and Cooperation The EM found goodwill, respect, and a positive relationship between project team members. Information and experiences were shared openly. However, the legal framework under which the teams operate has to be addressed appropriately, so that a representative group from each country can participate in future phases of the project. There is a clear need to refresh the binational mechanisms to promote better natural resources management at a river basin level. The Binational Commission might be an appropriate agency, but would require a general overhaul in terms of its objectives, participation, organization, operating rules, and resources. An improvement in its day-to-day operations also must be pursued, although the EM knows such modifications are complex and diverse; and will need significant goodwill and a clear mindset to overcome institutional inertia. Nevertheless, it is very important to push forward in the direction envisioned in the SAP.

A Steering Committee had been conceived as the means of integrating project activities at the basin level. The Committee was comprised of two representatives of the Binational Commission—one from Argentina and one from Bolivia, a representative from UNEP as the GEF Implementing Agency, a representative of the

OAS as the Executing Agency, and the national directors of the project from Argentina and Bolivia. The Steering Committee was tasked with approving the work programme, overseeing the technical and financial arrangements of the project, and generally managing project through its regularly scheduled meetings. In the view of the EM, it is essential that provisions be made for a representative of each of the regional administrations (i.e., the Argentine Provinces and Bolivian Prefecture) to be integrated into the Steering Committee. This will not only increase the interaction between relevant levels of government to avoid obstacles and misinterpretations and address critical issues such as jurisdiction over water, but also contribute to achieving sustainability through consensus, integrated decision making, and coordination of programmes and actions, whose execution must rely heavily on regional and local support. Furthermore, the issue of representation of the local authorities must also be addressed appropriately, perhaps by means of reinforcing consultative mechanisms within the Steering Committee on a permanent and systematic basis.

To overcome some of the limitations imposed by the project design as implemented during this phase of the project, creation of a Regional Coordinating Committee becomes of paramount importance. This body is envisioned as a working group comprised of representatives of the provincial administrations of Argentina, and the Prefecture and Municipality of Tarija of Bolivia. This Committee will play a key role in coordination, programme support, and general supervision of project activities within the respective jurisdictions, and ensure communication between and among governmental departments responsible of management activities in the Bermejo River basin at the sub-regional level. Such communication would more effectively encourage public participation in project activities and help to secure the incorporation of project findings into the appropriate institutional and legal frameworks.

Public participation is developing into an integral feature of water resources management in Argentina and Bolivia largely as an outcome of the participative process implemented by the project. Identification and definition of approximately 250 detailed project proposals, as well as the definition of ideals, needs, approaches, perspectives and goals, was achieved through this process. Public participation was ample and representative, and resulted in positive benefit. In Bolivia, public participation is becoming a way of representative democracy, with a law that fosters its implementation. Moving from public awareness to participation and, finally, to public involvement is not always easy or positive, at least in the short-term processes. In Bolivia, this transition is occurring at a comfortable pace. In Argentina, where third parties beyond government agencies adopt a mature, independent position, some friction exists and is quite natural—despite some stakeholders adopting a more open and cooperative stance. Indeed, some public servants are still not comfortable or knowledgeable about the benefits of public participation. The SAP will help overcome some of these many handicaps.

Encouraging public participation and providing coordination between nongovernmental organizations is a critical issue for the implementation phase. To ensure overall participation, involvement, and public input to and support of the implementation of the project, a Regional Advisory Committee should be implemented at an early stage–integrating the views of representatives from NGOs, academic institutions, scientific and technical organizations, the private sector, the citizenry, corporations and other relevant and active social stakeholders with interests in natural resources management within the basin.

At the operational level within each country, Project Executing Units have been devised to conduct the day-to-day operations of the project, each with a National Director and a Technical Coordinator. In addition to these country-based teams, the EM proposes the creation of a semi-permanent, impartial Supervisory and Evaluation Unit, consisting of a single individual—or at most two individuals—with enough experience and knowledge of the project, the basin, and project objectives to identify, at an early stage, emerging problems and/or conflicts pertinent to the project. This independent Unit would facilitate interactions and flows of communications, information, experiences, findings, processes and upcoming events between Project Executing Units. The Supervisory and Evaluation Unit would not intervene in matters relating to sovereignty and jurisdiction over natural resources, and water in particular, or the organizational approaches and legal framework that would remain the responsibility of each country. The activities of the Supervisory and Evaluation Unit would be limited to technical, financial, and administrative matters relevant to the project’s development, implementation, evaluation, and follow-up. This Unit would be a liaison between the Project Executing Units, the OAS, and UNEP, without affecting the administrative and reporting procedures and communications between these agencies.

3.2.2.15 Economic, Financial, and Legal FrameworksAsymmetries, in economic and financial capacities, societal development (e.g., migration, employment, urban growth, etc.), institutional development, political arrangements, and natural resources exploitation and

protection, are of paramount importance, while asymmetries in terms of legal frameworks at different levels, abilities to improve and/or modify legal instruments, and law enforcement capacity (related to education, culture, and poverty), form issues within the binational basin to be overcome to achieve sustainable results in the middle-to-long term. Such asymmetries create opportunities to share ideas and concepts as well as challenges to basin-wide management.

3.2.2.16 Project Identification and Evaluation SystemA Project Identification and Evaluation System should be put into place to evaluate projects based on technical, social, political, economic, and financial criteria. Methodologies to prioritize and select projects at every stage are essential. Alternative financing sources and implementation approaches are also critical.

3.2.2.17 Future IssuesThe “bottom line” of real institutional development and strengthening for integrated planning and management; environmental protection, rehabilitation, and sustainable development of natural resources; and public awareness, participation and involvement, identified in the SAP, must be addressed simultaneously through technical, social, legal, cultural, economic, and financial mechanisms. An integrated approach is required for these mechanisms to effect permanent change. The individual projects and actions should be clearly envisioned in regional terms as programmes, both endogenous (within the context of the SAP) and exogenous (through complementary development policies, strategies, and plans). Key clusters of actions to reduce sediment production and control erosion; to prevent and control water pollution; and to promote sustainable natural resources management (the utilization, protection, and conservation of which contribute to sustainable development) must remain the driving forces during the implementation phases. The selection of projects and actions set forth in the Short–Term Action Plan element of the SAP embodies many of these actions. In addition to these, the EM has proposed some additional actions in this document. Having an effective Project Generation and Evaluation System will allow key actions to progress toward implementation of the Long–Term Action Plan elements of the SAP.

3.2.2.18 Replication Potential: Disseminating the Products and BenefitsSeveral features, approaches, processes, and methodologies derived from this project have potential for replication both in national and multinational basins. Thus, efforts should be made to disseminate the documentation already produced as well as materials from the various workshops that are currently available. The EM is aware that regional and local differences are important aspects distinguishing one river basin or watershed from the next throughout the world. However, certain processes are similar and, hence, transferable to different regions under various socioeconomic and political scenarios. This project contains valuable experience in public awareness, institutional arrangements and legal frameworks, and public participation and involvement, as well as in interactions between government agencies.

An assessment of the accomplishments under each of the six problem areas within the four key components provides ample grounds to qualify the project as being fully integrated, supporting the ratings presented in Chapter IV. The six priority problem areas are agreed by the EM:

1. Degradation of soils, intense erosion, and desertification . The intensity, genesis, and downstream evolution of sediment-related problems is both fascinating and challenging. While an overall solution to the problem is not yet practical or feasible with present technologies, given their costs and capabilities, positive preventive and control actions in specific subbasins is possible, desirable, and likely to be cost–effective. The structural and non-structural activities in the Central Valley of Tarija and the sub-Andean or Yungas region for reducing sediment production caused by human activities were very effective in reducing erosion and production of sediments. The benefits in terms of reduced costs of operation and maintenance of existing infrastructure (e.g., the useful life of reservoirs) justify these investments. (It would be interesting to include the reservoir operators, as beneficiaries, in the financing of the project). Additional benefits included improvement in the quality and quantity of agricultural outputs, increased areas for production, and reduced organic material and nutrients losses from the soils through a reduction in the loss of vegetative cover and soil compaction, thereby increasing water-retention capacities in the soil profile. Nevertheless, in the most productive sediment zones of the upper Bermejo River basin, soil loss is not significantly affected by human activities, but is a geological process. Better technical understanding of the economics of structural interventions and techniques for mitigating isolated erosion incidents is required before control can be implemented in these areas.

2. Water scarcity, and limitations on water resources management . Water scarcity is quickly becoming a subject of concern; natural water scarcity in certain areas is worsen by poor hydraulic regulation. Therefore, sound bases for improved and integrated water management are essential, including capabilities for allocating, distributing, regulating, and controlling water resources regionally. Mechanisms and tools for integrated water management are underdeveloped. Fortunately, the SAP addresses integrated water resources planning, including quantification and management of demand and supply. In addition, there is need for further knowledge of river dynamics–in time and space–and of water availability in specific areas including groundwater reserves, which offer great potential especially in the Andean foothills. Information on groundwater transmissivity, volumes, hydrogeochemistry, and recharge and abstraction rates remains to be gathered.

3. Preventive and corrective measures for water quality . While there are no overall water quality problems in the basin, there are two primary pollution sources which will have to be controlled: (1) urban and industrial sewage discharges in the Upper, Middle and Lower Basins, and (2) agro-industrial discharges of agrochemical residuals (i.e., organophosphates and organochlorines). These contaminant are difficult to treat and remove, accumulating in river bottom sediments and bioaccumulating in the benthos throughout the River, including the Plata estuary. Other pollution sources do exist and can become a hazard in the future, but currently remain of little importance. These sources include discharges from cattle raising operations, and future industrial activities related to oil and gas production, and mining and refining activities.

4. Habitat and biodiversity losses and deterioration of terrestrial and aquatic biotic resources . Biodiversity is at risk as areas within the basin are being dramatically altered at a fast pace. Areas such as those contiguous to the Semi-Arid Chaco, mostly in the west are fragile, have been abused for several decades. Damage is severe. Deterioration is occurring even in wet areas such as in western Formosa and western Chaco, where human activities are growing rapidly. Efforts to limit degradation and mitigate its effects in certain areas of the upper basin are activities that likely to prove cost–effective in the long run. The SAP includes actions to cope with this problem. However, the EM believes that additional disbursements are needed to accelerate actions for such purposes. Given the periods required to achieve success, and the limitations in funding, some of the actions might have to be relegated to future phases, with an additional incremental cost that must be taken into account.

5. Losses due to the occurrence of flood-related and other natural disasters . The Upper Central Valley at Tarija has experienced extremely high floods in the past, with the most recent episode being during January 2000. The considerable increases in peak flows and overall stormwater runoff during extraordinary precipitation events at the beginning of this year serve as a reminder of the levels of storm-induced runoff that can be expected from time to time. The EM believes that certain areas with higher levels of risk, such as the City of Tarija and its adjacent villages, should be given higher priorities for project funding. This specific area of investment might be attractive to The World Bank or the Inter-American Development Bank as it involves design protocols and specifications for water works and highway infrastructure, such as bridges, the technical approaches to which have not always been appropriate to the Bermejo River’s behavior and morphology. Inappropriate infrastructure have become major obstructions to natural river flows, contributing to erosion, erratic flows, and unwanted sedimentation at critical points.

6. Deterioration of quality of life of the population resident in the Basin and loss of cultural resources . The ultimate recipient of the project benefits is the human population. Local and regional activities related to social and economic activities are relevant in terms of their linkages with natural resources and water in the Bermejo River basin. Development processes, human migrations and their seasonal patterns, economic growth potentials, and political and cultural patterns were some of the fundamental issues to be encountered and articulated in the project. Social needs and economic activity affect sediment production and water quality, disturb habitats and biodiversity, direct contribute to water quality deterioration, and, thus, are key phenomena to be confronted and resolved or, at least, mitigated. The SAP has successfully taken into account such manifestations and, in doing so, has established courses of action that must be multiplied accordingly. Hence, for the EM, it was very appropriate for additional funding to be considered for the middle- to long-term phases of this project, given that a significant amount of resources and institutional and social awareness will be needed.

Summarizing, the six priority problems have been comprehensively addressed. Derived from the project review as well as the EM mission, four of them–in practical terms–have been addressed faultlessly in terms of their scope, depth, and perspectives for resolution. Water management measures could be enriched during the implementation phase, as pertinent projects are designed and as direction is achieved in comprehensive and sustainable water management planning. Water management schemes to solve or mitigate water scarcity problems, by means of allocation, regulation, and distribution control measures, user censuses, and metering and pricing mechanisms to ensure an integrated approach to water quantity and quality management of surface runoff and groundwater aquifers—in both geographic space and season—are mandatory in certain areas and will become issues of great concern in the years to come. In the case of biodiversity, the EM detected mixed signals from regional public servants and from NGOs, indicating that this complex topic needs a lot more of attention during the next phases of the project.

In terms of those environmental problems originally considered in the project, the cause and effect relationships have been successfully identified and documented in the TDA, as well as in the projects that are currently incorporated into the SAP. These have been compared with other documentation, as well as with information gathered from the EM meetings, discussions, and field trips, and found consistent. All of the project activities were undertaken to (1) solve, mitigate, or reverse the causes of problems, many of them anthropogenic, or (2) directly attempt to cope with their effects. This remark is relevant given that large-scale projects such as this one tend to loose track of basic objectives and their consequences so that the projects do not always respond appropriately to cause and effect chains or their original objectives. This project has not suffered this fate.

3.2.2.19 Hydrologic PhenomenaRunoff is irregular throughout the basin; on the average, 85 percent of total annual runoff occurs during a single season, with considerable year-to-year variation that is closely related to the El Niño/La Niña phenomena. This, in turn, affects sediment production and downstream transportion, and represents a challenge to sustainable development. Multiuse hydrological infrastructure, of great interest to both countries, is being considered as a means of regulating flow and controlling sediment transport. The financial and environmental impacts of such infrastructure have to be closely assessed. Notwithstanding, controlling sediments in small watersheds through small-scale soil/water management and protection projects, both in the Upper Basin and wet Chaco, have yielded valuable and mostly positive results. The larger scale expansion of these techniques remains for the implementation phase of the project. The EM has reviewed the means of coping with the challenge of soil/water management, and agrees on the measures proposed in the SAP.

Creation of an environmental information system, adoption of integrated planning and water resources management, preventive and corrective measures related to flooding and other extreme hydrologic events, and an assessment of water pollution and its prevention and control are appropriate measures to address the hydrologic conditions prevailing in the basin. Implementation of continuing activities to improve knowledge of erosion processes and sediment dynamics as the basis for sustainable development of natural resources, and of water/soil/vegetation interactions as new and expanded pilot project is the most feasible approach.

3.2.2.20 The Large Dam ProjectsThroughout the basin, the issue of dam construction was raised by a plurality of governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders. The construction of three large dams in Bolivia, with marginal effects on certain land likely to be flooded in Argentina, was agreed by the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia for water regulation and control purposes, as well as sediment control. To date, the cost-benefit analysis has reviewed an array of investment and operational costs, and possible benefits, including hydropower generation, irrigation and domestic water supplies to communities, and sediment control. These projects, if feasible, would promote water resources development and be a key factor in regional development. Funding would be made available partially by the Government of Argentina; financing construction, and operation schemes have been proposed in cooperation the private sector for the Las Pavas, Arrayazal (Río Bermejo), and Cambari (Río Grande de Tarija) projects. Construction and operation would be by international bid, awarding an operating concession for the period necessary to guarantee capital reimbursement. These financial and technical obstacles, including the modalities of the proposed concession, continue to delay the projects, in addition to doubts over their cost–effectiveness, environmental impacts and modifications of river dynamics, and socioeconomic implications. In summary, a series of pros and cons are yet to be resolved. Bolivia has less direct benefit yet higher impacts, which may be offset to a degree by additional payments, the mechanisms for which have to be agreed, from Argentina. The benefits in Argentina, directly related to the project objectives, include agricultural development, urban growth and development of secondary infrastructure.

The EM is deeply concerned about the lack of information on the environmental, economic, financial, and social impacts of these projects, and recommends a more in-depth assessment of real benefits and impacts, especially given the numerous voices raised in dissatisfaction or opposition to these projects during the Mission. These concerns were expressed in both countries, with sound arguments of an environmental, hydraulic, economic and financial nature. On the positive side, the EM also heard positive remarks, primarily from Bolivia, where expectations have been motivated by the opportunities to promote further subregional economic development.

The EM agrees with the Preparation Teams in their concern that a clear assessment of the impacts and benefits for both countries be articulated from the viewpoint of the basin. Only by such an assessment can an array of actions to mitigate the negative impacts, both direct and upstream, be determined. The resulting environmental management plan would be a critical instrument in determining the feasibility of these projects. Such an assessment is already programmed into the SAP, and extreme care should be taken to fulfill this assessment before further decisions are taken.

