CIWA MID-TERM REVIEW OF THE COOPERATION IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS IN AFRICA (CIWA) PROGRAM. Final Report. December Prepared by

Transcription

1 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized CIWA MID-TERM REVIEW OF THE COOPERATION IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS IN AFRICA (CIWA) PROGRAM Final Report Public Disclosure Authorized December 2015 Prepared by Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Draft Final Report i

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword... v Executive Summary... viii Introduction... viii Approach and structuring... viii Building upon CIWA s achievements... viii Improving the program... ix 1. CIWA and the Mid-term Review Introduction The CIWA Program and its Evolution Program Governance Funding the CIWA Program Purpose of the MTR Approach and Structuring Approach for the MTR Structuring the MTR Understanding the MTR Building Upon CIWA s Achievements Continental context Comparative advantage Programmatic progress to date Financial reporting and progress Lessons learnt Improving the Programme Improving Programme modalities Strategic issues Funding Capacity Processes Disbursement and delivery issues Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report ii

3 4.1.6 Risk management Programme Management Structure Improving Monitoring Basin scale results framework Basin scale M&E Program results framework Programmatic M&E Findings and Recommendations Building upon CIWAs achievements Improving the program Appendices Appendix 1: Terms of Reference (TOR) Appendix 2: List of Interviewees Appendix 3: List of Documents Reviewed Appendix 4: CIWA expanding funding options Appendix 5: MTR Summary recommendations Appendix 6: Action Plan Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report iii

4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: CIWAs modes of engagement... 5 Figure 2: CIWA program strategic advisory and management structure... 8 Figure 3: Project development and approval process towards basin engagement projects... 9 Figure 4: BAC positioning within the basin context Figure 5: CIWAs funding process Figure 6: Overview of allocations per geographic region, per type of implementing partner and per area of support Figure 7: Five key elements of the review Figure 8: MTR Methodology Figure 9: Funding allocation per basin Figure 10: Allocation per region Figure 11: Area of support Figure 12: Partner type Figure 13: CIWA advancing investments across Africa Figure 14: CIWA strengthening cooperation Figure 15: Allocated and disbursed funds Figure 16: Preparation time for RE grants LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Characterising wicked problems... 1 Table 2: Key risks that influence cooperation decisions... 2 Table 3: Allocation of available funding Table 4: Scope of work Table 5: Comparative advantage Table 6: Overview of progress against the PDO Table 7: Potential investments influenced by CIWA Table 8: Mobilized investments influenced by CIWA Table 9: Overview of progress against the IRs Table 10: Detailed account of allocation of available funding Table 11: Allocation, commitment, disbursement, and pipeline amounts Table 12: CIWA staffing Table 13: Program and basin level risks Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Draft Final Report iv

5 Foreword The World Bank appointed Pegasys Strategy and Development, to conduct the mid-term review (MTR) of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa (CIWA) programme. This programme is of continental significance and has a key role to play in supporting basins to unlock the potential of resource development through: Sustained strengthening of information, institutions, and investments in priority basins: The bulk of CIWA resources are dedicated to long-term engagement in CIWA s priority basins, which the program establishes through an analysis of the basin s needs, expressed demand, subsequent gaps, and CIWA s comparative advantage. Short term, opportunistic, catalytic work: When opportunities arise, CIWA supports catalytic work that unlocks potential for cooperative investment in basins other than priority basins. Knowledge management and capacity building: CIWA supports activities that create a shared understanding that can facilitate cooperative development and management of international waters. The CIWA programme has developed organically in the last four years and now has a portfolio of projects that are strongly focused on the development of the systems, information and institutions that are critical to support development, as well as those projects that focus on the infrastructural development itself. The programme is at a juncture where it would be appropriate to undertake a mid-term review (MTR) that is backward looking, to understand the emergent lessons, and is also forward thinking towards shaping the programme to be able to upscale to meet the growing requests for support. This final report synthesises the input from the interviews, suggestions and feedback from the Advisory Committee workshop as well as the information from the FY15 Annual Report into a final recommendation report. While appreciating the depth of detail in the Draft Discussion Report, there was a suggestion from the AC meeting in September 2015 that the report was too lengthy. Hence, the decision to focus on a few prioritised key issues that CIWA has to address. It is therefore suggested that for the more detailed review of comments and research on key issues, the Draft Discussion Report should be the reference point. The Draft Discussion Report will be submitted as an addendum to this report. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Draft Final Report v

6 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AC AFDB AMCOW AWF AWRMI BAC CG CIWA CSP DFID ECOWAS ENSAP EU GIZ GWP IR IUCN JICA MDGs MDTF M&E MTR NBD NBI OKACOM Advisory Committee African Development Bank African Ministerial Council on Water African Water Facility African Water Resources Management Initiative Basin Advisory Committee Consultative Group Cooperation in International Waters in Africa CIWA Support Plan Department for International Development Economic Community for West African States Eastern Nile Subsidiary Action Plan European Union Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit Global Water Partnership Intermediate Result International Union for the Conservation of Nature Japan International Cooperation Millennium Development Goals Multi-donor Trust Fund Monitoring and Evaluation Mid-Term Review Nile Basin Discourse Nile Basin Initiative Okavango Commission Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Draft Final Report vi

7 PAD PDO PMU PPPs RBO REC RF SADC SAWI SIDA TOC TTL TWRM UNEP VBA WACDEP WANI WB WPP WRD WRM ZAMCOM ZRA Project Appraisal Document Project Development Objective Program Management Unit Public Private Partnerships River Basin Organisation Regional Economic Community Results Framework Southern African Development Community South Asia Water Initiative Swedish International Development Agency Theory of Change Task Team Leader Transboundary Water Resources Management United Nations Environmental Programme Volta Basin Authority Water, Climate and Development Programme Water and Nature Initiative World Bank Water Partnership Programme Water Resources Development Water Resources Management Zambezi Commission Zambezi River Authority Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report vii

