ARN
Date
May 17, 2004
Initiative or Project
Title
UNDP Country Office Coordination with International Waters
Projects
Author
Tim Turner
Introduction
International Waters Projects (IWPs) require coordination on multiple levels within
governments, and between governments and between international partners. The UNDP
Country Offices (CO) are well placed to serve as conduits for this complex coordination in both
their implementing and executing roles. This enhanced role for UNDP CO ultimately increases
the country level buy-in to the project, enhances project effectiveness and improves the
linkages that are developed by the UNDP offices in country. It can also assist in leverage of
funds at the country level with donors preferring to associate with the International Waters
Project but wanting their contribution to be spent within a certain participating country; this is
often the case for private sector donors.
The lessons learned from experiences in the Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) with the
involvement of UNDP CO involvement is that they can significantly increase the success of the
project by assisting communication between international projects, including other GEF focal
areas and different country sectors. The CO can also assist with integrating the IWP into the
programmes of other UN organisations, such as the World Bank Country Assistance
Strategies, as well as their own, and identify synergies with projects and programmes of other
donor organisations (USAID, KFW, etc.). Experience has shown that active CO involvement
not only enhances the IWP success and brings benefits to CO themselves.
Key Reflections and Lessons Learned: Objective and what really happed
The IWPs are established to assist countries in creating regional linkages, coordinate policies
and improving regional environmental conditions. This often proved more difficult than initial
expected. There are several major IWPs in the ECIS region with varying levels of success of
obtaining country commitment. Where the level of country commitment is weak it is often where
the national coordination and connectivity is also low. There is a lack of intersectoral
coordination and a fragmentation of international assistance which often leads to slow and
ineffective country implementation and amongst the donor agency duplication and friction. On
the Caspian Environmental Programme where UNDP CO took an active role in both the
implementation (paid through the GEF implementation fee) and execution (in conjunction with
UNOPS) of the project the internal country communications were markedly improved.
On the Caspian, those active COs have taken a collaborative approach to the project and have
benefited by leveraging funding for national projects associated with the IWP, particularly from
the private sector; by obtaining a better regional perspective on environmental issues and
making linkages with other COs at different levels; and building the knowledge and capacity of
their local staff. The involvement of the CO is a good example of a win-win situation. Where the
CO took a more service orientated approach to the project, project relations could quickly be
strained and mutual benefits disappear. However, that said, the onus is on the projects to
forge and maintain these linkages, ensuring that the COs implementation and execution
activities are reimbursed. Regular visits must be paid to the Resident Representatives by the
project staff and the country task managers must be involved in all major project activities.
The key lessons learned from above are:

CO involvement can significantly increase the success of IWPs by assisting the countries
and the projects in identification of and communications with appropriate sectors.

The CO can assist countries and project managers to coordinate GEF projects, including
other focal areas, active within their country by serving as an administrative linkage
between projects.

COs enhance the effectiveness of the IWP by assisting project coordination with other COs
in the region.

The COs benefit by being able to leveraging money for national projects associated with
the IWP and building capacity of local staff.

The onus is on the project to make and maintain the linkages with the COs, but a
collaborative approach must be adopted by the CO in order for a win-win situation to
materialize.