3.2.2.21 A Summary of Key Elements The most important elements (very adequately incorporated in the project) that determined the project’s success included:

Institutional arrangements that improved and strengthened sectoral and regional capacities, integration, organization, resources, and coordination within the basin in a pro-active manner to better achieve sound water and natural resources management;

Sustainable development of water and natural resources, within a political and technical context agreed by both countries and their stakeholders, and implemented through integrated planning and participative programming, realistic and sustainable financing mechanisms, and an heightened environmental conscience;

Successful integration of environmental concerns into, and interaction with, socioeconomic development activities through effective integrated and sustainable water and natural resources management;

Improved legal frameworks and law enforcement mechanisms;

Appropriate financial mechanisms and strategies that provide reliable and adequate funding on a long-term basis;

Increased efforts that promoted public awareness, participation, and involvement in water, natural resources and land management within the Bermejo River basin, by means of workshops, seminars, hearings, and meetings; the development of networks of participants; and incorporation of a diverse group of stakeholders into river basin development programmes, each with a clear definition of roles and responsibilities;

Improved technical studies and research into priority problems and key activities; Implemented pilot projects to test new approaches and expand the lessons learned; and,

Creation of information systems to support rational decision-making.

3.2.2.22 The SAP AnnexesAnnex I is excellent, proving that the overall concept of the project was well-articulated, homogeneous and consistent, in general and in detail, to the original objectives and expectation that the SAP had created among institutional and societal stakeholders. In addition, few additions, if any, were considered necessary in Annex J, “Summary of Strategic Priority Actions Proposed in the Strategic Action Programme: Scope and Location.” The array of actions is adequate and geographically widespread. Strategies for societal participation during the implementation phase should be reviewed, although, implicitly, as indicated in the documents, ample consultation was achieved to integrate the elements of the SAP. Remarks on Annex H were already made above.

3.2.2.23 The Global “Water Vision” and SAP ImplementationThe Bermejo River basin project is extremely compatible with the “Water Vision” recently unveiled to the international community at The Hague. The Water Vision is the result of more than a year of documented international workshops and meetings, designed to outline a 25-year, global water resources management strategy. The Water Vision identified institutional arrangements as the biggest challenge facing world water resources management. The role of society, and its capacity to respond to water resources issues through its organizations and high level of participation and empowerment in water resources management decision-making, also was identified as critical for the future. Further, the Water Vision raised the need for redefined financial approaches to water resources management, increased human resources expertise in problem solving and development, and the development and exchange of new technologies in water resources planning and management. Notwithstanding, the Water Vision stated that challenges must be met not only at the societal, economic, institutional, and financial levels, but also by political means that foster a consultative approach to integrated water management. A key element of this was support for and fostering of integrated river basin water resources management schemes, both within countries and in transboundary basins.

The framework to implement this Water Vision already exists in the Bermejo River basin, which provides an excellent example of integrated water resources management, not only through its successes but also in terms of the problems, obstacles, inertia, and interests that have to be addressed to achieve success. The SAP sets forth an integrated programme whose integration, procedures, structure, and scope, if implemented, should produce state-of-the-art, positive results throughout the basin. The EM is convinced that the timely and full implementation of the initial portions of the SAP will trigger further actions in terms of projects, research studies, capacity building, institutional strengthening, and financial capabilities, which, insufficient in themselves to fully address the complex variety of problems and solutions, will guide the basin communities in the right direction. As a consequence, and in the long run, anthropogenic sources of sediment can be controlled and degraded soils improved; water management can become integrated and sustainable; institutions can be strengthened to create a fully operational and successful river basin organization; water quality can be improved by treatment facilities and preventive measures; stakeholders can be empowered; habitat and biodiversity losses can be stopped and environmental protection and rehabilitation strategies implemented to improve previously affected areas; flooding can be controlled to reduce its negative effects; and quality of life can be improved, and cultural resources enhanced, in a sustainable manner through public involvement and leadership by NGOs. The means of achieving these ends will be invaluable lessons for other regions in the world, and form the expected legacy of the SAP.

3.2.2.24 The Bottom Line: Critical tasks to be completedEight critical tasks have been identified to ensure the continued success of the project. These eight are embodied in the main problems addressed in the SAP, and agreed by the EM, as the basis for achieving integrated and sustainable water and natural resources management in the Bermejo River basin:

Institutional modifications and reforms;

Continued, increased, and improved public participation and involvement; Multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder decision-making in planning and implementation;

Sufficient and sustained financing for long-term financial stability; Interactive information systems and DSS;

Heightened human resource capacities; Educational programming, and cultural and behavioral changes; and,

Technologies and pilot projects to underwrite long-term success.

The Bermejo River basin project has proven a singular and successful example of transboundary river basin management, providing an ample array of lessons learned, insights, and knowledge that should be utilized in other basins. However, to fully capitalize on these successes, the project must continue into the future. Therefore, the EM strongly recommends that the GEF should continue funding this very important project. The project has the economic and environmental feasibility and sustainability to convince other financing institutions to participate in subsequent phases of the project in a cost–effective manner.

4. RATINGS PER PROJECT TOPICThe EM rated the project based upon a numerical scale of one to five, with one being the most highly rated and five being the least highly rated. Based upon these scores, set forth in the Tables provided below, the following overall conclusions can be drawn with regard to the project:

1. The project was relevant, produced good to excellent results, and was as valuable for itself as for the pilot demonstration projects that it initiated and which provide relevant experience for similar projects in the region and around the world;

2. The lessons learned were valuable for project development and may be utilized for other projects;

3. The project was cost–effective; 4. The societal mechanisms and institutional dynamics generated by the project were positive in

technical, socioeconomic, cultural, institutional, political, and environmental terms;5. The project should be continued into its next phases, with periodic evaluation and feedback

processes. Financing by GEF is necessary and highly recommended; many aspects of the project are at stake and stopping the process could invoke a negative inertia that would injure the project, the region, binational cooperation, and other projects, existing or new. A careful, objective and integrated view should be adopted to incorporate third parties in cost-sharing, but without losing sight of the original objectives of the project and its sponsoring agencies;

6. Documentation should be made widely available. Experiences and processes should be shared with other projects through a wide array of networks to foster exchange and communication between stakeholders in water and the environment.

Number Parameters Rating6 Remarks

1. Timeliness 1.0 The project was completed on schedule and in accordance with the implementation timetable.

2. Achievement of results/objectives

1.0 The results related to the project objectives and were coherent and valuable, identifying processes and methodologies related to the main problems and key project objectives.

3. Attainment of outputs 1.0 The outputs were cost-effective demonstrating the intrinsic value of the project itself as well as benefit for the Bermejo River basin and as a pilot project of value for other basins.

4. Completion of activities 2.0 Activities were satisfactorily completed in terms of both quality and quantity, although some could have been improved.

5. Project executed within budget 1.0 Money was wisely spent within a tight budget, and results were achieved within budget. Supplementary funding from country sources enhanced the results (e.g., the additional activities undertaken in Bolivia).

6. Impact created by the project 2.0 Institutional, social, economic, technical, and environmental impacts were essentially positive with very few drawbacks or failures.

7. Sustainability 2.0 Project sustainability is possible due to further funding for Phase II being provided by country and local governments.

Weighted Average 2.0 An overall score of 89.6% was determined as the overall score for the seven components of the project.

Number Additional parameters Rating7

6 The following rating system was applied, taking into account documents reviewed, the results of meetings with government institutions and social stakeholders, and the field trips:1=Excellent (90-100% achievement)2=Very good (75-89%)3=Good (60-74%)4=Satisfactory (50-59%)5=Unsatisfactory(less than 59%)

1 Success in addressing the Six Priority Problems and achieving the Pilot Demonstration Projects the at community level

Degradation of soils, intensive erosion, and desertification 1.0

Scarcity of, and limitations on, water resources 2.0

Degradation of water quality 2.0

Habitat and biodiversity losses, and deterioration of terrestrial and aquatic biotic resources

2.58

Losses due to flood-related and other natural disasters 2.0

Deterioration of quality of life of the population resident in the basin, and loss of cultural resources

2.0

2 Scope, quality, and significance of project outputs in relation to the expected results and necessary national/regional/global actions to achieve GEF objectives

2.0

3 Utilization of relevant research and operational activities of the countries, the scientific community, the GEF, UNEP, and the OAS

2.0

4 Usefulness of project outputs for follow-up in terms of national and binational actions to achieve global environmental benefits

1.0

5 Influence of external scientific and technical information and knowledge on project activities and policy developments

2.0

6 Project contribution to the GEF International Water Portfolio 1.0

7 Contribution to improved planning within Argentina and Bolivia, and the extent to which such improvements are sustainable

2.0

8 Actual and potential contributions of the project to strengthening national and regional policy frameworks and action plans

1.0

9 Extent to which governments benefited from the experience and information gained through this project

2.0

7 The ratings are based on the evaluation made by the EM for each topic or parameter, based on documents reviewed meetings, and field trips. Specific remarks relating to these elements comprise the body of this report and are not repeated in this Table.

8 Although the documentary material is comprehensive, remarks made by governmental and nongovernmental organizations also were considered in this rating.

Number Additional parameters Rating9

10 Extent to which the project has met the GEF criteria

Value as a demonstration project 1.0

Transferability of the project experience to other basins 1.0

Stakeholder participation in the execution of project activities 2.0

Dissemination of information to the wider public in both countries and beyond

2.0

Lessons learned in project management that benefit future GEF projects

Effectiveness of organizational arrangements for collaboration between agencies and institutions involved in the project arrangements and execution

1.0

Effectiveness of project management in the assignment and execution of project activities by the staff paid through co-financing and GEF contributions

1.0

Effectiveness of monitoring mechanisms employed throughout the project

1.0

Financial management (disbursement efficiency and expenditures on administration and overheads)

1.0

11 Need for further GEF support Mandatory

12 Potential for project financing by development banks and various international funds.

1.0

Weighted Average (88.2%) 2.0

9 The ratings are based on the evaluation made by the EM for each topic or parameter, based on documents reviewed meetings, and field trips. Specific remarks relating to these elements comprise the body of this report and are not repeated in this Table.

ANNEX 1: Terms of reference

ANNEX 1: Terms of Reference for the Evaluation of the UNEP/GEF PROJECT “Strategic Action Programme for the Binational Basin of the Bermejo River” – GF/1100-97-07

1. BackgroundIn 1995, the Binational Commission of the Rio Bermejo (Argentina, Bolivia) requested the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) for GEF (Global Environment Facility) assistance in the preparation of a water resources management programme for the binational watershed. Initial funds provided by GEF through a PDF Block B Grant helped prepare a project proposal for the formulation of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the basin, seeking to solve priority transboundary environmental issues. In March 1997, the GEF approved grant funds to the value of US$2,990,000 for the preparation of a SAP (project GF/1100-97-07) and implementation of demonstration activities. This project was executed between 1997-1999. The Organization of American States was designated as the agency for the coordination of the execution of the project.

Drawing upon the results of studies and pilot demonstration projects completed prior to and during the process of completing the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and development of the SAP, a new project proposal has been formulated. This proposal, currently under finalisation, will facilitate additional actions by the governments of Argentina and Bolivia to promote sustainable development in the binational basin of the Rio Bermejo.

In accordance with UNEP/GEF policy, upon completion and before requesting any further GEF assistance, all GEF projects are to be evaluated by external evaluator(s) contracted by UNEP. Accordingly, the project “Strategic Action Programme for the Binational Basin of the Bermejo River” – GF/1100-97-07 is to be evaluated.

2. Scope of the evaluationThe scope of the evaluation will cover all key activities undertaken in the framework of the Bermejo project. The evaluators will compare planned outputs of the project to actual outputs and assess the actual results to determine their contribution to the attainment of the project objectives. The evaluators will also determine the impact of the project. The evaluation must highlight lessons learned from the implementation of the project that would improve the future work in the basin and assess the appropriateness of this project (GF/1100-97-07) in meeting the long term objectives of the GEF.

In this regard, the evaluation should assess the extent to which (1) sources of environmental stress in the binational basin have been adequately addressed through project activities, (2) mechanisms for joint management of the basin have been put in place or strengthened through execution of the project, (3) there has been a change in environmental state as a consequence of the project intervention.

The evaluation should also determine to what extent the project has been successful in fulfilling its objectives and obtaining the expected results and whether it has been cost effective in producing its results.

3. Terms of referenceUnder the overall supervision of the Chief, Evaluation and Oversight; the overall guidance of the Acting Director of the Division of Environmental Information, Assessment and Early Warning (DEIAEW), and direct supervision of the Bermejo Task Manager within DEIAEW, the evaluators shall undertake an in depth evaluation of the project GF/1100-97-07 during the period 29 May 2000 to 23 June 2000.

29

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

In particular but not restricted to, the evaluators shall;

Evaluate how, and to what extent, the stated project objectives were met; taking into account the “achievement indicators”;

Assess the scope, quality and significance of the project outputs in relation to (1) its expected results, and (2) needed national/regional/global actions to achieve relevant GEF objectives;

Ascertain to what extent the project implementation benefited from relevant ongoing and past research and operational activities of the countries, the scientific community, the GEF, UNEP and the OAS, and indicate how such potential synergies may have been realized;

Ascertain the usefulness of the project outputs for follow-up in terms of national and binational level of action to achieve global environment benefits;

Determine the extent to which external scientific and technical information and knowledge have influenced the execution of the project activities and policy developments within the countries concerned;

Ascertain the nature and significance of the contribution, both potential and actual, of the project outcomes to the wider portfolio of GEF International Waters Projects;

Assess how this project has helped to improve planning within the two countries concerned and the extent to which said improvements are sustainable;

Delineate the project’s actual and potential contributions to strengthening national and regional policy frameworks and action plans;

Assess how governments are utilizing experience and information gained through this project;

Assess the extent to which the project has met the GEF criteria relating to (1) value as a demonstration project; (2) the extent to which results could be transferred outside the environmental, social and economic context of the Bermejo Basin; (3) stakeholder participation in execution of project activities; (4) dissemination of information to the wider public in both countries;

Evaluate project management with a view to deriving lessons learned for the benefit of future GEF projects. The evalua+tion should make specific reference to:

- The effectiveness of organizational arrangements for collaboration between the various agencies and institutions (UNEP, OAS, Binational Commission, the National Commissions) involved in project arrangements and execution;

- Evaluate the effectiveness of project management in terms of assignment and execution of project activities by the staff paid through co-financing and the GEF contribution;

- The effectiveness of the monitoring mechanisms employed throughout the project’s lifetime;

- Identify administrative, operational and/or technical problems and constraints that influenced the effective implementation of the project and present recommendations for operational changes; and

- Evaluate the financial management of the project, including efficiency of disbursements, expenditures on administrative and overhead charges as distinguished from that on substantive outputs.

Ascertain the need for further GEF support.

The evaluation will be undertaken by a team composed of Mr. Mestre and Mr. Vadas. Due to his seniority, and his re-known expertise in water resources management and planning of multinational basins, Mr. Mestre will act as team leader. Mr. Vadas’ knowledge of the GEF process will be an asset for the evaluation.

30

ANNEX 1: Terms of reference

4. Evaluation Reporting FormatThe evaluation report should be composed of (1) a concise summary, not exceeding five pages, including findings and recommendations and (2) a detailed evaluation report. The detailed evaluation report without annexes should not exceed 35 pages. The report together with annexes will be written in English and be presented in electronic form in MS word format.

The evaluation will rate the successfulness of the project on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being the highest (most successful) rating and 5 being the lowest.

In rating the project the following items will be considered for rating purposes:(a) Timeliness: how the project met the schedule and implementation timetable cited in the

project document and later revisions thereof.(b) Achievement of results/objectives(c) Attainment of outputs(d) Completion of activities(e) Project executed within budget(f) Impact created by the project(g) Sustainability

Each of the items should be rated separately. The following rating system shall be applied:1=Excellent (90-100% achievement)2=Very good (75-89%)3=Good (60-74%)4=Satisfactory (50-59%)5=Unsatisfactory (less than 59%)

5. Outputs of the EvaluationThe outputs of the evaluation will be an evaluation report to UNEP. An electronic version of the final evaluation report will reach UNEP-DEIAEW no later than 23 June 2000 and should be addressed as follows:

Backson SibandaChief, Evaluation and OversightUNEPP.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenyaemail: backson.sibanda@unep.org

with a copy to:Mr. John Pernetta Programme CoordinatorDeputy DirectorUNEP/GEF Coordination OfficeP.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, KenyaFax: 254 2 623162email: john.pernetta@unep.org

andIsabelle VanderbeckTask ManagerDivision of Environmental Information, Assessment and Early Warning (DEIAEW)UNEPP.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, KenyaFax: 254 2 622798email: isabelle.vanderbeck@unep.org

31

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

6. Schedule of EvaluationThe evaluation should commence on 29 May 2000 with a teleconference including the evaluators, the Task Manager (Ms Vanderbeck) and appropriate staff of the GEF Coordination Office. The contract will be for one month and the evaluation will be completed by 23 June 2000. The evaluators will travel to the project location from 29 May 2000 to 11 June 2000 and interview the project stakeholders (see attached itinerary and meetings schedule in Annex 5). A draft report should be sent to UNEP, addressed to Mr Sibanda with a copy to Mr Pernetta and Ms Vanderbeck, by 16 June 2000.