8 Executive Summary Introduction The Cooperation in International Waters in Africa (CIWA) program, launched in 2011, is supported by a multi-donor trust fund that is administered by the World Bank and that seeks to support riparian governments in unlocking the potential for sustainable, inclusive, climate-resilient growth by addressing constraints to the cooperative management and development of international waters. CIWA intends to achieve this by improving the quality and accessibility of information, strengthening institutions, and providing support for preparing and/or improving the quality of investments with regional benefits. CIWA has set a target of raising and utilising $200 million dollars over ten years, and it believes that this will enable it to achieve its objectives. Approach and structuring Given that the program is at its midpoint, this piece of work entails a Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the CIWA Program. The intended purpose of the MTR is to assess the degree to which this 10 year-life CIWA program is on-track and fit for purpose in meeting its designed development objectives moving forward. Noting that many of the projects are now just moving towards implementation, the Advisory Committee (AC) advised that this MTR should not take the form of a detailed evaluation, but rather explore areas for improvement. In conducting the MTR, the consulting team reviewed strategic program documentation, project documentation, and reports. Consultative interviews were also conducted with relevant stakeholders ranging from AC members, development partners/donors and World Bank/CIWA staff to continental actors, regional economic communities (RECs), river basin organisations (RBOs) and other recipients of the CIWA program. A site visit to one of the CIWA basins was also conducted. This MTR is thus based on the document review and discussions with various CIWA stakeholders. Building upon CIWA s achievements Although CIWA is undertaking difficult upstream work which is largely demand driven and flexible to deal with the different approaches required across Africa, the program is providing a range of support that helps to unlock the potential for sustainable and climate resilient growth within the continent by addressing the constraints to cooperative management and development of international waters. Leveraging on WB convening power, credible reputation, expertise and global presence, CIWA is rolling out interventions that are aligned with national and regional objectives, and the program is considered highly relevant by recipients. The program has done well in terms of strengthening cooperation in transboundary waters and advancing investments across Africa. S1. In reflecting upon the continentality of the program together with a range of dimensions that indicate relevance across the continent, the MTR found that the CIWA program is relevant and with the current suite of projects has a good geographic spread for potential impact. S2. The responses regarding the comparative advantage of the World Bank systems, the experience of the World Bank through the connectivity to the Global Practice, the geographic presence of World Bank staff across the continent, and the benefit that is accrued through a pooled multi-donor trust fund were all clearly voiced. This is further supported by studies that highlight the Bank s track record in supporting work in transboundary contexts. The program therefore appears fit for purpose. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Draft Final Report viii

9 S3. It has been noted that working in transboundary basins is complex and as such takes time. This is noted in the CIWA annual reports, but various authors have also noted the complexities related to working in these political spaces. These also vary over time and space, and the differences in approach between the various regions of Africa are also distinct. In getting to this point of the program there have been lessons learned that can support the further roll-out of the program. With 4 basin projects accounting for 75% of the allocable budget and a useful blend of knowledge management, information, institutions and infrastructure projects under the catalytic sub-program the program is well placed for a productive five year period that should see the existing budgets spent. Improving the program Improving program modalities S4. The strategic intent and strategic planning process of the CIWA program needs to be revisited. The CIWA program may benefit from an ongoing engagement regarding its strategic intent. This could be through an annual strategic planning session which brings together the various stakeholders including the World Bank, PMU, its TTLs and donors, as well as a broader array of continental actors (some of which are part of the Consultative Group) and results in a review of its strategic plan. In this strategic planning process, CIWA needs to engage with projects being implemented, and specifically with the balance between quick-wins and longer term benefits from various interventions towards developing a pipeline of projects. S5. Visibility should be strengthened through strategic communications. There is general consensus that the CIWA program is making an important contribution in dealing with water challenges on the continent, but that there is a need for CIWA to strengthen its visibility by improving its strategic communications interventions and successes more effectively. Thus, CIWA needs to market itself more effectively and share the results of interventions strategically. This could then also contribute to better fund mobilisation. S5.1 Similarly, the improvement of CIWA guidelines and program document will strengthen the understanding of CIWA and its modalities. S6. Develop a gender strategy. Whilst there have been improvements regarding the elevation gender and poverty dimensions there are still gaps in terms of an improved way of articulating the gender and poverty intent of CIWA. There is a clear need for a gender strategy to guide reporting and monitoring on gender dimensions of CIWA activities. S7. Strategic plan for CIWA strengthening. The recommendations from the MTR have indicated a suite of adjustments to further strengthen what is already a good program. These need to be consolidated into a strategic plan that enable the WB to take this issues forward in structured manner. There are effectively three key areas for attention namely the programmatic governance and oversight, program resourcing and capacity and project level planning and oversight. S8 Fund Mobilisation needs to be improved. Given the value of the program to its stakeholders and the fact that the design of the program was predicated on raising US $200 million, fund mobilisation should be given more importance within the program. If CIWA is not able to meet its aspirational target of raising US $200 Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report ix

10 million, it may need to reconsider some aspects of its model and design, but most importantly the funding strategy needs to be linked to the strategic planning and an understood pipeline of projects. S9. Building capacity is important to strengthen the program. Concerns with regards to staff capacity have been discussed in nearly all interviews. There is a sense that the appointment of some key staff members would support the team to unlock some processes and to support in moving some processes more efficiently. It is clear from the interviews that this capacity would be needed at both PMU level (to support strategic matters) and at basin levels (to support project mobilisation). It is noted that expenditure on staffing is at less than 3% of budget and so there are in fact funds available for additional staff S9.1 It has been noted that the Bank has started some restructuring activities and key individuals, who have a wealth of understanding of CIWA may be moving. There are concerns with regards to the loss of institutional memory. S9.2 Therefore, a resource and capacity strategy is needed to further strengthen the program. This will need to consider the Banks developments in terms of the Global Water Practice. This needs to be linked to an improved knowledge management system that enables the exchange of experience. S10. Improving processes where possible. Whilst some stakeholders (largely those external to the Bank) felt that the approval process was excessively long, those within the Bank and some of the donors felt that the time needed was proportionate to the nature of these programs and projects. The MTR team s initial sense was that for a 10 year program approval processes in the order of two years was too long and would impinge on the ability to reach targets. Without doing an intensive analysis, it would be of value to look at ways of improving efficiencies in this process. The Bank is known for its systems and rigour and the donor partners value this. If there are not efficiencies that can be achieved then there is stronger emphasis needed on developing a pipeline of projects so that these approvals do not impact on the programs ability to meet objectives. S11. Disbursements and delivery. The rates of disbursement has in previous financial years been extremely low and has only in this financial year seen a significant improvement. This is linked to the fact that many of the projects are now starting to be implemented. However, the MTR is concerned that with 83% of the projects being executed by RBOs, more accountability for delivery needs to be placed in the shoulders of the RBOs. This should include a more rigorous reporting requirement for which the RBO takes responsibility. S12. Risk Management needs to be improved. CIWA is currently quite strong in terms of identifying risks, but it is not clear how well these risks are being managed. In order to improve the risk management framework the monitoring and reporting of risks does need to be improved. Firstly, CIWA s approach to risk, including a risk framework and appropriate evaluation and reporting system needs to be outlined in its Operating Guidelines. Secondly, the risks at the program level need to be monitored and reported in the Annual Report. Thirdly, the reporting on risk management at the basin level needs to be strengthened to reflect status at approval and how these risks are being managed. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report x

