Top Priority and Severity of GIWA Concerns
Download as PPT, PDF0 likes203 views
The document discusses the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA), highlighting its methodologies, regional assessments, and the collaboration between natural and social scientists despite challenges in representation and stakeholder involvement. It outlines the outputs and effectiveness of GIWA in producing assessments and setting priorities for managing transboundary waters, while also noting issues with data availability and commitment levels. The initiative's learning process has fostered local ownership and established a network of experts for future endeavors.
Top Priority and Severity of GIWA Concerns
- 1. Top priority and severity of the GIWA concerns
- 2. Top priority concerns by GIWA region and sub-system
- 3. Project design Methodology adapted to local conditions Supported by training workshops Reporting based on existing data Region-to-region comparisons
- 4. Methodology development took longer time than anticipated Time for training and implementation was underestimated
- 6. Regional teams Local experts conducted the regional assessments Natural and social scientist worked together, breaking down disciplinary barriers A network of 1500 experts is established for future missions
- 7. Social scientists were underrepresented Lack of policy specialists
- 8. Assessment ownership Strong local ownership New partnerships were built in many regions Lack of stakeholder involvements in some regions
- 9. Causal chain for Aral Sea
- 10. The process The implementation of GIWA was a learning process All priorities were justified by experts External peer reviewers made the process transparent Knowledge-sharing was initiated in many regions
- 11. Concern approach has constraints when combining fresh water, coastal and marine systems - Eutrophication - Chemical pollution - Oil spills - Overexploitation of fish - Destructive fishing practices Amur River Okhotsk Sea
- 12. Data not always available Subjectivity unavoidable in parts of the assessment Lack of expertise in economics and policy-making
- 13. GIWA Outputs: 41 out of 42 GEF eligible regions have produced regional assessments Of the total 69 identified regions 50 have produced regional assessments Project Document: Stategic assements of ecological status of transboundary waters for GEF use
- 14. Project Document: Identification of more sustainable approaches to the use of water and its resources at national, regional and local levels GIWA Outputs: a) GIWA Global Report adresses global policy b) GIWA Regional reports adress both regional and national levels
- 15. Project Document: Protocols for the conduct of CCA and TDA for use in GEF IW projects and by implementing agencies GIWA Outputs: GIWA has identified and applied a framework to guide CCA, providing substantial guidance for GEF IW projects GIWA did not produce protocols for TDA
- 16. GIWA Outputs: Not fully achieved due to lack of commitment Project Document: Increased leveraged co-finance
- 17. GIWA Outputs: GIWA information will contribute to TDAs in GEF eligible regions lacking TDAs Regional teams has strengthened assessment capacity Project Document: A baseline of information at regional level to the regional task of preparing TDAs
- 18. 28% Published/printed 13% Published/web only 13% Drafted 5% No progress 41% Peer reviewed, final version in house
- 19. Results GIWA reports help develop priority setting mechanisms in the regions Comparable results based on the same criteria Regional teams guarantee credibility Recognized peer reviewers
- 20. Quality of the policy analysis varied Non GEF-eligible regions incomplete due to lack of funds
- 21. www.giwa.net