7. Schedule of PaymentThe evaluators will receive an initial payment of 40% of the total amount due upon signature of the contract. Final payment will be made upon satisfactory completion of work. The fee is payable under the individual SSAs of the two evaluators and is inclusive of all expenses such as travel, accommodation and incidental expenses.

The evaluators will make their own travel and insurance (medical, travel, baggage, etc.) arrangements according to the work schedule and travel itinerary provided in Annex 5.

32

ANNEX 2: Consultants' CVs

ANNEX 2: Consultants' CVs

J. Eduardo MESTREPermanent Technical Secretary

Latin American Network of Basin OrganizationsAvenida Plateros 211

Colonia Carretas Santiago de Querétaro, Querétaro

M E X I C O C. P. 76050Phone / Fax 524 213 6916/524 223 7556

e-mail: tulipe@infosel.net.mx/emestre@att.net.mxhttp://www.reloc.org/

Born in Mexico, fifty one years old, married

Civil engineer with Graduate Work in Systems Engineering applied to Regional Development and in Econometrics

Recognized in Latin America as an expert in the water sector in the fields of management, institutional development, legal and financial instruments, planning, regional development, information systems, public participation and in regional and basin organizations.

Has acquired 24 years of experience as public servant, consultant and instructor in national and regional water resources planning, programming and budgeting, follow up mechanisms and evaluation; in water management - allocation, licensing, regulation and water markets - ; in information systems, financial mechanisms, public participation and regional and basin organizations .

Was directly involved in the conceptual development and implementation of technical, institutional, legal and financial solutions to water resources problems that have contributed in transforming the water sector in Mexico.

Was founder and Technical Secretary of the first Basin Organization – with public and private participation - in Mexico, Lerma Chapala, one of the oldest of its kind in Latin America; succeeded in obtaining concrete results in terms of water reallocation, treatment and public participation, that triggered changes in the national legal framework and in the decentralization processes in Mexico. With such experience, colaborated in the thematic discussion of the Brazilian Water Law. Has created a State Water Law Project for Guanajuato, México – the first of its kind with a comprehensive approach – now under discussion and sustains that several additional modifications should be introduced in the Mexican water sector scheme; therefore, he currently participates with the Chamber of Deputees in drafting a New Water Law for that country. Has directly participated in the design and implementation of Aquifer Water Management Units where water users, other social actors and government institutions interact for the sake of sustainable water utillization.

Presently an Independent Consultant and participating on behalf of Coyne et Bellier, DBEnvironnement, Montgomery Watson, and Consultores Interdisciplinarios, S.A. de C.V.

Consultant for the Inter American Development Bank in Paraguay; in Ecuador and Egypt with World Bank funding; for UNESCO/ Italian Institute for Latin America in Costa Rica and has developed missions on behalf of Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC); for the governments of Ecuador and Argentina with national funding; for the Danish International Development Agency in Nicaragua; for the French Cooperation Programme in Brazil; presently provides consulting support to SAMTAC/GWP in the ten South American countries and to CATAC/GWP in the six Central American countries, and is Project Leader in Venezuela for HIDROVEN with World Bank funding to develop sustainable user organizations to promote a more participative integrated water resources management scheme in Monagas

33

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

Was the First President of the International Network of Basin Organizations(INBO); and is Permanent Technical Secretary of the Latin American Network of Basin Organizations (LANBO). Newly elected member for the Executive Committee of the InterAmerican Water Resources Network of the Organization of American States. Former President of the Mexican Hydraulic Association and Vice President to the Civil Engineers College

Was Professor for Graduate and Undergraduate Programmes in the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), Metropolitan Autonomous University (UAM), Professional Interdisciplinary Unit of Engineering, Social Sciences and Management (UPIICSA), and is regular lecturer in the prestigious Colegio de México, eventually with World Bank funding and Ibero-American University (UIA), to the University of Santander, Spain, and speaker for the Tropical Agronomic Center of Research and Capacity Building (CATIE) – Costa Rica, Italian – Latin American Institute, North American Lake Management Society and Mendoza – Argentina - Entrepreneur Council, among others.

In the water field, has written in English and Spanish many articles, essays, papers and is co-author to several books and written Forewords and chapters as well. Has been in charge of editorial and publishing activities for technical magazines and newsletters. Is currently in the Editorial Reviewing Committee of the Mexican Institute for Water Technology.

Is a permanent member of the Scientific Advisory Committee for Hydrometeorological Risks to the Ministry of the Interior, Government of Mexico.

Is a Resource Person for the South American Technical Advisory Committee of the Global Water Partnership, participating fully since November, 1997. A Resource person, too for the Central American Technical Advisory Committee of GWO, participating since its first steps in 1999. currently participating regularly in its meetings and developing work for both.

Reads, writes and speaks fluently English and Spanish, both as maternal languages, reads and speaks French and Portuguese, and has elemental knowledge of German and Italian.

Recent papers, books and presentationsLas leyes de Agua en México. Surgimiento de los Derechos de Agua y de los Mercados de Agua . Diplomado sobre Gestión Integral del Agua y Manejo de Cuencas Hidrográficas. Universidad Iberoamericana, León. Mayo, 1999.

Integrated Approach to River Basin Management: Lerma – Chapala Case Study – Attributions and Experiences in Water Management in Mexico. Asit Biswas, editor in chief. Water International: International Water Resources Association (IWRA). Volume 22, No. 3, September, 1997 (http://iwrn.ces.fau.edu/mestre.htm)

Integral Approach to Water Quality Conservation in Basins. Coauthor. International Journal of Water Resources Development. Water Resources Development in Mexico. Volume 10, Number 3, ISSN 0790-0627. Carfax Publishing Company, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, 1994

Criterios para el Diseño de Tarifas de Agua. El Precio de los Derechos de Agua. Coauthor. Seminario Franco - Mexicano de Gestión Regional del Agua. Guadalajara, Jal. Julio, 1994.

Enfoques Críticos en la Gestión del Agua por Cuenca en Latinoamérica. CATHIE / Instituto Italo Latinoamericano / AIDIII. Taller Internacional de Gestión Ambiental en Manejo de Cuencas. Turrialba, Costa Rica. Noviembre, 1998

Enfoques Críticos en la Gestión del Agua en México. Principios, Conceptos, Instrumentos, Avances y Fracasos... Colegio de México; Programa de Estudios Avanzados en Desarrollo Sustentable y Medio Ambiente; LEAD – México, Sept, 1998

Los Consejos Técnicos de Aguas. Agua Forum. Talleres Gráficos del Edo de Guanajuato. Edición de Julio – Agosto, 1998.

34

ANNEX 2: Consultants' CVs

Proyecto de Ley de Aguas del Ecuador. Consejo Nacional de Recursos Hídricos. Quito, Ecuador, Dic. 1998

La planificacion hídrica y los organismos de cuenca en la gestión del agua de Latinoamérica II Encuentro de Organismos de Cuenca de Centroamérica y del Caribe; Guatemala, 29 al 31 de julio de 1998

Conflictos y soluciones entre los diversos usos del agua. Ciclo Modernización del Riego. Departamento General de Irrigación, Mendoza, Argentina, Noviembre, 1998

Plan Hídrico Provincial. Hacia una gestion integrada, eficiente y sostenible del agua en la Provincia de Mendoza. Consejo Empresario Mendocino; Mendoza, Argentina, marzo, 1999

Diagnóstico de la Situación Actual de los Recursos Hídricos del Paraguay. Coautor. Estudio del Marco Legal e Institucional para el Manejo de los Recursos Hídricos del Paraguay. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo; Asunción, Paraguay; abril, 1999

Legal e Institucional para el Manejo de los Recursos Hídricos del Paraguay. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo; Asunción, Paraguay, junio, 1999

Plan Hídrico Provincial de Mendoza. 2ª Versión. Primera Iteración. Departamento General de Irrigación. Mendoza, Argentina; junio, 1999

Lineamientos Estratégicos para el Desarrollo Hidráulico de la Región Administrativa VIII Lerma Santiago Pacífico. Elaboración de Opciones. Montogomery Watson para la Comisión Nacional del Agua. Enero, 1999

Los Mercados de Agua como Instrumento de Gestión del Agua. Coautor. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. Junio, 1999.

35

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

Rolando Gaal Vadas

Rua Padre João Manoel 1230 Ap.63Cerqueira Cezar - CEP 01411-000

São Paulo - SP, BrazilTel.: +55 11 3064 2802; +55 11 9612 8798 (cel.)

E-mail: gvadas.ops@terra.com.br

EDUCATIONPh.D. Civil Engineering - Water Resources Planning and Management, Colorado State University, USA, 1994M.S. Irrigation Engineering, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 1988B.S. Civil Engineering, Mackenzie University, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1984Project Management Course, MW University, USA, 1999

MEMBERSHIPS AND AFFILIATIONSAmerican Society of Engineers (ASCE)American Water Resources Association (AWRA) International Association on Water Quality (IAWQ)Brazilian Water Resources Association (ABRH)

MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL SPECIALITIES Technical, economic and financial analysis, planning, design, implementation and management

of water resources projects (distribution networks, Diagnóstico de los Arreglos Institucionales en Paraguay. Coautor. Estudio del Marco

watersheds, irrigation, wetlands, reservoir operations for hydropower and flood control, and river analysis, planning and management).

Programme manager for projects in Latin America including environmental impact assessments, environmental modeling, environmental planning, bankable feasibility studies, permitting and management, and environmental audits for oil and gas, mining, and power industries.

Fluent (spoken and written) in Spanish, English and Portuguese [born in Chile and raised in Brazil].

REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCEMontgomery Watson, Brazil - Programme Manager for Water Resources. Project coordination,

technical support, and business development of water resources projects in Brazil.Organization of American States (OAS) / Secretary of Water Resources - Ministry of the

Environment, Water Resources, and Legal Amazon, Brazil - Technical Coordinator for developing project entitled “Integrated Management of Landed-Based Activities in the São Francisco River Basin” being financed by the Global Environmental Facility, Organization of American States, United Nations Environmental Programme, and World Bank. The objective of the project is to assist the Government of Brazil to promote sustainable development of the São Francisco River Basin and its coastal zone, based upon the implementation of an integrated approach to management of the water resources, watershed and coastal zone.

Secretary of Water Resources - Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources, and Legal Amazon, Brazil - Consultant for World Bank Project for strengthening of the water resources sector of nine states of the Brazilian Semi-Arid Region by empowering the public institutions and civil society organizations involved water and natural resources management. Responsible for the selection of new hydraulic works to promote institutional development as well as to increase availability of water, promote better quality of life for the local population and

36

ANNEX 2: Consultants' CVs

protection of the environment. The 9 states included are: Bahia, Ceara, Rio Grande do Norte, Minas Gerais, Pernambuco, Paraiba, Piaui, Alagoas, Sergipe, and Maranhão.

Mobil Oil Corporation, USA/Venezuela - Project Manager for obtaining a resource impact permit for seismic exploration activities of the Cerro Negro field in support of the Mobil-Lagoven Heavy Oil Project in Venezuela. The permitting includes procurement of seismic exploration concessions for the 3-D seismic acquisition programme, as well as procurement of a Resource Impact Permit for full operations.

Newmont Mining Corporation, USA/Indonesia - Geochemical speciation modeling analysis of mine tailings, waste rock drainage, combination of tailings and waste rock drainage, and filtrate from concentrate for marine discharge from the Batu Hijau Gold-Copper Pilot Plant, southwest Sumbawa, Indonesia. The objective was to aid P.T. Newmont Nusa Tenggara in performing environmental risk assessment and hazard evaluation and achieving water quality goals. The studies were performed in support of the Indonesian Environmental Impact Assessment (ANDAL) and for discharge design optimization to minimize environmental impacts.

Mobil Oil Corporation, USA/Venezuela - Programme Manager for performing Preliminary Site Assessment Profiles (PSAP) for the following 10 oil concession blocks in Venezuela: Guarapiche, Delta Central, Punta Pescador, East and West Gulf of Paria, La Ceiba, Catatumbo, Guanare, San Carlos, and El Sombrero. The PSAP included field reconnaissance of each block and a permitting and regulatory review to provide Mobil background environmental data to estimate costs, time frames and environmental liabilities for the potential exploration and development of each block. Environmental review of blocks included remote, vast wetlands areas in the Orinoco Delta, offshore environments in the Gulf of Paria, forested mountainous areas, and agricultural and ranching regions in the Llanos and Lake Maracaibo lowlands.

Mobil Oil Corporation, USA/Argentina - Programme Manager for performing an Environmental Review of Mobil’s test seismic programme on the Puelen and Loma el Divisadero blocks, northern Patagonia, Argentina. The primary objectives of the Environmental Review was an on-site assessment of environmental conditions resulting from seismic operations, evaluation of the potential, present and past impacts of the “Vibroseis” seismic explorations methods on the local ecosystem, and development of workable methods and/or alternatives to minimize environmental impacts from such operations. Interview with selected local and national (Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales [YPF]) environmental specialists regarding preventions, management, and reclamation of disturbed areas in this type of ecosystem.

Cyprus Amax Mineral Company, USA/Russia - Hydrology review for the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Kubaka Gold Project, Russia. Sample statistics and frequency distribution of climatological data.

Newmont Mining Corporation, USA/Indonesia - Studies on the hydrology and water quality analysis for the for P.T. Newmont Nusa Tenggara’s Environmental Monitoring Programme of the Batu Hijau Gold-Copper Project, southwest Sumbawa, Indonesia.

Ivanhoe Myanmar Holdings, Limited, USA/Myanmar - Environmental Management Plan of the Monywa Copper Project located in the Dry-Zone of North Central Myanmar (Burma). The study includes 1) performing a hydrologic evaluation of the project area regarding mine dewatering and surface flooding; 2) develop hydrologic work plans for the mine pits, waste dumps, leach pads, solution collection ponds, dewatering/diversion/flood control structures, and appurtenant mine facilities; and 3) development of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

37

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

Himpurna California Energy International, Inc, USA/Indonesia - Development of a Spill, Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan for the Dieng Geothermal Project in Indonesia. The SPCC plan identifies the procedures required to ensure that the potential for, and risk resulting from, accidental releases of potentially hazardous materials is minimized to the greatest degree possible.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation / Colorado State University, USA - Development and implementation of a methodology applied to the San Joaquin Basin in California for water quantity and quality assessment for wetland development which enables planners to evaluate the results of restoring and managing a large wetland complex. The methodology is developed by blending the following technologies: Geographic Information Systems (GIS), water demand estimation, surface water modeling, water quality modeling, habitat management, and mathematical programming. The methodology allows for the integrated analysis of physical, environmental, and chemical interrelationships for an ecological system that varies in time and space.

Promon Engenharia, S.A., São Paulo, Brazil - Feasibility study of the Great Man Made River Irrigation Project in Libya including engineering project design and economic and financial evaluation. Design of the main locks of the Tres Irmaos Hydroelectric Power Plant, Brazil.

Themag Engenharia, S.A. / Katholieke Unviersiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium - Financial and economic analysis of the Formoso "H" Irrigation Project, Brazil.

COMPUTER MODELING EXPERIENCEIntense and varied experience with water resources planning and management models, mathematical programming, geographic information systems, and computer programming in general. These includes simulation models for reservoir operation (USACE HEC5 and CSU MODSIM), hydrology and hydraulic models (USACE HEC-1& HEC-2), hydronamic models (USEPA DYNHYD), water quality models (USEPA WASP, USEPA MINTEQA2 and USEPA PLUMES), water demand estimation models (KUL ETREF and KUL IRSIS), optimization models (CSUDP, LINDO, GINO, GAMS/MINOS), geographic information systems (ESRI ARC/INFO, USACERL GRASS, CLARK IDRISI),programming languages (FORTRAN, Pascal, Basic, AWK), graphics (xgraph, xmgr, Freelance, vpgraph), databases (Dbase), spreadsheets(Lotus, QuattroPro, Excel), statistical packages(curvefit), stochastic analysis packages (ARS WGEN), word processors and desktop publishing (WordPerfect, MSWord, FrameMaker,Ventura), windowing systems (MS Windows, X-Windows, Motif), project planning (MS Project), design packages (Autocad) and topographic packages (Surfer). Experience with personal computers and workstations.