11 Improving Program Management S13. Revisit the program management structure. Looking at the overall program management structure the management of the program at the strategic programmatic level, as well as at the basin level in support of project implementation is appropriate. The need to have structures that engage stakeholders on continental/strategic matters as well as at the basin level on more operational matters is recognised. The overall program governance framework does require revisiting so as to clarify roles and responsibilities and strengthen these structures towards improved performance. S14. Strengthening strategic partner engagement. The CG has been less effective in recent years and needs to be strengthened to support consistency in attendance, and in order to play its role of strategic guidance. It has been noted that attendance at the CG s has dwindled with time and there have been challenges in consistency of attendance. Therefore, the CG either needs to be strengthened or it needs to be disbanded and the program will need to investigate some alternatives that will enable the program to engage in strategic discussions with key stakeholders, lead agents and development partners across the continent. S15. Unlock the strategic role of the Advisory Committee. The AC is understood to play a vital role, but this needs to revert to one of providing strategic direction and having oversight on program performance. Whilst the AC members see the value add in providing strategic guidance there is not a desire to micromanage. A revised governance framework does need to be developed that clearly articulates roles and responsibilities and align with other Trust Funds being managed by the World Bank. This will empower CIWA to take full responsibility for the program, and accordingly be held fully accountable. This will unlock the real strength of the AC in terms of its strategic guidance. S16. Strengthening Basin Advisory Committees for improved knowledge management. The BAC plays an important role at the basin and project levels and the flexibility to build upon existing structures is appreciated in order to avoid duplication of structures. It has been noted that the lessons learned at the basin and project level are not being captured and shared as effectively as they should be. The BAC needs to be strengthened to enable more engagement and coordination at the basin level and to support an improved knowledge management approach within the program. Improving Monitoring S17. Basin scale results framework needs to be strengthened. Noting that the richness in terms of impact and the generation of lessons for future projects and initiatives lies within the projects at the basin level, having appropriate results frameworks at the project scale is critical for the program as a whole. Essentially, improving upon the results frameworks at basin level entails holding basin level workshops to develop and agree upon a theory of change for each project. With the theory of change developed, results chains need to be developed so as to reflect the connectivity between activities, outputs, outcomes and impact. Moreover, baselines need to be developed that are appropriate and linked to the actual contextual baseline within the basin, and not a baseline linked to CIWA processes. This needs to be developed in partnership with key stakeholders so as to create an improved sense of ownership and develop capacity for future monitoring. It is also critically important to engage a gender specialist at these basin level workshops to assist in tackling the challenges currently experienced in addressing and reporting upon gender dimensions. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report xi

12 S18. There is need to strengthen the reporting at project scale within the basins to ensure the provision of more detail on process, progress and response. While reporting is done every 6 months through Implementation Status Results (ISR) reports, providing an indication of what has been achieved, there is a sense that: a) there is not sufficient qualitative reporting against indicators; b) is not always clear how the various interventions have resulted in the numbers that have been determined. Notably, some of the ISR reports are better than others while certain projects have only been initiated recently, however, this reporting does require improvement. S19. The CIWA Basin Support Plans need to be reformulated and revised to reflect the basin theory of change and to provide a hub for the knowledge management within basin. The Basin Support Plan is important in providing a bridge between the local stakeholders, the RBOs and the WB. The uncertainty created by the lack of clarity and alignment in understanding the BSP is an opportunity lost. Strengthening these reports to reflect the theory of change at basin level and to become a vehicle for structuring the lessons and knowledge that emerge through the project is needed. S20. The role of RBOs in the reporting at basin level needs to be strengthened. There is need for enhanced reporting at the basin level led by RBOs. This could be undertaken through a reporting mechanism separate from the World Bank systems, noting that WB systems are structured in a particular manner. This could create improved ownership and provide the opportunity to report on progress, risks, and value for money in a more detailed manner. S21. The use of a Developmental Evaluation approach will strengthen the evaluation of impact and create a shared sense of ownership across projects within basins. Given the magnitude and regional significance of CIWA projects, it is recommended that such initiatives adopt the Developmental Evaluation (DE) approach. The selection of DE for CIWA can support the on-going development of the interventions within the current context it operates in. Fundamentally, DE operates with the assumption that the changing dimensions of projects are necessary to accommodate a changing external environment and is therefore structured to allow for this change. Finally, DE recognises the value of involving stakeholders in the evaluation processes making the approach suitable for evaluating complex dynamic systems. S22. The development of a theory of change for the program together with a more complete suite of assumptions will be critical to be able to assess impact. In the absence of a theory of change (TOC), the program is vulnerable in being able to provide a sense of the strategic intent, how this aims to be reached, and periodically testing the assumptions implicit in the strategic intent. S23. The indicators for the Program Development Objectives (PDOs) need to be reworded to truly reflect the nature of the program. Indicator (i) uses the word mobilised which is in effect beyond the scope of CIWA which has little ability to ensure that funds are mobilised, and is in effect an inappropriate indicator. At best, CIWA can influence or leverage, with even the latter sometimes being difficult. This must be adjusted. Indicator (ii) uses the term directly with regard to benefit from improved water resource management and development. In some instances this can be quite problematic due to CIWA s upstream nature. This must be rectified. S24. Challenges regarding the suite of existing targets must be rectified. Reflection on the targets for the program link to the nature of the program and to the current performance. Whilst it is not appropriate to Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report xii

13 adjust targets to meet underperformance, it is fair to redress targets that appear to be unreasonable or overly ambitious. There a number of targets that require redress and if not addressed will create problems in assessing performance. The following matter require attention. The results framework does not have targets for FY and these need to be developed. Targets for PDO indicator (i) are problematic in that CIWA s upstream nature means that it has limited to no influence on direct mobilisation of funds. In addition the target for FY16 notes potential projects whilst the targets for FY20 is mobilised. The target of US$10 billion mobilised is not appropriate and likely not attainable. The suggestion is to remain with potential projects which reflects the Bank s ability to influence projects with a 2020 target of US$15 billion. Targets for PDO indicator (ii) are problematic in that CIWA s upstream nature means that it has limited influence on direct beneficiaries and hence the use of the word potential. In addition, the assumption is that the beneficiaries are all those living within the basin which really could not be tested. The leap from 15 million potential beneficiaries to 50 million direct beneficiaries between FY16 and FY20 is unrealistic, noting at the mid-term the achievement has been 5.6 million direct beneficiaries and the projects that are currently online. The targets for potential direct beneficiaries is also unrealistic in that the achievement in FY15 is about four-fold. The baselines for all targets are reflected as zero, linked to CIWA initiatives. This the MTR finds problematic as it really undermines the actual existing capacity within basin. The PDO targets need adjustment whilst the assumptions that underpin the targets for the intermediate results areas require strengthening. S25. The monitoring and reporting framework needs to provide a basis for the programs knowledge management, and needs to be documented in the operational guideline. The overall programmatic approach to monitoring and reporting is not currently documented within any of the guideline documents and this needs to be captured in the operational guidelines. Doing this should provide a clear framework for the reporting and effectively the knowledge management for the program. Currently, the rich experiences and findings within the basins is being lost and needs to be reported upon. Strengthening the Basin Advisory Committees will be a key step forward in supporting the basins in reporting, and ensuring that this knowledge is not lost. S26. Further improve value for money (VFM) statements. Whilst the FY14 and FY15 Annual Reports did reflect on VFM at a programmatic level. However, there is a need to assess this at project/basin level where it will be more important to track progress. It is noted that many projects are only now being initiated, and so there is limited to no data available that can be used to reflect current progress. In order to support the developmental evaluation for the projects a suite of indicators and baselines will need to be developed for each project/basin. The ICF indicators whilst sometimes difficult to utilise do provide a meaningful first port of call for each basin. This will require capacity building support to assist the basins in undertaking this monitoring and the MTR would expect that the RBOs must take this on board as a key element of reporting Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report xiii

14 1. CIWA and the Mid-term Review 1.1. Introduction One of the World Bank s fundamental values is to help vulnerable countries address their water challenges as a strategy for ending poverty and ensuring shared prosperity. To this end, it is through sustainable management and development of its international waters that Africa can make positive strides towards the attainment of climate-resilient growth and poverty reduction. This is particularly important given that all of the major water resources in Africa, in 63 basins, are shared between 48 countries and the key sectors that contribute to growth are largely reliant on water. Sufficient access to adequate supplies of water, food and energy are the most significant challenges across Africa, and Global averages for water consumption by the agriculture and energy sectors is 70% and 15%, respectively. While these water-dependent sectors must be developed to support Africa s growth, the financial, technical and political complexities of transboundary waters form serious obstacles to achieving the climate-resilient food, energy and water security needed for Africa s sustainable development. The World Economic Forum s Global Risks Report for 2015 again placed water crises as its most significant risk in terms of impact. Given this, cooperative action becomes necessary and imperative to optimize regional benefits and mitigate the shared risks including those posed by climate variability and change. The historical notion of international development support has been to support this development through a process of singling out best practice, for a particular issue, and then providing support to see this best practice implemented 1. Whilst this is sometimes of value, in many instances this can be fraught and this is typically where one is dealing with complex issues that have shifting requirements (over time and space) and are in effect difficult to resolve. These so called wicked problems (see Table 1, below) force programmes to adapt and change and this creates managerial challenges and potentially increases costs. Table 1: Characterising wicked problems (adapted from Mason and Mitroff (1981) 2 and Ramalingam, Laric and Primrose, (2014)) Characteristic Problem formulation Testability Finality Level of analysis Replicability Reproducibility Wicked Problem The problem is difficult to define. Many possible explanations may exist. Individuals perceive the issue differently. Depending on the explanation, the solution takes on a different form. There is no single set of criteria for whether solutions are right or wrong; they can only be more or less acceptable relative to each other. There is always room for more improvement and potential consequences may continue indefinitely. Every problem can be considered a symptom of another problem. There is no identifiable root cause and it is not possible to be sure of the appropriate level at which to intervene; one cannot easily separate parts from the whole. Every problem is essentially unique; formulae are of limited value. Each problem is a one-shot operation. Once a solution is attempted, you cannot undo what you have already done. 1 Ramalingam, B., Laric, M. and Primrose, J From best practice to best fit: Understanding and navigating wicked problems in international development. ODI Working Paper 2 Mason, R. and Mitroff I. (1981) Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions, Theory, Cases, and Techniques, New York, John Wiley. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 1

15 All of these characteristics find resonance in the transboundary water management arena and authors such as Blomquist, Dinar and Kemper (2005) 3 and Subramanian, Brown and Wolf (2012) 4 have described the complexities and the nature of the risks of working in these environments. These complexities are useful to understand when assessing a program that operates in these difficult institutional environments. Subramanian et al (2012) provide an insightful suite of risks, as captured in Table 2, below. Table 2: Key risks that influence cooperation decisions (adapted from Subramanian et al. (2012)) Risk Category Capacity and Knowledge: Fear of being disadvantaged Accountability and Voice: Lack of trust and concern of not having sufficient say in decision making Sovereignty and Autonomy: Fear of intrusion into the country s authority to make sovereign decisions against the need to making decisions independently Equity and Access Fairness of (relative) benefits accrued to country, including timing of benefits, costs and obtaining/ retaining fair access to river. Stability and Support Longevity potential of the agreement; in-country support of the agreement, including ratification likelihood Risk Manifestation Countries perceived they had less negotiating capacity than their co-riparians. Countries perceived they did not have adequate or accurate information about the basin. Fear that co-riparians, third parties, or the regional institution may not deliver benefits. Concern that his/her country s interests would not be adequately considered in joint decision making processes. Perception of a high probability that the regional institutional arrangement would not result in the flow of benefits. The desire to have control over national development goals and related development of resources and infrastructure. The right to make decisions independently. Fairness in any deal, regarding specified quantity (or quality) of water, benefit flows, or project costs. Entitlement to use the river. Some countries viewed entitlement as the right to continuing with historic uses; others as gaining access to a river running through (or originating in) its territory; and yet others as attaining benefits in proportion to a country s relative size in (or percent contribution to) the basin. The implementability of an agreement due to the presence or absence of key stakeholder support. A decision-maker s positive or negative public image. We found this risk to be quite an important consideration for all countries, but particularly so in countries with diversified and powerful stakeholders. Key messages towards for engagement in transboundary basins that emerge from both Blomquist et al. (2005) and Subramanian et al. (2012) are informative: More attention is required in understanding political economy in decision making and the perceptions of risk. A range of actions will be needed to reduce risks. 3 Blomquist, W., Dinar, A. and Kemper, K Comparison of institutional arrangements for river basin management in eight basins. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Subramanian, A., Brown, B. and Wolf, A Reaching Across the Waters: Facing the Risks of Cooperation in International Waters. Water Papers, The World Bank Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 2