PUBLICATIONSR. Gaal Vadas. “Integrated Coastal Area and River Basin Management for the São Francisco River in Brazil” presented at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Interregional Workshop in Toulon, France, January 2000.

R. Gaal Vadas. "The Sao Francisco River Basin” presented at the International Workshop on River Basin Management. The outcome report of the Workshop was the “Recommendations and Guidelines on Sustainable River Basin Management”. The Hague, Holland, October 1999.

Vadas, R. G., Garcia, L. A., Labadie, J. W., "A Methodology for Water Quantity and Quality Assessment for Wetland Development", presented in the International Conference on Integrated Water Resources Management, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, September 1994. Published in the Water Science Technology Journal, 1995. Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 292-299. Pergamon Press

38

ANNEX 2: Consultants' CVs

Garcia., L.A., Vadas, R., Meyer, S., Ternlund, J., Cunningham, J., "The Use of Decision Support Systems in Wetland Development at a Landscape Level", presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Water Resources Planning and Management Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, May 1994.

Garcia, L.A., Meyer, S. P., Vadas, R. G., and Crossman, J., "A Decision Support System for Wetland Development", presented at the ASAE conference on Application of Advance Information Technologies for Management of Natural Resources, Spokane, Washington, June 1993.

De Goes Calmon. M., Gaal Vadas. R., Calasans Rego. N. and Raes. D., "Computer Support Systems for Irrigation Scheduling - Case Study: Pirapora Project (Brazil)" presented at the International Conference on Irrigation and Drainage, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, April 1990. Published on ICID Bulletin 1992, VOL. 41 NO. 2.

Monbaliu J., Jo J., Fraisse C.W., Vadas R. G., "Computer Aided Design of Pipe Networks", presented at the International Symposium on Water Resources Systems Application in Winnipeg, Man., Canada, June 1990.

39

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

ANNEX 3: Basin Maps

40

ANNEX 4: Project Document

ANNEX 4: Project Document

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMMEUNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME

SECTION 1: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

1.1 Title of Sub-Programme: Sustainable Management and Use of Natural Resources - Caring for Freshwater, Coastal and Marine Resources

1.2 Title of Project: Strategic Action Programme for the Binational Basin of the Bermejo River

1.3 Project Number: GF/1100-97-071.4 Geographical Scope: 50 (Latin America and the Caribbean)1.5 Implementation: General Secretariat of the Organization of the American States

(GS/OAS)1.6 Duration of the Project Two years

Commencing: April 1997Completion: March 1999

1.7 Cost of Project (Expressed in US $)

US$ %

Cost to the Environment Fund 10 (in kind): 150,000 2.5Cost to GEF Trust Fund for this project (GF/1100-97-07): 2,990,000 50Cost to GEF Trust Fund for PDF/B project (GF/1100-96-13): 231,000 4

(already disbursed and spent)Cost to counterpart contribution 11: 2,510,000 42(In kind and in cash from the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia)Cost to the Co-operating Agency 2/Supporting Organization:(in kind and in cash from GS/OAS) 75,000 1.5

Total cost of the Project 12 5,956,000 100Signatures:

For the General Secretariat of the For the Environment Fund of UNEPOrganization of the American States (GS/OAS)_________________________________

_________________________________________________César Gaviria E. OrtegaSecretary General O-I-C, Fund Programme Management BranchDate: ____________________________ Date: ____________________________________________

10 10 UNEP's contribution is provided under project FP/1100-96-01 as institutional support to this project.11 These funds are not administered by UNEP.12 To avoid double counting, as US$231,000 were already disbursed under project GF/1100-96-13 during the

PDF/B phase, only US$5,725,000 to be shown in the UNEP project database as total cost of the project. 41

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

SECTION 2: Summary and Background Information

2.1 SummaryThe proposed GEF project responds to a request of the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia for technical assistance in the formulation of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the Bermejo River Basin. The primary objective of the SAP will be to promote environmentally sustainable development within the basin, taking into consideration the programme of investments being prepared by the Binational Commission for the Development of the Upper Bermejo and Grande de Tarija Rivers Basins. This is seen as the only solution for reversing the environmental degradation occurring to the land and water resources of the binational basin. In September 1995, the Governments' request for a GEF Project Development Facility, Block B (PDF/B) Grant in the amount of US$ 231,000 was approved. It provided for the preparation of an international waters project with the following objectives: 1. Conducting an environmental diagnostic survey of the basin to identify priority transboundary environmental concerns and related sectoral issues; 2. Formulating a Strategic Action Programme for the Binational Basin addressing different GEF focal areas and seeking to solve priority transboundary environmental issues as part of the implementation of the water resource and environmental agreements between the countries; 3. Assisting the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia to incorporate transboundary environmental concerns, including biodiversity and land degradation protection, into their development policies, plans and programmes for the basin; and, 4. Conducting pilot demonstration activities during the process of SAP formulation to gain information needed for management purposes. A fifth objective focuses on public participation. This objective involves helping both countries to institute a system of public consultation on the implementation and development projects of general interest in the basin, so that they are environmentally sustainable and socially acceptable. This GEF International Waters project proposal is the result of the PDF activities.

It is to be anticipated that the project will identify specific investment projects and activities of a transboundary nature that will meet GEF criteria. During the formulation of the SAP for the Bermejo River Binational Basin, the comprehensive approach set forth in the International Waters Scoping Paper approved by the GEF Council will be used to develop mechanisms for the control of transboundary sedimentation, conservation of biological diversity, prevention of land degradation and the rehabilitation of degraded lands, enhancement of carbon sequestration potentials through sustainable agro-forestry, and implementation of environmentally-sound development proposals. Such actions are consistent with the GEF principle of linking project elements with the major cross-cutting issues addressed by the GEF, with the priorities identified in the UNEP desertification studies which identified the Bermejo Basin as a critical area, and with the UNEP Environmentally Sound Management of Inland Waters (EMINWA) integrated watershed management planning process.

Demonstration projects for the control of desertification, biodiversity conservation13, carbon sequestration and transboundary sediment abatement have been identified. They have been selected in order to collect information in the short term and test different measures for more widespread implementation later, and include: a) Their appropriateness with respect to the environmental character of the area, and their contribution to sustainable development; b) Their economic feasibility, preferably with low levels of investment; c) The adequacy of their components to the extension or transference of knowledge; and, d) The testing of popular participation methods in both, the planning and implementation of projects. Most demonstration projects require some additional work of definition and institutional organization, before they are started.13 Conservation of biodiversity, both flora and fauna, has been a major consideration in the formulation of

the present proposal. At least nine of the Work programme Elements (WPE) make substantial contributions to conservation of biodiversity in the Chaco, namely: Transboundary Pollutant Movement (WPE 1.1); Erosion Control Santa Ana Camacho (WPE 2.2.); land Use in the Lower Bermejo River (WPE 2.5); management of Forage-Humid Chaco (WPE 2.6); Transition Forest-Salta (WPE 3.1); Sustainable Development-Yungas, Salta (WPE 3.3); Environmental Corridor-Baritu/Tariquia (WPE 4.3); Environmental Education-Formosa (WPE 5.2); and, Formulation of the Strategic Action Programme (WPE 6.1).

42

ANNEX 4: Project Document

2.2 BackgroundOverview. The Bermejo River Basin, shared by Argentina and Bolivia, is a regionally important part of the Plata Basin. The Bermejo River has the unique characteristic of linking two major geographic features of the southern tip of South America: the Cordillera de los Andes and the Paraguay-Parana Rivers, crossing completely the huge expanse of the Chaco Plains. Thus, it acts as a corridor allowing the connection of biotic elements of both the Andean mountains and the Chaco Plains. Radically differing weather conditions in the large basin (about the size of the Rhine Basin) promote an array of rain forests, humid valleys and mountain deserts in the Upper Basin and dry forests as well as humid and gallery forests in the Lower Basin. There is an exceptional habitat diversity along the course of the river. Erosion and sedimentation are serious issues: it has been estimated recently that the Bermejo Basin produces about 80% of sediments in the Plata River.

Despite its potential, the basin is an economically disadvantaged area in both countries. It has a history of "extractive" exploitation of forests and natural pastures. Incomes are very low and a large proportion of the population is indigenous. An opportunity exists for the gradual substitution of new systems of production. Innovative methods of environmental management, agro-forestry and watershed management will be required and active participation of communities is needed to understand and adopt new practices. Poverty and the low level of education of the population are restrictions to any proposal for changes in the management of the basin. Although the area has been studied for many years,14 it is only recently that actions have been taken to implement development projects in this basin. For example, in the Upper Basin, Argentina and Bolivia have agreed on the construction of a series of multipurpose water resources development projects related to the general development of the region that could have potential impacts in the downstream biomes. Programming the economic and social development and managing the natural environment of the region in a careful and orderly fashion leading to sustainable development, is a challenge clearly recognized by both Governments. For such purposes, they have created by the treaty of June 9th, 1995, the full text of which appears as an Annex to the PDF/B document and in summary form as Annex 1 to this document, a Binational Commission for the Development of the Upper Bermejo and Grande de Tarija Rivers Basins, which is requesting GEF technical assistance. This Binational Commission has international legal status, full authority in technical, administrative and financial matters and legal capacity to acquire rights and acts on behalf of the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia, and has been given authority by both Governments to actively pursue all the actions required for the implementation of the present Programme.

More than fifty institutions, government agencies and NGOs, participated in drafting this proposal, many of which are expected to participate in the execution of this project. This proposal is based on some twenty reports and detailed project documents prepared during the PDF/B process. A full review of reports and basic documentation available in different Government agencies of both countries, and contacts with those agencies, as well as with private sector representatives, academic institutions and NGOs, was the first task completed during the PDF/B process. This review identified specific gaps in knowledge and understanding of the transboundary pollution problems in the Bermejo Binational Basin which are addressed by this Programme. Fourteen consultants (seven Argentineans, six Bolivians and one American) participated in the preparation of the present proposal. Copies of the reports of the consultants have been forwarded to the GEF Secretariat and the GEF implementing agencies, and are available for consultation at the GS/OAS headquarters in Washington, D.C. The relationship between the intentions stated in the PDF/B Grant and the present proposal is fully developed in art IV, Project Description of this document. The proposal is consistent with the National Environment Programme of Bolivia and has been prepared in constant consultation with the Secretariat of Natural Resources and Human Environment of Argentina.

Links with Regional Strategic Work. The Bermejo River is a part of the Plata System, the second largest waterway in South America, an important economic artery in the region. Potential impacts

14      See OAS reports entitled "Study of Water Resources in the Upper Bermejo River Basin" (Argentina and Bolivia), 1971-73, and "Study of the Lower Bermejo River Basin"(Argentina), 1973-75."

43

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

arising in the Bermejo Basin extend throughout the Plata System from the Andes to the coastal zone, and these impacts affect many other developmental activities throughout the Mercosur and Plata Systems, including impacts on the Paraguay-Parana Waterway and the Plata estuary. The proposed project would try to redress some undesirable priority problems related to land degradation, such as the excessive soil losses from the slopes of the Andes that lead to sedimentation and loss of beneficial uses downstream, that have characterized the history of the region, and address priority threats to the environment associated with development projects. It would identify pilot activities promoting sustainable use of natural resources, from both the economic and the environmental points of view. Support to some of those pilot activities is a part of this proposal.

The project complements other planned GEF projects which address broad development impacts in the Plata Basin or in neighbouring areas. These include: 1. The GEF Uruguay Coastal Wetland Project which borders the Plata Large Marine Ecosystem (LME), which is the proposed project area for the Maritime Front Project being developed by the UNDP; and, 2. The GEF Patagonia Project in Argentina.

National and Regional Actions in the Bermejo River Basin. Within the framework provided by the Plata Basin Treaty and other binational integration and cooperation agreements, the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia have recently agreed on promoting the construction of a series of multipurpose (hydropower, irrigation, water supply and sediment control) projects for the development of water resources, and promotion of general development in the region.

The Financial Fund for the Plata Basin (FONPLATA) agreed, on December 7, 1992, and December 11, 1995, to finance feasibility studies for a series of multipurpose dams in the Upper Bermejo Basin, for a total of US$ 918,820. Included in the studies were the preliminary evaluation of fourteen reservoir sites, market research for energy and agricultural products from areas to be irrigated, and the economic analysis of costs and benefits of an optimized system of dams. The objective of Phase I was selecting the sites with the greatest economic potential. It concluded selecting Las Pavas, Arrazayal and Cambari as the best reservoir sites. Phase II is presently being carried out, also financed by FONPLATA; its purpose is making detailed topographic maps, analyses of building materials and environmental impact assessments at Las Pavas, Arrazayal and Cambari. Through an agreement with the Secretariat of Public Works of Argentina, additional geological and geotechnical studies are in progress in those three sites.

On the basis of these analyses, the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia intend to call for international bids, offering the private sector the opportunity to build and operate some of the most promising reservoir projects under conditions yet to be defined. It is noteworthy that even though some of the projects may be located in territory of one of the countries, both Governments have made the commitment of considering the operation of those projects as binational. It means that conditions for sale of energy generated would be similar to those existing for nationals in each of the markets. The bidding process has already been initiated.

In addition to the binational initiatives, several provincial or local projects are underway or planned based on the present availability of water from the Bermejo. In Argentina, for example, projects for the supply of drinking water to urban areas in the Province of Chaco are being planned or implemented; the Laguna Yema irrigation project is being constructed in the Province of Formosa, although the final extent of this scheme is yet to be determined; and other river regulation activities are being considered in Salta, Chaco and Formosa provinces. In Bolivia, similar projects exist, including the San Jacinto irrigation scheme, portions of which have been constructed and further portions proposed. All of these actions have the potential, in combination, to seriously affect the Bermejo River to the detriment of both the economy and the environment of the Basin and downstream to the Plata Rio System. This project will help gain an understanding of possible transboundary concerns and help to guide the development projects so that they will be more environmentally sustainable.

44

ANNEX 4: Project Document

Geographic Characteristics and Global Biological Significance. The Bermejo is a tributary of the Paraguay River, which in turn is a tributary of the Parana, flowing into the Plata River. The Plata Basin, a combination of three distinct major rivers, drains waters from some 3,100,000 km2 - almost a fifth of the South American continent - to the Atlantic Ocean. Extending through the Tropic of Capricorn, the Bermejo River watershed covers some 190,000 km2 , and has a length of some 1,200 km, approximately the size of the Rhine basin.

The Bermejo has a unique characteristic: it is the only river that crosses the huge area of the Chaco Plains. Other major rivers in the region, such as the Timani, the Pilcomayo or the Juramento, flow into the groundwater system of the plains and do not maintain their identity as surface water systems. This fact has three consequences of great importance:

a. There is exceptional habitat diversity along the water course;

b. Being the only river spanning the plain, the Bermejo is an "exporter" of sediments, with a large influence on the sediment contents of the Paraguay-Parana rivers;

c. The great diversity of habitats determines ideal conditions for maximizing biodiversity. Being a continuous course of water it acts as a corridor, allowing the connection of biotic elements of both the Andean and Chaco Plains ecosystems.

Sediment loadings in the Bermejo waters are some of the highest in the world (8 kg/m 3). Total discharge of sediment is in the order of 100 million tons/year. The greater part of the sediment is produced in the Upper Basin and flushed down during peak floods. A recent report of the World Bank15 estimates that 80% of the sediment in the Plata River originates in the Bermejo. In the Lower Basin there is intense fluvio-morphological activity, determined by large seasonal variations in stream flow, the high contents of sediment and the extremely low hydraulic gradients and flat topography. As a consequence it is fairly common to find processes such as the abandonment of river beds, or, as occurred last century, the capture of the Bermejo by the Teuco River. These processes have a strong influence on the dynamics of the riverine forests due to the extreme changes they induce in water availability, and wreak havoc with fixed infrastructure such as roads, bridges and human settlements.

Population is estimated at 1.2 million, the majority being native peoples. Indigenous people are among the poorest sector of the population: temporary workers and small farmers, with the lowest levels of education and capital availability. Many of them make regular temporary migrations to obtain some monetary income. Some survive through subsistence hunting and fishing, and others supplement their incomes selling regional handcrafts. Land capability and use have been extensively researched during the PDF/B process; information on those subjects is presented in the reports of the consultants as referred to above.