16 Engagement at national levels does not involve singular stakeholders but requires multistakeholder processes. Individual champions can unlock processes, but equally developing partnerships and supportive teams is important to generate the support for processes. Solutions must be tailored for the basin requirements but also match national needs. There are no idealised or model solutions, but only those that are appropriate and fit for purpose. Politics are difficult to predict and so anticipation is critical to enable swift action. Longer term engagement is important and consistency of support is as important as the magnitude of support. It takes time to plan, facilitate and build confidence. Situations are dynamic and the issues that may have helped to drive collaboration and engagement will be addressed and replaced with new issues. Events at a range of scales can impact upon progress or create new opportunities. Supra-national entities such as the World Bank, the European Union and others international development partners can play a meaningful role in assisting to unlock opportunities. It is therefore understood that whilst transboundary water management is extremely important to the socio-economic development of Africa, that this is indeed complex. Additionalities such as climate change makes this all the more complex with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identifying Africa as the region at greatest risk from climate change. Improvements in our understanding of what is required of basins to strengthen their climate resilience will prove critical in the coming years The CIWA Program and its Evolution Against this background, the World Bank and a group of development partners established the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa (CIWA) program in CIWA was established through the initiative of the Water Resources Management Unit of the Africa Region of the World Bank (AFTWR) together with the Department for International Development (DFID) of the UK Government. Since then, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands have joined in supporting the CIWA program. The design of CIWA has been based on lessons learned from past World Bank work on transboundary water issues including in the Nile, Niger, Zambezi, and Senegal River Basins as well as through other multi-donor trust funds such as the African Water Resources Management Initiative (AWRMI), the Water Partnership Program (WPP), and the South Asia Water Initiative (SAWI). Some of the key lessons that have been incorporated into the CIWA design are: the importance of riparian ownership and early stakeholder engagement; flexible levels of engagement; clear goals and results focus in implementation; the need to communicate results and outcomes to stakeholders and development partners in order to build support; a clear exit strategy; and Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 3

17 the importance of donor coordination to increase program effectiveness. These lessons have been further enriched, through ongoing processes, with the realization that steady progress towards transboundary cooperation can be made through long-term sustained support to basins with weak institutional capacity, and that short-term support in the form of analytical studies, technical assistance and capacity building initiatives can drive cooperation within basins. 5 Importantly, the CIWA program aims to support governments in sub-saharan Africa to unlock the potential for sustainable, climate resilient growth and poverty reduction through cooperative water resources management and development efforts. This will be attained through: Sustained strengthening of information, institutions, and investments in priority basins: The bulk of CIWA resources are dedicated to long-term engagement in CIWA s priority basins, which the program establishes through an analysis of the basin s needs, expressed demand, subsequent gaps, and CIWA s comparative advantage. Short term, opportunistic, catalytic work: When opportunities arise, CIWA supports catalytic work that unlocks potential for cooperative investment, mainly in basins other than priority basins. However, the catalytic sub-program does provide methodological support for recipient executed activities in priority basins. Knowledge management and capacity building: CIWA supports activities that create a shared understanding that can facilitate cooperative development and management of international waters. The overall impact of the program is to strengthen Climate Resilient Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa The long term objective of CIWA is to strengthen cooperative management and development of international waters in Sub-Saharan Africa, which it intends to meet through support to activities that fall within the following four intermediate results areas: Regional Cooperation and Integration - aims to foster cooperative transboundary institutions for greater regional stability and creation of an enabling environment for shared sustainable growth Water Resources Management -This aims to underpin the evidence-based knowledge for planning and decision-making to maximize development opportunities and minimize climate risks Water Resources Development -This aims to support investments that improve resilience to climate variability and change, enhance food and energy security, and enable countries to follow a lower carbon growth path Stakeholder Engagement and Participation -This aims to enable greater voice in decision-making processes of civil society, private sector and academia in the cooperative management and development of shared basin resources. CIWA provides grant funding for transboundary river basin activities through interlinked subprograms, namely Basin Sub-Program, Catalytic Sub-Program engagements as well as opportunistic 5 CIWA Operational Guidelines. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 4

18 work that supports knowledge management/capacity building and provision of technical assistance (see Figure 1). Projects across the program are demand-driven 6 but that should not down play the fact that CIWA has a broad strategic intent and that all projects should support the attainment of that intent. A. Sustained Basin Engagement: long-term engagement in a finite number of priority basins to strengthen information, institutions, and investments CIWA: Modes of Engagement B. Opportunistic Engagement: shorter-term engagement that explores collaborative, potential high impact investment opportunities in basins other than priority basins Analytical Work Cuts Across All Modes of Engagement C. Knowledge Management/Capacity Building: discrete activities to generate, share and manage knowledge that can facilitate cooperative development and management of international waters Figure 1: CIWAs modes of engagement 7 Basin Sub-Program: The majority of CIWA funds are dedicated to sustained engagement within priority basins. The support provided through this sub-program is aimed towards strengthening foundational elements such as data and information dissemination systems, agreements, institutions, investment plans and operational plans that enable building of trust among riparians, create an understanding of opportunities for cooperative development, strengthen the institutional framework that facilitates collaborative action, and build riparian capacity to undertake complex regional initiatives. Implementation could occur through RBOs, RECs, and other regional organisations including CSOs, NGOs or national governments. The Basin Sub-program has a holistic approach to facilitating cooperative action in the long-term, thus making it different from the Catalytic Subprogram. CIWA s priorities for sustained basin engagements are at this stage the Nile, Zambezi, Volta, and Niger basins 8. These project are not bank executed but are executed by the recipients. Catalytic Sub-Program: The catalytic sub-program focuses on activities that contribute to understanding barriers to cooperation, exploring cooperative investment possibilities, building stakeholder capacity, generating regional public goods in the form of information and analytical tools, and brokering knowledge. While this sub-program can support activities in all transboundary river basins in Africa, the bulk of the Catalytic Sub-Program s focus is on basins other than the priority basins 6 CIWA Proposal for Development Partners, March CIWA Proposal for Development Partners, March CIWA, CIWA: A Strategic Framework. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 5