From the economic point of view, the Bermejo River Basin has a great potential for development but at the present time it is an economically disadvantaged area. Levels of income, education and sanitary conditions are among the lowest. Some regional products are of national importance including; wine, wine spirits and a variety of fruits in Tarija, cotton in Chaco and Formosa, fruits and vegetables around Oran, Salta, sugarcane in the Ramal area of Salta and Jujuy and in Tarija. Tannin production has lost the importance it once had in the Chaco region, being replaced by synthetic substitutes for leather tanning. Extensive livestock farming, including cattle, sheep and goats is a widespread activity in most of the basin. Recently, soybeans and rice have being introduced as crops with good economic potential, but seasonally intensive water demands in the case of rice.

Environmental Threats and Priorities. Human beings have intervened in a destructive fashion in the ecosystems of the Bermejo and exploited its forest resources for a century. Use of forestry resources and pastures has been carried out with a view to immediate economic return, not considering the sustainability of either the activity or the ecosystem. Forest use under extractive

15      An analysis of flooding in the Parana/Paraguay River Basin, LATEN Dissemination Note #5, The World Bank, September 1993

45

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

"mining" conditions has diminished biodiversity, and impoverished the resource, extracting in a systematic way trees of the highest commercial value. Natural regeneration of those species has been seriously limited. Overgrazing has been widespread since 1900, and in some areas has resulted in the total elimination of vegetative cover creating problems of erosion and desertification. Both activities have aggravated sediment mobilization in the river basin and have contributed to downstream environmental degradation.

Development and sustainable use of natural resources are not mutually exclusive in the Bermejo River Basin. Both are required and change in how development is accomplished is needed to provide a sustainable future for the residents. The present level of degradation of natural resources (both severe soil erosion and desertification) in the Lower as well as in the Upper Basin, results in low levels of productivity of lands. Low levels of income force temporary migrations of many local farmers, seeking additional revenue, and resulting in the general neglect of farms and farmed land. Under the present subsistence systems of production, simultaneous attention to economic profitability and environmental protection is difficult to achieve.

International Waters Impacts. Irregularity of flow and the production and transportation of sediments create transboundary difficulties for the development of the basin. The extensive amount of sediment, deposited along the course of the lower basin during floods, changes the course of the river continuously, impeding a rational use of land and land resources. Aquatic biodiversity is influenced by the excessive sediment load. There is a potential for navigation, but due to the variability of flow and large transportation of sediments, the use of that potential is impossible until the erosion/sedimentation problems are resolved. The potential further impacts of the creation of new hydraulic structures could result in a significant redistribution of sediments of the system by altering the deposition and scour patterns already established, as is the case in the San Jacinto project, where sedimentation is filling the reservoir almost three times faster than originally calculated, thus creating a "hot spot" needing attention. These schemes, and other water resources oriented projects, could also affect the quantity of water in the system, and impact the biodiversity and degree of land degradation occurring in the basin. This project will help to ensure that binational cooperation will be achieved in addressing these problems.

Transboundary Impacts. The frontier zone between Argentina and Bolivia has a remarkable level of commercial activity. Of the three main frontier points where commerce and movement of travelers occurs, the one between Aguas Blancas and Bermejo is located in the Bermejo Basin; it is the seat of movement of important volumes of goods and passengers. Transboundary trade is typical of towns with similar conditions in most of South America; local businessmen and populations obtain the benefits accruing from relative price differentials, mostly in food and staple products. Migration of Bolivian nationals into Argentina, temporarily as well as permanently, is an important transboundary impact creating needs for transportation infrastructure, housing, and essential resources that encourage or contribute to land degradation, unsustainable development, and pressure on the water resources, generating pollution loads which alter the quality and character of the river system, and which are transmitted downstream. Binational actions are needed to address these issues.

46

ANNEX 4: Project Document

2.3 Rationale for GEF FinancingUrgent Global Priority. The proposed project meets GEF eligibility criteria by addressing critical transboundary threats to the ecological viability of a regionally important transboundary watershed, and urgent biodiversity conservation needs that, if not addressed, would result in sustained and probably irreversible damage to important valleys, subtropical forests and soils. It would promote the consideration of sustainability criteria in actions to be carried out, such as construction of multipurpose reservoirs for power generation, irrigation, water supply and sediment control, leading to environmentally-sustainable development of the region.

Critical decisions are being programmed for the development of the Bermejo River Basin. Once those decisions are implemented they will affect the environment and lives of people for many years. Some impacts of development may have undesirable, perhaps irreversible, side effects if environmental concerns are not taken into consideration. A Binational Commission has been created. It needs to be strengthened to enable it to help change development practices in the basin to include environmental sustainability and reduction of transboundary impacts. Thus, now, when decisions are being made, is the appropriate time to consider environmental sustainability and to incorporate global environmental considerations into planned development activities. The Bermejo River Basin offers a singular opportunity: being an area where important development projects are programmed, it is possible to influence some of those programmes from the start. This means that undesirable side effects may be prevented from the very beginning, providing a watershed scale example for emulation elsewhere in semi-arid mountain regions.

2.4 Participation The formulation of the Bermejo River Basin SAP proposal, including its proposed GEF components, has involved extensive and broad-based participation by representatives of local and national Governments, academic and research institutions, private sector representatives and non-governmental organizations. The participation process was facilitated by a series of consultative meetings and seminars, conducted in Resistencia, Formosa, Salta and Jujuy, in Argentina, and Tarija in Bolivia. At the regional level two workshops were programmed. One was held in Salta, on December 14 and 15, 1995, and the other was held in Tarija, in June 22-23, 1996. Preparation of the proposal involved the participation of several Universities, governmental agencies and NGOs based on the watershed or close to it. The GEF project preparation Task Force met in Buenos Aires on October 15, 1995, in Washington D.C. on March 6, 1996, and finally revised the present document in April, 1996. Popular participation is built into the demonstration project and in development of the SAP. During the final preparation of the present proposal several meetings and consultations were held with representatives of the GEF Secretariat and all three implementing agencies. Valuable comments were received and they have been considered and discussed with those representatives, resulting in improvements of the proposal. Additional comments were received at the GEFOP meeting of May 2nd, 1996, and have resulted in changes or additions to paragraphs 3,5,6,23,25,31,34,40 and Annex 5. In August 1996, the Government of the United States presented several comments to the Secretariat of the GEF regarding elements of the proposed SAP for the Bermejo River project for Argentina and Bolivia. These comments were addressed, as appropriate.

SECTION 3: Project Objectives, Activities and Outputs

3.1 Project ObjectivesBackground. The proposed GEF project will result in the formulation of a Strategic Action Programme for the Integrated Water Resources Management of the Bermejo River Binational Basin. The project is designed to identify priority transboundary concerns and needs within the Basin and to assist in developing a watershed-based approach for integrating environmental and development concerns into the planning programmes of the two Governments, with a view toward protecting and

47

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

maintaining the essential ecological structure and functioning of the entire system, including its downstream components.

This project proposal is being compiled at a time when the Binational Commission is considering the construction of several multipurpose dams on international stretches of the Bermejo or on tributary rivers located in either one of the countries, near the borders. Based on a report funded by FONPLATA, a final decision has been made as to the sites to be selected: Las Pavas and Arrazayal, on the international course of the Bermejo, and Cambari on the Grande de Tarija River, in Bolivia; the total cost of construction of which is estimated to be about US$ 460 million (see Annex 2). These dams will change the present flow dynamics of the Bermejo River, creating opportunities for agricultural development primarily downstream in Argentina, urban development and infrastructure. Anticipating and mitigating the impacts of these changes on the Bermejo River Binational Basin in an holistic manner, beyond the minimum requirements for environmental impact assessment, would be an integral part of the proposed Strategic Action Programme planning process. The preparation of the SAP will be consistent with GEF Operational Strategy16. Main stages of the preparation will be:

a. Transboundary water-related environmental analysis;

b. Analysis of the Relationship of the SAP to national environmental planning and economic development documents;

c. Establishment of clear priorities (such as priority preventive and remedial actions, cross-cutting issues and linkages to other focal areas etc);

d. Establishment of a realistic baseline; and,

e. Determination of agreed incremental costs.

Transferability/Replicability. Production and transportation of sediments are characteristics defining the behaviour of the Bermejo River. Analysis of the potential for control of erosion and sedimentation in the Upper Basin may have premium returns in promoting sustainable development in the rest of the basin. It may also result in gaining knowledge and practice on watershed management applicable to other areas with comparable conditions in the Andean region. Studies on erosion and sedimentation in the watersheds of the Valley of Tarija and in the Tolomosa River are included as special activities within the proposal.

3.2 Project ActivitiesProposed Project Activities correspond to the six activities identified in Part I of the Proposal for the PDF, Block B Grant. The six activities are designed to provide information for, and permit formulation of, a Strategic Action Plan for the Bermejo River Binational Basin, and are concentrated in three principal task areas as set forth below. Detailed descriptions and budgets of each of the proposed work programme elements have been supplied to the GEF International Waters focal points in each Implementing Agency and the GEF Secretariat. Work programme elements have been selected on the basis of recommendations originated during the PDF/B process described above.

A. Task Area I: Transboundary Diagnosis.

Task Area I, the transboundary diagnosis, is designed to provide for the collection and analysis of additional field data relevant to the diagnosis of the priority transboundary pollutants of concern. These data will contribute to the sound scientific and technical basis for the remedial actions identified in the SAP process. This task area consists of two principal activities that will permit quantification of existing pollutant movements, thereby updating and consolidating older data, and provide for the forecasting of additional, potential future pollutant sources and movements that might affect the system. Based on analysis conducted as a result of PDF activities, the proposed work

16      Global Environment Facility, Operational Strategy, Chapter 4 box 4.1, Washington D.C., February, 1996.

48

ANNEX 4: Project Document

programme elements in this latter Activity target specific, representative locales where specific data and information are required.

Activity 1: Analysis of regional problems in matters of water, erosion and sedimentation in the entire Bermejo Basin and its area of influence; assessment of their relevance for the Binational Commission and countries: and proposal of activities that are best executed through regional coordination, based on available groundwork and the results of work by national agencies.

Work Programme Element 1.1: Transboundary Pollutant Movement. (US$ 250,000) This project will determine the regional impact of sediment transport on the Paraguay-Parana Waterway, the delta of Parana and the Plata River. In the Upper Basin of the Bermejo River, the operation of dams will change the patterns of water and sediment flows, affecting conditions downstream. The study will utilize an existing computerized simulation model of the Waterway developed by the National Direction of Ports and Waterways of Argentina, under various operational scenarios for the system of dams. In addition, possible measures to ensure environmental sustainability such as a guaranteed minimum flow release or downstream riverside buffer strips will be explored (See Task Area III, Activity 4).

Activity 2: Assessment of major present and emerging transboundary environmental problems in the basin and its area of influence.

Work Programme Element 2.1: Stream Classification. (US$ 70,000) This is a project to establish criteria and parameters of classification of water courses within the Upper Bermejo Basin and optimize use and quality control. Work to be done consists of sampling of water courses, laboratory analyses, processing and evaluation of data, classification of water courses, definition and regulation of water courses and preparation of guidelines for use and conservation of water resources.

Work Programme Element 2.2: Erosion Control-Santa Ana/Camacho. (US$ 150,000) This project consists of updating of existing studies and experiences for control of erosion, land reclamation, and management of natural resources. The studies are: Analysis of soils, vegetation, cattle management, and agriculture, and a social-economic survey; Formulation of a plan for the management of natural resources and erosion control; Identification of demonstration areas, and botanical species suitable to the area.

Work Programme Element 2.3: Land Tenure-Tarija Valley. (US$50,000) This study is to determine the use and ownership of eroded land within the Tarija Valley. Work required will consist of: a cadastral survey of the land; a census of owners of eroded land; legal characterization of property; and usage and conservation of land. This is important in order to establish legal information as to avoid greater damage to soils, and to establish ownership of land where projects are to be developed.

Work Programme Element 2.4: Range Management-Tarija Valley. (US$ 50,000) This is a project for zoning of natural grazing fields in accordance to their potential. It will establish sustainability criteria, limiting the number of cattle allowed in each grazing field. In order to do so, it is necessary to prepare an inventory of natural flora and fauna, evaluation of the potential for raising cattle in the area, detailed cartography indicating zoning and natural units of grazing fields, and establishment of strategies for the control of quantity of cattle grazing in the area.

Work Programme Element 2.5: Land Use in the Lower Bermejo River. (US$600,000) This study will focus on two areas, defined by the fluvio-morphological character of the river: a. The Western Sector, of some 21.000 km2, has the character of a braided river, flowing within a very wide plain and changing periodically its course; and, b. The Eastern Sector, some 5.000 km2, where the river flows within a relatively narrow bed, meandering

49

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

and eroding continually its margins. The results of this study would be the identification of strategies, policies and actions solving or mitigating some of the priority environmental problems originated in the severe fluvio-morphological activity of the river. Another result would be to improve practices of utilization of flood waters presently used by farmers. Those results would facilitate the formulation of a programme of sustainable development in the region, i.e. the SAP. The study would involve local Universities and NGOs. Needs for protection of critical wetland habitat will be identified, and measures for protection explored.

Work Programme Element 2.6: Management of Forage-Humid Chaco17, Province of Formosa. (US$ 80,000) This is a project of strategic value in the humid and sub-humid areas of the Chaco. In this area there are some two million hectares of land infested by vinal 18, affecting predominantly middle sized and small farmers. The objective is to determine the costs of utilizing practices for the control of vinal under farm conditions, and establishing the economic benefits to the farmer of the recuperation of productive levels in cattle ranching. The Experiment Station INTA-El Colorado has developed management procedures for vinal utilizing water from seasonal waterbodies. Use of those procedures is the only way to ensure protection of the habitat for numerous species of local flora, especially those of natural pastures. A small group of farmers will introduce those practices in their farms. The Experiment Station of INTA-El Colorado provides extension services and general supervision and monitoring of the project assuring adequate management of the waterbodies.

B. Task Area II: Popular participation and pilot demonstrations.

Task Area II, providing public participation and demonstration projects, is designed to provide for the collection and analysis of the information on the feasibility and relative costs of certain remedial measures identified during the PDF Activities as well as a means of transferring such experiences to the public at large. By involving the Basin communities in practical, "hands on"-type involvement in the identification and field testing of remedial measures, as well as in a dialogue process, actions formulated through the SAP process will have the advantage of benefiting from actual community insights and experiences, and of being acceptable to the communities as sustainable alternatives to presently-destructive practices. This task area consists of one principal activity and four work programme elements that target specific ecoregions--in the form of four representative sites--within the watershed.

Activity 3: Conduct of a Reforestation and Land Management Needs Survey by Binational Commission and possible donors. This includes a compilation of erosion, desertification problems and determining options for solving them. Limited pilot projects to determine costs and test methods for popular participation will be conducted with a view to developing carbon sequestration projects and recommendations for activities designed to promote sustainable livelihood and resource use in the damaged binational basin. Information collected from the early experiences of the demonstration projects will be used in formulating the SAP.

Work Programme Element 3.1: Transition Forest-Salta19 (US$ 55,000) Transition forests are being converted to agricultural use, mainly soybean production, creating a threat to their existence. No area of this unique ecosystem is presently protected. The objective of the project is to obtain the participation of local farmers in the conservation of selected areas, through the adoption of management practices compatible with the conservation of forests and resulting in a productive and sustainable use in a pilot demonstration.

17      The Chaco region is an extensive area of plains located in the central part of tropical and sub-tropical South America, covering approximately one million square kilometers, in parts of Argentina, Paraguay and Bolivia.

18      Vinal (Prosopis ruscifolia), a woody invasive tree or shrub in the Chaco region, is a close relative to mesquite (Prosopis juliflora).

19      Transition forests are located in the plains, in the ecotone between mountain rain forests and dry forests of Chaco.

50

ANNEX 4: Project Document

Work Programme Element 3.2: Tolomosa Watershed. (US$ 500,000) This is a demonstration project for land reclamation, control of sediments, reforestation and sustainable management of soils and water. It will be executed by the San Jacinto Association. The feasibility study for this project is concluded, the full project consists of 91 small dams for retention of sediments; 3145 ha to be fenced for forest protection; management and conservation of soils in 2949 ha. The amount requested only covers the execution of a demonstration project to determine full project costs, and effectiveness of measures in sediment abatement.

Work Programme Element 3.3: Sustainable Development. - Yungas,20 Salta. (US$ 90,000) This project, to be developed by a group of small farmers in an area in the vicinity of Los Toldos, will draw upon the experience of the Laboratory for Ecologic Research in the Yungas (LIEY-University of Tucumán). Main objectives will be monitoring results of methods of agro-forestry and cattle management in forests, evaluating costs and benefits of operation and determining costs of extension activities. Methods to be evaluated in this demonstration project have been successfully tested on an experimental, laboratory-scale basis in the Los Toldos area in a project previously executed by LIEY and supported by the German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ).

Work Programme Element 3.4: Removal of Constraints-Dry Chaco and Humid Chaco. Province of Chaco. (US$ 80,000) The area of application is Comandancia Frías and Fuerte Esperanza (Dry Chaco), covering some 10,000 ha, and in San Martin (Humid Chaco). The adoption of practices of sustainable use of natural resources are constrained by both the lack of land title and the poor quality of surface and groundwater during the dry season in the Dry Chaco and by floods in the Humid Chaco. The objective will be to determine costs of removal of those constraints, and the benefits of introducing adequate management practices.

C. Task Area III: Development of the strategic action programme.

Task Area III, development of the Strategic Action Programme, is designed to provide for the synthesis of data and experiences, feasibility assessments and cost analyses developed in the two preceding task areas. Included in the three principal activities within this task area are working programme elements that address the legal, institutional, and human and natural resources bases essential for implementation of the remedial actions identified through the SAP process. The six work programme elements, based upon wide-ranging consultations explicitly provide for the cooperative development of a comprehensive Strategic Action Programme by both the public and private sectors, based on a multi-sectoral, holistic approach to environmental management and economic development in this Basin, as provided for in Chapter 18 of Agenda 21.

Activity 4: Analysis of water resource development projects in the basin and how they can be designed and operated to protect biodiversity and the water environment of the region. This will include upstream and downstream analysis for sharing water resources for sustainable development, and will lead to a water resources and sustainable development element of the SAP, including: (I) Evaluation of transboundary environmental impacts of projects in the Upper Bermejo and Grande de Tarija Rivers Basins; (ii) Continued coordination and consultation with agencies of the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia, with civil institutions including NGOs, and with scientific and academic institutions, etc.; (iii) Incorporation of the Plan for Environmental Action for the Upper Bermejo River Basin as a complement to the feasibility studies; (iv) Strengthening the ongoing regional coordination and programming framework. The Binational Commission, with assistance of implementing/executing agencies, will identify needed actions for strengthening its regional role to address its responsibilities, including institutional structures, regional monitoring and analysis capabilities, its role as promoter and manager of development, relationship with other levels of government, etc., for incorporation into the SAP. Specifically, the Binational Commission will be responsible for coordinating the activities of the government agencies and NGOs participating in the

20      The Yungas region are mountain rain forests located in the primary slopes of the Andes.

51

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

SAP process, and in the execution of individual work programme elements. Computer-based information networks will be used to link the Commission, national inter-ministerial committees, and different levels of government in conducting the project. If there is interest, NGOs and universities might also be hooked into the network.

Work Programme Element 4.1: Hydrometeorological Network. (US$ 150,000) This is a project for the design of a complete binational hydrometeorological network and the rehabilitation of the existing network in the Upper Bermejo River Basin, in order to obtain reliable and continued data needed for monitoring the basin. This is a priority project for designing what type of network is required to meet binational needs.

Work Programme Element 4.2: Environmental Law. (US$ 30,000) In Bolivia this study will promote the establishment of a legal framework harmonizing laws for sustainable development in critical eroded areas, creating legal conditions for policies, actions and interventions by landowners and public and private institutions within the basin. The project will be one of the first activities in implementing the Treaty on Environment between Argentina and Bolivia (a summary of which appears as Annex 3), and will determine how that agreement will be implemented in this basin. The results of this study will be an updating of existing legal dispositions, the analysis of reasons impeding sustainable development, proposals for complementary or alternate regulations, and proposals of laws that will: a. Stop the process of subdivision of agricultural parcels; and, b. Allow the intervention of the Government in eroded areas. In Argentina, results expected are a continued support to provincial and federal initiatives to regulate natural resource use, standards and methods of control of the environmental quality. The use of environmental zoning will be explored in the binational basin.

Work Programme Element 4.3: Environmental Corridor-Baritu/Tariquia. (US$ 50,000) This study will focus on the optimization and conservation of flora and fauna through the formulation of joint policies between Baritu and Tariquia to preserve biodiversity, the equilibrium of the ecosystem, management of information and to restore the natural conditions that will allow the conservation of the reserves. Work needed is an analysis of the legal and political regulations of Baritu and Tariquia; an inventory and ecological complementarily of both reserves; formulation and analysis of alternatives for the installation of a biological corridor; and evaluation of the physical, legal and biological feasibility of the corridor. Also links will be made to lower basin corridor needs and to critical habitat identification elements.

Activity 5: Preparation of a socioeconomic survey and review of regional environmental practices and their relationship to population. It will emphasize public participation in the management of priority ecosystems with recommendations for activities designed to promote sustainable livelihood and resource use in the context of the SAP. Also included will be pilot projects in how to involve citizens and community groups in the sustainable development of the basin. The new popular participation programme in Bolivia will be strengthened to work in the basin and approaches will be shared with colleagues in Argentina, including: (I) Preparation of issues papers on social issues and convening of a workshop in each country; and (ii) Conducting social assessment (with pilot participatory rural appraisals) in the early part of the project (for funding, see work programme element 6.2).

Work Programme Element 5.1: Transboundary Migration. (US$ 80,000) This is a study to determine the temporary and permanent transboundary migrations of people so as to establish the role of migrations in the use, conservation and sustainable development of natural resources within the Bermejo Basin. Work needed is compilation of statistical information and social-economic conditions of the transboundary migrations; social, economic, cultural and anthropological surveys, establishment of patterns of temporary and permanent migrations; and an analysis of the relationship of the migration with management

52

ANNEX 4: Project Document

and use of resources. This study takes into consideration the relationship of human resources with integral management of the basin.

Work Programme Element 5.2: Environmental Education-Formosa. (US$ 40,000) The purpose of this project will be to promote a programme of environmental education through forest cultivation in selected schools and communities in Eastern Formosa. Forests in this area are affected by a process of degradation due to poor management practices. The objective of this project will be to show the local population that costs of management practices are justified by the productive recuperation of native forests.

Activity 6: Creation of appropriate inter-ministerial committees within each country to address priority transboundary environmental issues. The project will seek to assess and facilitate agreement on priority actions to address International Waters issues, such as the nature of project interventions, global risk, cross cutting significance (land degradation, biodiversity), etc., including: (I) The identification of these priority issues and activities to allow project formulation for solutions to priority regional problems before the completion of the comprehensive SAP; (ii) Completion of the comprehensive SAP, including detailed regional planning and an overview of long term coordination of GEF activities with the Binational Commission and detailing how the water resources development and environmental agreements between the two countries will be carried out in this basin; (iii) Elaboration of GEF-eligible project/programme concepts as identified in the SAP, to be prepared as annexes to the SAP document. Such project/programme concepts could be both national and regional in scope; (iv) Development of a Programme of Public Awareness and Regional Information involving Workshops and Seminars at two levels will be programmed, directed at two different markets: a) For interested parties of the private sector in the project area, with the objectives of facilitating local participation in projects and programmes, and of receiving feedback and promoting local initiatives, and b) For all the Plata Basin countries, inviting the participation of interested Government and private sector participants in order to encourage a wide discussion of the SAP.

Work Programme Element 6.1: Formulation of the Strategic Action Programme. (US$ 665,000) Formulation of a SAP is the main activity. It consists of the identification and harmonization of development initiatives in the Bermejo Basin, followed by an strategic integration and rationalization of those initiatives and proposals for sustainable development in the region. It will include an environmental evaluation of the basin, emphasizing the analysis of transboundary problems, and a socioeconomic survey reviewing environmental practices and their relation with the education, health, income and organization of local population, and the identification and coordination of organizational arrangements. Support to Government efforts at introducing environmental considerations into the laws and regulations at the national and regional levels is a part of SAP. A practical result of the SAP would be the explicit incorporation of the focal areas of interest of GEF into regional development programmes, looking for methods and procedures for the solution of priority transboundary environmental problems and obtaining global benefits. A pilot programme promoting the participation of local population in the evaluation and implementation of sustainable development projects would be tested as part of the project and future use of these methods would be another practical result of the SAP formulation.

Work Programme Element 6.2 Popular Participation. (US$ 150,000) This is a programme of seminars, courses, workshops and publications designed to engage the active participation of the many communities living in the Bermejo River Basin, in order to increase the awareness of inhabitants in relation to environmental concerns, avoid the disruption of the ecological balance and promote the protection of their habitats. This is linked with Activity 5.

53

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

3.3 OutputsThe proposed GEF project will result in the formulation of a Strategic Action Programme for the Integrated Water Resources Management of the Bermejo River Binational Basin. The project is designed to identify priority transboundary concerns and needs within the Basin and to assist in developing a watershed-based approach for integrating environmental and development concerns into the planning programmes of the two Governments, with a view toward protecting and maintaining the essential ecological structure and functioning of the entire system, including its downstream components.

3.4 Lessons learned and technical reviewLessons Learned. Lessons learned from previous international waters projects indicate that developing a Strategic Action Programme is an important first step in addressing problems of international waters. The proposed project would provide linkages with ongoing initiatives in the Plata Basin, and would ensure a concerted international approach to achieve global benefits through linkages with on-going and planned national and regional development initiatives, laws and technical and institutional capacities.

Project Monitoring and Evaluation. Utilizing key process and status indicators would be an intrinsic process of the project through the establishment and integration of monitoring tools into project components. A monitoring and evaluation plan will be prepared by the Binational Commission before initiation, and will be approved by the Governments and UNEP. The objective of this monitoring is to contribute to improving, and, if needed, adapting management of programme activities as well as creating the basis for project evaluation. A project implementation review would be undertaken jointly by the Governments and the UNEP two years after the end of the project.

Technical Review. The technical review of the proposal was prepared by W.D. Williams, Ph.D.,D.Sc., Professor Emeritus, University of Adelaide, Australia. Dr. Williams is a designated experts for STAP Roster of Expert. The review, presented as annex 11, concludes that:

a. "The proposal represents a significant transboundary project of water resource (and catchment) management for an economically disadvantaged region that has been subject to considerable environmental damage that in the long run is unsustainable. As such, it is a timely and sensible response to events which no government concerned to enhance or at least maintain the value of its natural resources should ignore.

b. "Whatever the case, it is certainly one of only a few proposals that attempt seriously and comprehensively to redress the lack of attention that the management of international rivers has attracted.

c. "The incremental costs of the proposal, i.e., costs of implementation the proposal, are relatively modest. The costs of implementing the GEF alternative situation (vis-a-vis baseline situation) in absolute terms are not inconsiderable (US$ 5.725 million, cf.US$ 0.7 million for the baseline situation) but in relative terms, and when viewed against, for example, the costs of dam construction alone (US$ 458.9 million), are insignificant. They become even more insignificant when the likely costs of ongoing and future environmental damage (especially erosion, desertification and decreases in productivity) are taken into account.

d. "In summary, this review gives substantive approval to both the over-arching objectives of the proposal and their rationale, and the ways proposed to achieve the objectives. Its acceptance is recommended."

3.5 SustainabilityProject activities and implementation are designed (including the participation process) to achieve sustainability. Demonstration projects have been selected on the basis of their sustainability, both from the ecological as well as the economic point of view. Studies proposed have the purpose of identifying the causes and effects of degradation of soils and forests, and of reclaiming once

54

ANNEX 4: Project Document

productive areas and keeping them productive. Wherever possible the project would develop opportunities for the establishment of financial incentives, private sector investment and cost recovery in environmental management (e.g., in reclamation of eroded lands, pastures and forests, management of areas infested by vinal, rational management of natural forests, exploitation of newly forested areas), and provide actual, working examples of the new or refined land management actions necessary for the sustainable development of the watershed. Use of demonstration projects on this scale would highlight issues affecting the sustainable implementation of practices allowing refinements or modifications to be made prior to large-scale use. The Binational Commission will be responsible for transmitting recommendations to the appropriate governmental bodies.

The national and regional governments of Argentina and Bolivia are committed to the sustainability of the project. They have pledged their support to actions implemented by GEF, with a budget of US$ 2,500,000 for a period of two years. Moreover, once environmental considerations are included in the design of development projects they become parts of them, and make them sustainable projects.

3.6 Issues, actions and risksThe main issue of this project is to address priority transboundary environmental concerns needed for sustainable development of the Bermejo Basin. To effect this, it is necessary to formulate a comprehensive programme of coordinated actions by the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia for the solution of these matters.

The main risk facing development in the Bermejo River Basin is that environmental considerations are not properly included into projects under study. This might produce serious, undesirable environmental side effects, such as soil degradation due to agricultural use of soils not suitable for agriculture, or desertification of pasture areas due to continued practices of overgrazing. Some natural ecosystems are experiencing a loss of biological diversity, due to excessive pressure of the population on limited resources. This is the case with wildlife, which is being hunted or fished beyond the reproductive capacity by an impoverished population.

Opportunities exist for the reclamation of some natural resources, such as soils and forests, utilizing adequate environmental management procedures making economic sense. The GEF proposal could make a difference in the development of this region, helping to popularize those procedures among the population.

SECTION 4: Project Financing and BudgetThe GEF Council approved Project budget is US$ 5,725,000, being comprised of funds provided by the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia, UNEP and the GS/OAS, as well as incremental GEF financing as set forth below in Table 1. The detailed expenditure lines are provided in UNEP format in Annex 4.

4.1 Cash Advance Requirements:An initial cash advance will be made upon signature of the project document by both parties and will cover expenditures expected to be incurred by the GS/OAS during the first six months from the UNEP contribution. Subsequent advances are to be made quarterly, subject to:

a. Confirmation by the GS/OAS, at least two weeks before the payment is due, that the expected rate of expenditure and actual cash position necessitate the payment, including a reasonable amount to cover "lead time" for the next remittance; and

b. The presentation of:- financial report showing expenditures incurred for the past quarter, under each project.

55

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

4.2 Incremental CostsTotal cost of the project is estimated at US$ 5,725,000. Total funding for the baseline situation without GEF financing is a minimum of approximately US$ 700,000. For the alternative project, non-GEF financing by the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia is US$ 2,510,000; by UNEP, US$ 150,000; and, by GS/OAS, US$ 75,000. The GEF contribution is US$ 2,990,000 (see Annex 5 for calculation of the incremental costs).

56

ANNEX 4: Project Document

TABLE 1: GEF Council Approved Project Budget in US$

DESCRIPTION P/M NON-GEFCOST SHARE

GEF TOTAL

Project Personnel 294 323,000 617,440 940,440

International Experts

48 0 264,000 264,000Short-Term Consultants

436 174,000 656,980 830,980Mission Costs 0 50,000 0 50,000

Nationally-recruitedProject ProfessionalPersonnel 126 631,000 18,400 649,400

PERSONNEL SUB-TOTAL 904 1,178,000 1,556,820 2,734,820

Workshops & Meetings 0 165,000 125,000 290,000

MEETINGS SUB-TOTAL 0 165,000 125,000 290,000

Miscellaneous 0 501,600 1,021,200 1,522,800

Reporting Costs 0 82,000 53,000 135,000

Sundries 0 39,000 7,000 46,000

Support Costs 0 7 69,400 226,980 996,380

SUPPORT SUB-TOTAL 0 1,392,000 1,308,180 2,700,180

PDF/B funds 21 231,000

GRAND TOTAL 904 2,735,000 3,221,000 5,956,000

21 This funds were already disbursed under project GF/1100-96-13.

57

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

Domestic benefits from this project would be the prevention and control of erosion, land reclamation, sediment control, irrigation of the lowlands, and water supply for drinking and agricultural uses. The values of these benefits cannot be estimated now. The Governments involved are contributing a substantial amount of funds, demonstrating their full support and interest in this programme, and this investment is assumed to account for local benefits.

4.3 BudgetA detailed budget following UNEP Format can be found in Annex 4 of this document.

SECTION 5: Institutional Framework and Evaluation

5.1 Institutional FrameworkThe project will be executed by the GS/OAS at the regional level and the Bermejo River Basin Binational Commission at the local level.

a. The GS/OAS will be responsible for timely production of financial and progress reports to UNEP as mentioned in section 6 below.

b. All the proposed activities will be managed on a day-to-day basis by the Binational Commission, in consultation with the UNEP and GS/OAS (“UNEP/OAS”). The Binational Commission will appoint two Executive Directors of the Project, one for Argentina and one for Bolivia. The cost of these two Executive Directors will be born by their respective Governments. Two Technical Coordinators, one for Argentina and one for Bolivia, will be contracted by the Executing Agency (GS/OAS), in consultation with the Binational Commission, with funds provided by GEF through the Implementing Agency. The Terms of Reference for these Technical Coordinators will be drafted by the Executing Agency (GS/OAS) in consultation with UNEP, and will be cleared by the Binational Commission.