19 (as discussed above). Furthermore, Africa-wide work can also be undertaken through this subprogram. The work within this sub-program is not intended to utilise more than 10% of the total CIWA envelope. The two main criteria for work within this sub-program are demand and notable contribution to the CIWA program PDO and four results areas (see Catalytic Sub-program Project Concept Note for the Programmatic Approach). CIWA s priorities for Opportunistic Engagements, according to the Strategic Framework, are ECOWAS, Lake Chad and Okavango. Opportunistic engagements could eventually move into sustained basin engagements 9. The Knowledge Management and Capacity Building engagements are aimed at improving the understanding of cross-cutting issues in order to facilitate cooperative development and management of transboundary waters. As such these initiatives may have varying entry points and have varying scales of relevance. These engagements cover four thematic pillars: Analytical Work for Catalysing Cooperation; Exploring Collaborative Investment Opportunities; Improving Access to and Improving the Use of Climate Change Data, information, and Models to Build Resilience; and Capacity Building and Knowledge Management. The Knowledge Management/Capacity Building window is primarily Bank-executed and falls largely within the Catalytic Sub-Program. Through these sub-programs CIWA provides support in addressing Information, Institutions and Investments 10. In addressing information and institutional challenges the CIWA program supports projects that consider: Information synthesis, Monitoring systems, Analytical tools, Information dissemination, Transboundary operating rules, Evaluating trade-offs, Allocation mechanisms, Water for the environment, Legal instruments, River basin planning, Sustainability of core financing, Communication, Stakeholder participation, Evidence base for cooperation, Platforms for cooperation, 9 CIWA, CIWA: A Strategic Framework. 10 CIWA, Annual Report. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 6

20 Institutional frameworks, and Regional financing mechanisms. The types of projects that support investments include: Facilitating agreement, Evaluating trade-offs, Scoping, Pre-identification, Identification, Pre-feasibility, Feasibility, Environmental and social impact assessment, Detailed design, Transaction and legal support, Resource mobilization, Informing construction and commissioning, and Informing ongoing operations and maintenance. The program has evolved over the five year period from its initial starting point of focus upon the Nile and the Zambesi (as basin engagements) to four basin engagements and a suite of projects under the catalytic sub-program. The geographic spread of projects has moved from being focused on East and Southern Africa to the current context with a fairly well balanced spread of projects across the continent. Similarly, the program has evolved from one that started by providing the weight of its effort in strengthening institutions and information (which is a pragmatic place to start) to the current situation where 50% of the funding supports institutions and information, 42 % supports large scale infrastructure investments and 8% supports small scale infrastructure investments. Initial targets for the ten year program were set out as: 50 million direct beneficiaries of projects influenced by CIWA, 5 basins with strengthened institutions, 5 basins with improved analytic tools, data and capacity, 10 investment opportunities with regional benefits progressed in the project cycle, and 5 basins with improved engagement with civil society, private sector and academia. An initial reflection of the evolution of the program towards these objectives does reflect that the program appears to be on the trajectory when one notes that CIWA is now supporting four basins, with a fifth basin under the catalytic sub-program, and some 22 investment opportunities being advanced. Potentially, at this initial stage, the area that has not evolved to the extent desired at this stage would be the engagement with stakeholder groups. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 7

21 1.3. Program Governance The management and governance of the program takes place at two levels namely at program level, focused on strategy and activities across the program, and at basin level with the focus upon the detailed activities within a basin project. At the program level structures include the Consultative Group (CG), the Advisory Committee (AC) and the Project Management Unit (PMU) (See Figure 2). Figure 2: CIWA program strategic advisory and management structure These structures provide a useful balance between strategic support and guidance on the positioning and intent of the program (CG), the strategic content of the program to meet the programs objectives (AC) and the provision of technical input, oversight, quality assurance and day-to-day management and administration of the program (PMU). The CG aims to bring broad expertise and knowledge to CIWA, providing strategic guidance in achieving its objective of strengthening cooperative management and development of international waters in Africa. As such it is not a decision-making body, but provides strategic inputs that can influence direction and intent, and can assist in strategically placing the CIWA program amongst the myriad of support programs that are being undertaken in Africa at varying scales. This provides a platform for CIWA to draw benefit from the insights and experience of key African water sector professionals. The CG is made up of CIWA recipient partners (river basins organizations, RECs or other international water organizations in the cases of international lakes or aquifers); development partners (donors and other financing agencies which may or may not be contributors to the CIWA Multi-donor Trust Fund); and other stakeholders (AMCOW, RECs, RBOs, NGOs, etc.). The CG is proposed to meet once a year or as needed. The function of the AC is to provide strategic advice and guidance to the World Bank regarding CIWA s programs and plans. The Committee has both a consultative and an advisory role and provides a forum for contributing development partners to meet, exchange information, and consult on a regular basis. The World Bank as manager of the CIWA MDTF undertakes day-to-day operational activities and retains the overall decision making authority linked to its fiduciary responsibility, consistent with all Bank managed trust funds and in terms of the Trust Fund Administration Agreements entered into with each donor. Having noted that, the project approval process for the program does note that at Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 8

22 key junctures within the project approval process that the AC does need to provide endorsement (see Figure 3, below). Figure 3: Project development and approval process towards basin engagement projects 11 The review of the Operational Guideline with regards to the role of the AC reflects that these roles are: Review of CIWA program strategy in order to provide guidance on the overall content and direction of the program and ensure the use of Trust Fund resources to meet the objectives of the program; Review of Justification Notes to assist with the decision for CIWA to begin sustained engagement in a prospective basin; Review of Project Concept Notes to assist with the decision for CIWA to allocate funding for specific projects in basins where CIWA has sustained engagement; Review of CIWA Support Plans as part of relevant Basin Advisory Committees in order to provide guidance on the content and direction of the program in basins where CIWA has sustained engagement (this applies to basins where AC members have a particular interest, experience, or expertise; AC members are not expected to review all CSPs in detail); 11 CIWA Proposal for Development Partners. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 9