The Binational Commission has international legal status, autonomy in technical, administrative and financial matters, and legal capacity to acquire rights and assume obligations. Among its functions are: selecting projects to be carried out; arranging funding for studies and projects selected; and planning and executing activities necessary for the development of the basin. The Binational Commission is, therefore, responsible for managing the basin so as to achieve sustainable development, optimize the use of natural resources, generate employment, attract investments and provide for rational and equitable use of water resources.

Activities of national personnel, with the support of the international agencies, will be based upon preparatory work and Terms of Reference agreed with and approved by the Binational Commission, in consultation with UNEP/OAS. To the extent possible, all tasks will be executed by national agencies of Argentina and Bolivia and/or by consultants from those countries.

UNEP will be responsible for clearance and transmission of financial and progress reports to the Global Environment Facility. UNEP retains responsibility for review and approval of the substantive and technical reports produced in accordance with the schedule of work.

The other two GEF implementing agencies will be asked to participate according to their comparative advantages. UNDP could assist in consultations among countries in the basin and in preparing project elements relating to institutional strengthening; and the World Bank could provide guidance for the preparation of project elements relating to economic development and associated sectoral policy issues and convene donors' meetings as necessary. To this end, the Binational Commission is encouraged to present its requirements for financing of specific activities, not covered under this

58

ANNEX 4: Project Document

proposal but identified in the process of formulating the SAP, to the Implementing Agencies at the earliest possible opportunity.

All correspondence on administration, substantive and technical matters of the project should be addressed to:(1) In GS/OAS:

Mr. Kirk P. RodgersDirector - Unit of Sustainable Development and EnvironmentGS/OAS1889 F Street, NW, Room 340Washington, DC 20006 United Sates of AmericaTel: + 1-202-458-3556FAX: + 1-202-458-3560

(2) In the Bermejo Binational Basin Commission:Mr. Daniel Vaca Villegas Mr. Abel Barroso LópezCoordinator General National DirectorCOREBE CODETARViamonte 783, P. 8, cap. Fed. Calle España Esquina AvenidaBuenos Aires Víctor Paz Estensorro s/nArgentine Tarija, BoliviaTel: + 54-1-322-1107 Tel: +591-66-42610FAX: + 54-1-322-7746 FAX: 591-66-45246/31004

(3) In UNEP:Mr. Walter RastDeputy Director, Water BranchP.O. Box 30552. Nairobi, KenyaTel: + 254-2-623244FAX: + 254-2-624249

with copies to:Mr. John PernettaSenior Programme Officer International WatersGEF Coordinating UnitP.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, KenyaTel: + 254-2-624153FAX: + 254-2 623126/520825

All correspondence on administrative and financial matters should be addressed to:(1) In GS/OAS:

Mr. Kirk P. RodgersDirector - Unit of Sustainable Development and EnvironmentGS/OAS1889 F Street, NW, Room 340Washington, DC 20006 United Sates of AmericaTel: + 1-202-458-3556Fax:: + 1-202-458-3560

59

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

(2) In the Bermejo Binational Basin Commission:Mr. Daniel Vaca Villegas Mr. Abel Barroso LópezCoordinator General Director NacionalCOREBE CODETARViamonte 783, P. 8, cap. Fed. Calle España Esquina AvenidaBuenos Aires Víctor Paz Estensorro s/nArgentine Tarija, BoliviaTel: + 54 1 322 1107 Tel: + 591-66-42610FAX: + 54 1 322 7746 FAX: + 591-66-45246/31004

(3) In UNEP:ChiefFund Programme Management BranchOffice of the Environment Fund and AdministrationP.O. Box 30552, Nairobi - KenyaTel: + 254-2-623929FAX: + 254-2-227057

With copies toGEF Fund and Administrative OfficerGEF Coordinating UnitP.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, KenyaTel: + 254-2-623662FAX: + 254-2 623126/520825

5.2 EvaluationUpon completion of the project, UNEP Water Branch and UNEP GEF Coordinating Unit will undertake a desk evaluation to measure the degree to which the objectives have been achieved.

SECTION 6: Monitoring and Reporting

6.1 Quarterly Progress Reports:

Every three months GS/OAS shall submit to UNEP Water Branch with a copy to GEF Coordination Unit, using the format given in Annex 6, quarterly reports on the progress in project execution.

6.2. Half-yearly Progress Reports:Within 30 days of the end of the reporting period, the GS/OAS shall submit to the UNEP Chief, Fund Management Branch, with copies to UNEP Water Branch and UNEP GEF Coordinating Unit, using the format given in Annex 7, a half yearly progress report as at 30 June 1997.

6.3. Terminal Report:Within 60 days of project completion, the GS/OAS shall submit to the Chief Fund Programme Management Branch with copies to UNEP Water Branch and UNEP GEF Coordinating Unit a project terminal report, using the format given in Annex 8.

6.4. Substantive Reports:Copies of the substantive and technical reports produced in accordance with the schedule of work will be submitted to UNEP Water Branch for technical review with copies to UNEP GEF Coordinating Unit and to the Chief, Fund Programme Management Branch.

60

ANNEX 4: Project Document

6.5 Financial Reports:6.5.1 Project expenditure accounts

(i) Details of expenditures will be reported on an activity by activity basis, in line with project budget codes as set out in the project document, as at 31 March, 30 June, 30 September and 31 December using the format given in Annex 9. All expenditure accounts will be dispatched to UNEP within 30 days of the end quarter to which they refer, certified by a duly authorized official of the GS/OAS.

(ii) The expenditures account as at 31 December, certified by a duly authorized official, should be dispatched to UNEP within 30 days, as for other quarters, but in addition, UNEP requires that the end of year expenditure account should be reported as part of an annual independent audit of the External Auditors of the GS/OAS.

(iii) Within 90 days of the completion of the project, the GS/OAS will supply UNEP with a final statement of account in the format as for the three-month statements. The General Secretariat confirms that the financial records of this programme will be an integral part of the financial records of the General Secretariat, which are subject to an independent audit by the board of External Auditors of the GS/OAS, and agrees to furnish copies of these audit reports to UNEP along with such other related information as may be requested by UNEP with respect to any questions arising from the audit report.

(iv) Any portion of cash advances remaining unspent or uncommitted by the GS/OAS on completion of the project will be reimbursed to UNEP within one month of the presentation of the final statement of accounts. In the event that there is any delay in such disbursement, the GS/OAS will be financially responsible for any adverse movement in the exchange rates.

6.5.2 Cash advance accountsA statement of advances of cash provided by UNEP should be submitted quarterly in the format shown in Annex 10.

6.6. Terms and Conditions6.6.1 Bon-expendable equipment

The GS/OAS will maintain records of non-expendable equipment (items costing $1500 or more as well as items of attraction such as pocket calculators) purchased with UNEP funds, and will submit an inventory of all such equipment to UNEP, indicating description, cost, date of purchase, cost and present condition of each item attached to the terminal report submitted on completion of the project. Non-expendable equipment purchased with funds administered by UNEP remains the property of UNEP until its disposal is authorized by UNEP, in consultation with the GS/OAS. The GS/OAS shall be responsible for any loss of or damage, ordinary wear and tear expected, caused by GS/OAS to equipment purchased with UNEP funds.

6.6.2 Responsibility for Cost OverrunsAny cost overrun (expenditure in excess of the amount budged in each budget sub-line) shall be met by the organization responsible for authorizing the expenditure, unless written agreement has been received by letter or cable, in advance, from UNEP. In cases where UNEP has indicated its agreement to a cost overrun in budget subline, either to transfer funds from one sub-line to another, or to increase the total cost to UNEP, a revision to the project document amending the budget will be issued by UNEP.

61

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

6.6.3 Claims by Third Parties Against UNEPThe GS/OAS shall be responsible for dealing with any claims which may be brought by third parties against UNEP and its staff, in relation to work executed by GS/OAS under this Agreement and UNEP shall not be liable to GS/OAS in relation to those claims unless those claims were caused by the negligence or other conduct of UNEP or UNEP's staff. Nothing in this Agreement may be construed as a waiver of the immunities from suit, legal process, execution, of either UNEP or GS/OAS.

6.6.4 Disputes Resolution ProvisionAny controversy or claim arising out of, or in accordance with this Agreement or any breach thereof, shall, unless it is settled by direct negotiations, be settled in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules as at present in force. The parties shall be bound by any arbitration award rendered as a result of such arbitration as the final adjudication of any such controversy or claim.

6.6.5 ModificationThis Agreement may be modified or otherwise amended by the written agreement of the Parties, signed by their duly authorized representatives, dated, and attached hereto.

6.6.6 TerminationEither party may terminate this Agreement with sixty days' advanced written notice to the other. In the event of such termination, each party shall provide the corresponding funding in accordance with its obligations herein to cover any project costs up until the termination date, including, but not limited to, the costs of complying with third-party commitments made pursuant to the project that may run beyond the termination date and which cannot be revoked without incurring liability.

62

ANNEX 4: Project Document APPENDICES

APPENDICES TO ANNEX 4

APPENDIX 1: Summary of the Agreement for Multiple Use of the Resources of the Upper Bermejo and Grande de Tarija Rivers Basins.........................................72

APPENDIX 2: Costs and Technical Parameters of Reservoir Sites...........................................73

APPENDIX 3: Summary of the Treaty on Environment Between the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia............................................................74

APPENDIX 4: Budget in UNEP format...................................................................................75

APPENDIX 5: Calculation of Incremental Costs......................................................................77

APPENDIX 6: Format for quarterly reports (not appended)

APPENDIX 7: Format for half-yearly reports (not appended)

APPENDIX 8: Format for terminal report (not appended)

APPENDIX 9: Format for Project Expenditure accounts (not appended)

APPENDIX 10: Format for cash advance statements (not appended)

APPENDIX 11: Review of UNEP/OAS Bermejo River GEF proposal.......................................81

63

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

APPENDIX 1: Summary of the Agreement for Multiple Use of the Resources of the Upper Bermejo and Grande De Tarija Rivers Basins: Creation of the Binational Commission

On June 9th, 1995, the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia agreed on establishing a Binational Commission for the Development of the Upper Bermejo and Grande de Tarija River Basins. This Binational Commission is responsible for managing those two basins, so as to achieve the sustainable development of their area of influence, optimize the use of their natural resources, generate employment, attract investments and provide for rational and equitable use of their water resources.

The Binational Commission has international legal status, autonomy in technical, administrative and financial matters and legal capacity to acquire rights and assume obligations. Among its functions are: selecting projects to be carried out; arranging funding for studies and projects selected; issuing international calls for bids; awarding contracts for water resources studies, programmes and project works; granting concessions for the execution and use of planned works and projects, without Governments guarantees or endorsements; contracting the services necessary for fulfilment of the objectives of the Agreement; and planning and executing activities necessary for the development of the basins.

A specific paragraph establishes that power generated by hydroelectric plants built in Bolivia may be sold on the Argentinean market under the same conditions as for power produced in the Argentine Republic. Also, anyone constructing hydraulic works in the basins will agree with the parties to set aside capacity throughout the year or during certain months, to accumulate water during high water periods, and to mitigate negative impacts downstream.

64

ANNEX 4: Project Document APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 2: Costs and Technical Parameters of Reservoir Sites Selected by the Binational Commission

COSTS (In million US$)

Direct Costs Indirect CostsCosts of Roads and Accesses*Costs of Irrigation Works

CAMBARI

153,7023,0018,7013,30

ARRAZAYAL

92,4013,907,009,60

LAS PAVAS

93,0013,904,40

16,00

Total Costs 208,70 122,90 127,30

Cost of Three Reservoirs 458,90

TECHNICAL PARAMETERS

Height of Dam (m)

Power (MW)

Average Yearly Generation (Gwh) Utilization Factor

Cost Kwh (mills)

Location

120

102

505

0,61

28,77

Grande River

100

93

423

0,51

23,66

Bermejo River

103

88

380

0,49

25,27

Bermejo River

*In Arrazayal and Las Pavas cost of road relocation.

Flow at Juntas de San Antonio (m3/s)

95% Probability

Without Regulation

With Cambari and Las Pavas22

With Cambari, Arrazayal and Las Pavas

22

100

137

22 Expected peak flow.

65

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

APPENDIX 3: Summary of the Treaty on Environment between the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia

On March 17th, 1994, the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia agreed on carrying out joint or coordinated actions for the protection, preservation, and conservation of the environment, sanitation and promotion of the environment and rational and equitable use of natural resources, considering the relationships among environment, development and integration.

Fields of action will be:

Atmospheric Protection (Climate change; deterioration of the ozone layer and transboundary atmospheric contamination).

Protection of Soil Resources.

Protection and Use of Water Resources.

Development of Indigenous Populations and Other Local Communities.

Protection of Biological Diversity.

Treatment of Wastes and Dangerous Products.

Negative Environmental Impacts of Industry, Mining and Energy Production.

Prevention of Urban Contamination.

The parties agree to exchange information on existing legislation, on the creation of data banks, the exchange of scientific and technological information, the execution of joint investigations, the organization of seminars, symposia and workshops, and the harmonization of existing legislation.

A Subcommission on Environment is created within the Coordination Committee of the Permanent Council for Binational Integration.

Each party agrees not to execute actions that could cause a damage to the environment of the other party.

66

APPENDIX 4: BUDGET in UNEP Format for 1997 and 1998/1999.

Expressed in US$ UNEP GEF 23Total

97 98/9924 97 98 99

10 Project Personnel Component1100 Personnel 1101 Coordinator (Argentina) (24 p/m) 1102 Coordinator (Bolivia) (24 p/m)1200 Consultant 1201 External consultants 1202 Local consultants1300 Administrative Support 1301 Support cost

49,50049,500

247,500236,250

86,175

66,00066,000

330,000315,000

114,900

16,50016,500

82,50078,750

28,725

132,000132,000

660,000630,000

229,8001999 COMPONENT TOTAL 668,925 891,900 222,975 1,783,80020 Sub-contract2301 Civil Construction 123,000 123,0002999 COMPONENT TOTAL 123,000 123,00030 Training Component 3301 Meetings and workshops25 142,650 190,200 47,550 80,4003999 COMPONENT TOTAL 142,650 190,200 47,550 380,40040 Equipment and premises 4100 Expendable equipment

(satellite images/aerial photographs/tires/seeds &seedlings) 4200 Non-expendable equipment

35,250

180,300

47,000

240,500

11,750

60,000

94,000

480,800 4999 COMPONENT TOTAL 215,550 287,500 71,750 574,800

23 ? This reflects only the GEF funds allocated to this project and does not take into consideration the already disbursed PDF/B funds (231,000 US$) for which the breakdown can be found on page 7 and subsequent Annex 1 of the project document GF/1100-96-13.

24 ? UNEP's contribution in 1998 is subject to the availability of funds and to the approval of the relevant componeents in the 1998-99 work programme of the Water Branch.

25 ? This amount includes workshops and meetings costs, tickets and travel expenses as well as perdiem for workshops and meetings participants.

Expressed in US$ UNEP GEF 26 Total

97 98/9927 97 98 99

50 Miscellaneous 5100 Operation and maintenance of equipment 5200 Reporting cost 5300 Sundries

25,50020,0002,600

34,00026,5003,500

8,5006,500

900

68,00053,0007,000

5999 COMPONENT TOTAL 48,100 64,000 15,900 128,000

60 UNEP Participation cost 28

GRAND TOTAL 1,198,225 1,433,600 358,175 2,990,000

26 ? This reflects only the GEF funds allocated to this project and does not take into consideration the already disbursed PDF/B funds (231,000 US$) for which the breakdown can be found on page 7 and subsequent Annex 1 of the project document GF/1100-96-13.

27 ? UNEP's contribution in 1998 is subject to the availability of funds and to the approval of the relevant componeents in the 1998-99 work programme of the Water Branch.

28 ? Please note that US$ 96,000 is budgeted under the project FP/1100-96-02 in 1997 to cover expenses related to the Technical Resources Officer Salary (US$ 60,000 - BL 1116), Administrative Support Cost (US$ 8,000 - BL 1316), Travel on Official Business Cost (US$ 25,000 - BL 1601) and Communication Cost (US$ 3,000 - BL 5301). A similar provision of US$ 54,000 will be made in the Environment Fund Project for 1998-1999 which can be approved only after the relevant allocations from the Environment Fund are allowed.