23 Provide feedback on planned and on-going projects to help ensure alignment with basin strategies and target results as well as with overall program strategy and target results; Review overall program implementation progress, financial management, and administration; Review of CIWA funding needs and promotion of participation of new donors to close funding gaps and support new program components; Encourage donor harmonization, either through the MDTF or bilaterally, for potential investments; Meet annually and if needed, consider a semi-annual meeting, virtually or in-person. The AC consists of the development partners who are contributing to the CIWA Multi-donor Trust Fund (MDTF) and the World Bank. The AC meets formally once per year but will also convene virtually on an ad hoc basis as required to enable effective and efficient program delivery. It does appear to be the norm to have at least one extra-ordinary meeting per year. The PMU, led by the Program Manager, is comprised of both management and technical staff responsible for managing all CIWA operations. The PMU provides high-level multi-sectoral technical input, oversight and quality assurance to the CIWA program, and day-to-day management and administration of the CIWA program and its projects. Technical Team Leaders (TTLs) support and guide the basin projects. These World Bank staff members are not purely dedicated to CIWA projects and as such provide the opportunity to link initiatives and leverage possible synergistic opportunities. It is important to note that at the basin level, the Basin Advisory Committee (BAC) structure is aimed at providing the guidance and oversight to ensure that the projects within the basin or across the region achieve their objectives. A key role of the BAC is to ensure coordination with other ongoing activities across the basin. Thus the BAC also provides an opportunity for interested partners to consult and contribute to discussions on basin plans and priorities (Figure 4). Figure 4: BAC positioning within the basin context The membership of the BAC includes representatives from the riparian states, regional bodies such as the RBOs and the REC, international agencies such as GWP or the IUCN, other non-ciwa donors (such as GIZ), other interested stakeholders, and of course the CIWA/ World Bank staff (see Figure 6) Funding the CIWA Program The CIWA program is funded through a multi-donor trust fund (MDTF) administered by the World Bank with an initial contribution from the UK and subsequent contributions from Denmark, the Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 10

24 Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. With a longer term aspirational vision of an expanded funding envelope, it is envisaged that other donors might come on-board in supporting the program. The intent is that through CIWA, the development partners and the World Bank are leveraging the expertise, convening power and resources of the Bank for managing and developing transboundary water resources in Africa. The aspirational target from the World Bank was to attain a total finding envelope of US$200 million over the ten year period, and this would be used to mobilise some US$10 billion for cooperative management and development by the year To date US$68 million have been pledged and amounts received have been US$44.5 million. The funding process and current funding status are reflected in Figure 5, below. Figure 5: CIWAs funding process 12 With this funding envelope, the overview of allocations geographically, institutionally and by nature of support is as reflected in Figure 6, below. The detailed allocations per project are provided in Table 3, below. 12 CIWA Annual Report. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 11

25 Figure 6: Overview of allocations per geographic region, per type of implementing partner and per area of support 13 Table 3: Allocation of available funding Basin./REC/ Sub- Program/ Activity Description Broad Activities Allocated Amount (US$) Niger Niger River Basin Management Project, Niger Basin Support Program Strengthening of the Niger Basin Authority Enhancing Regional Cooperation and Benefit Sharing around Fomi Dam Evidence-based analysis of regional investment projects Internal technical due diligence regarding impacts of large transboundary infrastructure Multi-stakeholder mapping and visualization tool for the management of benefit sharing on transboundary infrastructure Provision of additional just-in-time expert support 8,950,000 Nile NCORE (incl. SEC, NELSAPand ENSAP), Nile Basin Discourse, Nile Basin Support Program, Nile Basin Engagement Support Nile Basin cooperation and dialogue Promotion of Sustainable Development and Planning in the Nile and Equatorial Lakes Region Promotion of Sustainable Development and Planning in the Eastern Nile 20,850, CIWA Annual Report. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 12

26 Basin./REC/ Sub- Program/ Activity Volta Zambesi Orange Senqu SADC ECOWAS Lake Chad Okavango Africa wide Description (contingent on the NBI financial strategy) Volta River Basin Institutional Support, Volta Basin Support Program Zambesi River Basin Management (ZAMCOM), ZRB Development (ZRA), Zambesi Support Program Lesotho Highlands- Botswana Water Transfer Study SADC Groundwater Management Water Resource Management in West Africa Lake Chad Policy Dialogue Okavango Multi- Sector Investment Analysis Knowledge Management and Technical Assistance Catalytic Activities Broad Activities Development of the Nile Basin Support System (DSS) Strengthening the NBD Secretariat. Improved communications and outreach. Capacity building for NBD members Enhance regional Cooperation and Integration Support improved Water Resources Management Support resilient water resources development Support structured stakeholder engagement and coordination Drafting of a Water Charter Formulation of a Process for Dialogue and Projects Identification and Monitoring Development and Implementation of a Communication Plan Establishment and Implementation of Procedures for Internal Regulations Zambezi Basin Institutional Development Strengthen information sharing and decision support (DSS) Compilation of the Zambesi Strategic plan Infrastructure development in the Zambesi River Basin: Advancing the development of the Batoka Gorge hydro-electricity scheme Institutional development of the (ZRA) Support to the Kariba Dam Rehabilitation Project. Catalytic study to investigate potentially transformative development options for the transfer of water from Lesotho to Botswana. Support SADC GMI to become to become regionally recognised centre of excellence Support member capacity building Facilitate transboundary water resources planning Support the integration of regional policy Support riparian countries and the Lake Chad Basin Commission towards imporved understanding of the various future uncertainties regarding the lake Define the framework for a development plan towards identifying strategic and bankable development options Undertake a multi-sector analysis of proposed investment options to meet the development needs of the riparian states whilst safeguarding the ecological integrity of the basin and specifically the Okavango Delta. Strategic overview of International Waters in Africa Overview of Institutions in International Waters in Africa Economic rationale for Cooperation in Transboundary Basins in Africa Political Economy of Cooperation Allocated Amount (US$) 4,450,000 13,400,000 2,175,000 2,300, ,000 1,049, ,000 2,820,491 Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 13