ANNEX 4: Project Document APPENDIX 5

APPENDIX 5: Calculation of Incremental Costs

Broad Development GoalsThe goal of the Strategic Action Programme for the Binational Basin of the Bermejo River is to promote environmentally sustainable development within the basin, taking into consideration the programme of investments being prepared by the Binational Commission for the Development of the Upper Bermejo and Grande de Tarija Rivers Basins.

Baseline SituationThe baseline situation consists of: (1) a long term development programme for the Upper Basin of the River, where investments in three dams and reservoirs, hydropower generation, roads and some irrigation infrastructure are being planned for construction in the next ten to fifteen years; (2) A minimum of environmentally related activities, basically those considered as remedies to problems created by the construction of the reservoirs described in (1), and forming part of the environmental impact assessments: and, (3) Relatively uncoordinated activities and concerns being planned or executed by many government agencies of both governments and/or private parties, in the whole basin or even outside it - some creating negative impacts and others seeking to redress or mitigate negative impacts - requiring some coordination.

The baseline activities in category (1) include: (a) a programme of investments for an estimated US$ 460 million (See Annex 1), to be executed primarily with private sector participation, under a concessionary programme to be devised in consultation with interested investors; (b) additional investments required for general development of irrigated agriculture, industry and urban infrastructure, not calculated yet, but possibly in an order of magnitude comparable to (a) above; and (c) possibly compensation or subsidies to investors willing to develop some of the activities in (a), not yet defined.

Costs of these general development programmes have not been considered in the calculations presented in Table 1; those activities, however, are a main reason for a GEF financed project in the basin, and may be subject to substantial modification as a result of the GEF project, in order to take into consideration sustainable development. In this sense, a modest GEF project in the Bermejo might have substantial environmental benefits, redefining projects that might, otherwise, have had adverse environmental impact.

Table 2 has included some of the costs belonging to category (3): activities presently being executed by some government agencies, having direct relation to specific Programme Elements. Baseline costs are, in each case, the amount that those government agencies are planning to spend in the next two years, in the absence of the GEF programme.

GEF Alternative SituationThe alternative situation consists of the actions needed to both introduce sustainable development within projects of development in the Bermejo River Basin, and capture the resulting global environmental benefits, including transboundary environmental problems. These are the costs necessary to include sustainable development concerns in projects for the development of the basin over and above the requirements of regular environmental impact assessments.

Development of the Bermejo River Basin will be directed and coordinated by the Binational Commission. This new agency will require strengthening, to be provided through GEF support.

Each Activity of the project, its baseline cost and incremental cost is presented in Table 1, and analyzed below.

Activity 1 (Project Element 1.1). The baseline cost of this activity is US$100,000, and is associated with monitoring the streamflow of the Paraguay and Parana rivers, and the transportation of sediments. The alternative project cost are US$ 440,000: GEF funding in the amount of US$200,000

69

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

is requested for consulting costs, travel expenses, preparation and use of models describing the behaviour of the basin, and similar components. UNEP is expected to contribute US$ 50,000, and the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia US$190,000 to cover reinforcement of the hydrometeorological network, personnel costs, and additional operation costs.

Activity 2 (Project Elements 2.1 through 2.6). The baseline cost of this activity is US$ 260,000, and is comprised of the cost associated with controlling erosion in different parts of the Central Valley of Tarija, Bolivia (S$60,000) and the cost of providing improved information for environmental zoning in the Lower Basin within Argentina (US$ 200,000). The alternative project cost is US$1,735,000: GEF funding in the amount of US$900,000 is requested for consulting costs, travel expenses, purchase of basic equipment and remote sensor imagery. UNEP is expected to contribute US$ 100,000 and the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia US$735,000 to cover strengthening of human resources capacity, reinforcement of institutions working in the basin, and additional operating costs.

Activity 3 (Project Elements 3.1 through 3.4). The baseline cost of this activity is US$ 150,000, and is comprised of the cost incurred by the Governments and NGOs associated with controlling erosion in different parts of the Central Valley of Tarija, Bolivia and the Yungas region, Salta Province, Argentina, including actions being taken by the University of Tucumán. The alternative project cost is US$1,260,000: GEF funding in the amount of US$725,000 is requested for implementation of demonstration projects activities (covering popular participation and the cost of the construction of dikes and sediment control works, the supply of seeds and seedlings, some agricultural equipment and partial on-farm costs). The Governments of Argentina and Bolivia are expected to contribute US$535,000 to cover strengthening of human resources capacity, and additional operating costs.

Activity 4 (Project Elements 4.1 through 4.3). The baseline cost of this activity is US$160,000, and is comprised of the cost incurred in monitoring streamflow and sediment transport within the Bermejo River Basin; and some costs associated with the improved management in Tariquia National Reserve. The alternative project cost is US$480,000: GEF funding in the amount of US$ 230,000 is requested to improve the design of the international network of hydrometeorological observations, install a few additional key stations, support national efforts at improving environmental regulations and establish a corridor between Tariquia and Baritu National Parks. The Governments of Argentina and Bolivia are expected to contribute US$250,000 to cover additional equipment and installation of new hydrometeorological stations and reinforcement of institutional capacity.

Activity 5 (Project Elements 5.1 and 5.2). The baseline cost of this activity is US$20,000, and is comprised of the cost incurred in undertaking statistical surveys of migrants at frontier stations. The alternative cost is US$210,000: GEF funding in the amount of US$120,000 is requested to conduct additional special surveys and investigations into the environmental costs of transboundary migrations, and a demonstration project on environmental education in Formosa. The Governments of Argentina and Bolivia are expected to contribute US$90,000 in support of the migration surveys and environmental education project.

Activity 6 (Project Elements 6.1 and 6.2). The baseline cost of this activity is US$10,000, and is comprised of the cost incurred through popular participation activities in Tarija, Bolivia. The alternative project cost is US$1,600,000: GEF funding is requested in the amount of US$815,000 to cover costs of formulating the SAP (including popular participation), personnel, travel expenses, and some equipment required for the interconnection of the offices of the Binational Commission in Argentina and Bolivia and government agencies involved in the development of the basin. The purchase of vehicles needed for field operations is also included, as is the cost of out reach materials, seminars, courses and workshops. OAS is expected to contribute US$75,000, and the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia US$710,000 in support of operational costs, maintenance and operation of vehicles, popular participation programmes and strengthening of the Binational Commission.

Additional Domestic Benefits and CostsIncreased productivity of soils is a local benefit to be expected as a result of the activities of the Programme. Additional local costs are unknown at this stage. These benefits can not be estimated and it is assumed that domestic funding will compensate for the domestic benefits

70

TABLE 2.: Incremental Cost Matrix in US$

No. Work Programme Element Baseline Project Cost Alternative Project CostNon-GEF GEF Total

1.1 Transboundary Pollutant Movement 100,000 Governments 190,000UNEP 50,000

200,000 440,000

2.1 Stream Classification 0 Governments 55,000 70,000 125,0002.2 Erosion Control-Santa Ana/ Camacho 50,000 Governments 100,000 150,000 250,0002.3 Land Tenure-Tarija Valley 10,000 Governments 30,000 50,000 80,0002.4 Range Management-Tarija Valley 0 Governments 30,000 50,000 80,0002.5 Land Use in the Lower Bermejo River 200,000 Governments 450,000

UNEP 100,000 500,000 1,050,000

2.6 Management of Forage-Humid Chaco, Province of Formosa

0 Governments 70,000 80,000 150,000

3.1 Transition Forest-Salta 0 Governments 35,000 55,000 90,0003.2 Tolomosa Watershed 100,000 Governments 350,000 500,000 850,0003.3 Sustainable Development-Yungas,

Salta 50,000 Governments 80,000 90,000 170,000

3.4 Removal of Constraints-Dry Chaco and Humid Chaco

0 Governments 70,000 80,000 150,000

4.1 Hydrometeorological Network 150,000 Governments 150,000 150,000 300,0004.2 Environmental Law 0 Governments 70,000 30,000 100,0004.3 Environmental Corridor-Baritu to

Tariquia 10,000 Governments 30,000 50,000 80,000

5.1 Transboundary Migration 20,000 Governments 70,000 80,000 150,0005.2 Environmental Education-Formosa 0 Governments 20,000 40,000 60,0006.1 Formulation of the Strategic Action

Programme0 Governments 560,000

OAS 75,000

665,000 1,300,000

6.2 Popular Participation 10,000 Governments 150,000 150,000 300,000TOTALS 700,000 2,735,000 2,990,000 5,725,000

ANNEX 4: Project Document APPENDIX 6

APPENDIX 11: Review of UNEP/OAS Bermejo River GEF Proposal

IntroductionThis report responds to a request to review the UNEP/OAS Bermejo River GEF proposal, viz., the proposed GEF Project Argentine and Bolivia Strategic Action Programme for the Binational Basin of the Bermejo River.

In responding, note that I am a designated expert for the STAP Roster of Experts with particular experience and knowledge concerning inland water in dryland (arid and semi-arid) regions. Of direct relevance in this connection is my previous involvement with studies of waters in the Aral Sea Basin (as a member of the UNEP Expert Working Group involved in the preparation of a Diagnostic Study for the basin) and my former position as Chairman of the Research Advisory Committee (and member of the Board of management) of the Murray-Darling Freshwater Research Centre, a centre which addresses research and management issues in the Murray-Darling basin, a river system with considerable similarity to at least the lower reaches of the Bermejo River.

Note further that I am not directly familiar with the Bermejo River basin; my experience of this part of South America is limited to the southern part of Bolivia (southern Altiplano).

In preparing the review, I have consulted a variety of published and unpublished documents. To broaden my awareness of the river basin in question. I have read inter alia articles on the Parana River system (including the Bermejo River) by Bonetto (1986, 1994) and Neiff (in press). Of direct relevance in the preparation of the review has been the document approved by the GEF Council and that addresses the comprehensive approach required from proposals such as the present one: International Waters Scoping Paper. Of wider relevance have been the publication of Jordaan et al., (1993) [Water in our common future: a research agenda for sustainable development of water resources], El-Habr (1993) [Environment and water development: some critical issues]. Petts (1994) [Rivers: dynamic components of catchment ecosystems]. Davies et al.,(1994) [Dryland rivers: their ecology, conservation and management], and Ando (1995) [Directory of water related international cooperation].

The relevance of several international conventions is noted, e.g. the Convention on Biodiversity, and the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context.

The of the report does not reflect the extent to which documents relevant to the project have been consulted, nor the perceived importance of the proposal.

Scope of the ReviewIn reviewing the proposal, I have borne particularly in mind (1) the extent to which it addresses those criteria listed as `project selection criteria' and used to assess eligibility for GEF funding, and (2) the extent to which tasks, work programmes and activities outlined in the proposal focus upon stated objectives of the proposal.

Also borne in mind has been the extent to which the proposed project addresses matters of a more global type, and its structure in terms of generally agreed procedures in water resources management.

GEF Project Selection CriteriaThe proposal involves elements which relate to all of the criteria listed - though to different degrees - and thus is clearly eligible for selection for GEF funding on this basis.

73

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

Thus the proposal addresses:

a. transboundary concerns about several matters that degrade the quality of international waters, particularly sediments endangering biodiversity in the river and riverine ecosystems, land degradation and hydrological modification;

b. several widespread and significant transboundary ecological problems involving both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems;

c. the question of how best to preserve biodiversity and prevent further loss) in the region;

d. leveraging of development assistance;

e. and includes plans for capacity-building components;

f. addresses problems common to many if not all dryland rivers, and in particular to those of low gradients, high sediment loads, and widely used as a resource sustaining large local populations;

g. and is consistent with national environmental planning documents [cf, The treaty on environment between the Governments of Argentine and Bolivia, 1994; Binational Commission for the development of the Upper Bermejo and Grande de Tarija River basins, 1995]. The extent to which the proposal is also consistent with international legal obligations is strictly not clear but on present documentation is likely to be consistent.

Stated Objectives of the ProposalKey questions in reviewing the proposal are essentially two-fold and sequential: are the objectives of the proposal in accord with and an adequate response to the management and developmental issues involved; and is the proposal structured in such a way that provides optimism that stated objectives are likely to be achieved?

With regard to the first question, stated objectives are seen as comprehensive and rigorous and in accord with and an adequate response to the issues involved. In this regard, note is made of the logical structure of the proposal, - a structure held in common with similar environmental management schemes worldwide, i.e. (1) the identification of problems, (2) the development of a plan to resolve them, (3) the involvement of stakeholders, (4) the provision of pilot studies, and (5) community involvement. These five steps easily equate with the five objectives of the proposal namely (1) the conduct a diagnostic study, (2) the formulation of a strategic plan, (3) assistance to the governments of Argentine and Bolivia in incorporating environmental concerns in basic development plans, policies and programmes, (4) the conduct of pilot demonstration activities, and (5) encouragement of public participation.

Of critical significance within the terms of this review is the question of whether stated objectives are likely to be met given the structure of the proposal. It is my considered opinion that the proposal offers a sound basis for the achievement of all objectives.

In this context, the information that is part of the background information for the proposal comprehensively identifies the major issues that form the subject of wider investigation in the diagnostic study, namely, (1) the potential (and actual) loss of biodiversity within a basin characterized by a naturally high diversity of biota, (2 catchment erosion (resulting from exploitative forestry practices and overgrazing) leading to land degradation, desertification, and lower productivity, (3) excessive silting and sediment loads in the river, (4) the need for coordinated development planning in the region to assure sustainability, to prevent and mitigate environmental damage, and to enhance local economic activity.

The proposals for formulation of a strategic action programme, likewise, provide a sound basis for the resolution and mitigation of environmental and associated problems. To this end, the key elements of strategic action plans are contained in the proposed formulation: it offers an analysis of priority transboundary environmental problems (including input from national environmental and

74

ANNEX 4: Project Document APPENDIX 6

economic development documents), it establishes clear priorities including inter alia provision for a balanced programme of preventative and remedial actions, and it provides realistic baseline environmental commitments and determines agreed incremental costs.

Again, assistance to the governments of Argentine and Bolivia will be provided in a variety of ways identified in the proposal's activities (creation of an inter-ministerial commission, support for governmental efforts to include environmental considerations in legislation, etc). Pilot demonstration activities and the involvement of the public will be covered by those activities under Task Area II.

ConclusionThe proposal represents a significant transboundary project of water resource (and catchment) management for an economically disadvantaged region that has been and is subject to considerable environmental damage that in the long run is unsustainable. As such, it is a timely and sensible response to events which no government concerned to enhance or at least maintain the value of its natural resources should ignore.

Whatever the case, it is certainly one of only a few a proposals that attempt seriously and comprehensively to redress the lack of attention that the management of international rivers has attracted (see, for example, Biswas, 1993)

The incremental costs of the proposal (Annex 4). i.e. the costs of implementing the proposal, are relatively modest. The costs of implementing the GEF alternative situation (vis-a-vis baseline situation) in absolute terms are not inconsiderable (US$ 5.725 million cf. US$ 0.7 million for the baseline situation) but in relative terms, and when viewed against, for example, the costs of dam construction alone (US$ 458.9 million), are insignificant. They become even more insignificant when the likely costs of ongoing and future environmental damage (especially erosion, desertification and decreases in productivity) are taken into account.

In summary, this review gives substantive approval to both the over-arching objectives of the proposal and their rationale, and the ways proposed to achieve the objectives. Its acceptance is recommended.

REFERENCES

Ando, M. (ed) 1995. Directory of Water Related International Cooperation. ILEC, Kusatsu.

Biswas, A.K. 1993. Management of international waters: Problems and perspectives. International Journal of Water Resources Development 9:2: 167-188.

Bonetto, A.A 1986 The Parana River System In B R Davies and K F Walker (eds) the Ecology of River Systems 541-555 Junk

Bonetto, A.A 1994, Austral rivers of South America. In: R. Margalef (ed) Limnology Now; A Paradigm of Planetary Problems 425-472. Elsevier.

Davies, B.R., Thoms, M.C. Walker, K.F., O'Keefe, J.H., and Gore, J.A. 1994.

Dryland rivers: Their ecology, conservation and management In: P. Calow and G.E. Petts (eds) The Rivers Handbook 2: 484-511.

El-Habr, H.N. (ed) 1993. Environment and Water Development: Some Critical Issues International Journal of Water Resources Development 9: 2 :115-204.

Jordaan, J. Plate, E.J. Prins, E., and Veltrop, J. 1993. Water in our Common Future: A research agenda for sustainable development of water resources. International Hydrological Programme, UNESCO, Paris.

75

In-Depth Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/1100–97–07

Neiff, J.J. In press. Large rivers of South America toward the new approach Proceedings of the International Association for Limnology.

Petts, G.E. 1994, Rivers: Dynamic components of catchment ecosystems. In: P. Calow and G.E. Petts (eds) The Rivers Handbook 2: 3-22.

76