27 Basin./REC/ Sub- Program/ Activity PMU Description Program Management and Administration Broad Activities Facilitating Africa-wide Hydromet Services Transboundary Water Cooperation for Climate Resilience Improving Access to Capacity Building and Knowledge Exchange Improving Public Access to Basin Data Projects evaluation Process facilitation Technical inputs Oversight and reporting Partnership coordination Allocated Amount (US$) 4,077,279 TOTAL 61,672, Purpose of the MTR The Mid-Term Review (MTR) sought to assess the degree to which CIWA is on-track and fit for purpose in meeting its development objectives moving forward and their relevance under the current circumstances. There are three key elements of the CIWA (MTR) that are to be assessed as part of this review process. The first entails assessing the degree to which CIWA is fit for purpose in meeting its development objectives moving forward, as well as their relevance under the current circumstances. The second is that the MTR is primarily a functionality review which considers specific elements of CIWA s governance, structure, resourcing, processes, procedures and systems. It is noted that in this regard there are different programmatic and institutional interfaces that need to be carefully considered. The third aspect of the MTR entails a progress review which will assess how the program as a whole is on-track to meet its goals. In this context it is important to recognize that some of the projects and basin engagements have only just begun. Regardless, data and information available provided a useful and sufficient basis to determine which aspects of CIWA are relevant and which may require refinement. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 14

28 The primary areas of focus for the MTR of the CIWA program, as set out in the TOR (see Appendix 1), include five key elements of: Program relevance, portfolio review and progress Program management structure Results framework and monitoring and evaluation system Risk management Value for money Figure 7: five key elements of the review Throughout the analysis, the consulting team identified particular challenges or opportunities that require attention in order to improve delivery. The five key elements driving the MTR scope of work are briefly described in the table below. Table 4: Scope of work Element Program relevance, portfolio review and progress Program management structure Results framework and monitoring and evaluation system Attributes Examine CIWA s comparative advantage in the international waters in Africa and if the program remains relevant to meeting the needs of intended beneficiaries, Assess whether its portfolio, including balance of activity focus and regions, is aligned with its comparative advantage and stated long-term objectives, Review progress and assess whether CIWA is on-track to meet its longer term objectives. Analyze CIWA s modalities for governance including the Consultative Group, the AC, the Panel of Experts, the Basin Advisory Committee and the Basin Support Plan, Assess the decision making and financial allocation processes, Assess and examine how CIWA follows good practice for international development in terms of project planning and implementation considerations, Review how CIWA processes and programming should be implemented moving forward given the extensive project preparation time. Examine the relevance of CIWA s Results Framework to the current portfolio, Assess how well the Project Development Objective indicators and Intermediate Results indicators capture the intended results of the program, and how well this framework monitors outputs that are directly linked to CIWA s inputs and various interventions, Examine whether the indicators reflect the breadth of results expected across CIWA s portfolio and how these indicators can be aggregated at various levels, Review whether the various indicators and targets are relevant across the scope of projects and whether any recommendations in terms of amendments to these can be made, Assess the efficacy of the monitoring at project level and ascertain whether the appropriate reporting at project level is indeed taking place, Assess the readiness of the program for a future impact evaluation Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 15

29 Risk Management Value for Money Examine CIWA s risk analysis framework as part of the comprehensive analysis of the program, identify additional risks that have not yet been explicitly considered and propose new or modified mitigation measures if relevant, Review risks and risk management at the project level, to ascertain whether risks are indeed being assessed at the project level and to understand how these interface with the broader programmatic risks. Assess if CIWA has the structure and procedures in place to ensure value, outcomes and impact, Assess the appropriateness of this approach and whether the measures being utilised are useful in assessing the value for money for the projects and program. Importantly, the intended audience for the MTR is the World Bank management, who in consultation with the CIWA AC, will determine if program restructuring and reformulation is needed including any needed changes to the CIWA Results Framework. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 16

30 2. Approach and Structuring 2.1. Approach for the MTR The MTR methodology commenced with a review of CIWA literature as an entry point to interviews. It is important to note that the methodology used for the MTR lends itself to diversity of views on key themes and elements of the CIWA program. Capturing the diverse opinions and responses entailed choosing the right methodology to address the MTR scope of work and answer key questions. The review team employed a qualitative study approach based on semi-structured and open ended questions designed into an interview template/checklist. The qualitative study was selected in order to have a deeper view of how the CIWA program is performing and the perceptions associated with the program performance. Furthermore, the qualitative approach was selected due to limited data available for the program given that many projects are still coming on stream, reporting of outputs is not qualitative (no sense of outcomes from outputs at this juncture) and whilst a little less than half of the aspirational funding envelope has been realised, the disbursement of funds is only starting to significantly increase. Notably, some of the opinions and views reflected during interviews have been fairly extreme and the review team tried to understand the broader context in order to minimise bias where possible. To address this the team undertook a systematic approach of: Asking further probing questions to try to understand whether the question asked was not misunderstood, whether the interviewer was actually understanding the comment and its context and to see if through discussion the root cause of the comments could be determined, and Post interview triangulation by assessing existing literature, by linking these comments (if possible) to other interviews and by asking additional questions of others actors to test the validity of the comments. Purposive sampling was used to identify participants following a list of contacts supplied by the World Bank. The World Bank provided the review team with a list consisting of 28 contacts in total. The first 9 contacts on the list were primarily key contacts from the development partners/donors while the remaining 19 were mainly World Bank/CIWA staff. In theory, the list for the development partners had 9 contacts. The review team reached out to all the 28 primary contacts with a response rate of 100%. The review team further consulted additional stakeholders who were identified as relevant to the MTR. These included continental actors (GWP, IUCN, AfDB, ANBO and AMCOW) and CIWA s clients within the RECs and Basins such as the Zambezi River Authority (ZRA), Volta Basin Authority (VBA), Nile Basin Discourse, Nile Basin Initiative, SADC Groundwater project, OKACOM, and the Lesotho Highlands-Botswana water project personnel. The response rate from this group was again fairly high with only three non-responses and one contact declining to be interviewed. The full list of people consulted is appended (Appendix 2). Interviews with most respondents were conducted telephonically or via skype. A few interviews were conducted face-to-face particularly for the South Africa-based World Bank staff and DFID representatives. Moreover, a site visit to the Volta Basin was also included in order to have first-hand Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 17

31 experience and interaction with stakeholders on the ground. These face-to-face discussions allowed for richer discussions and surfaced nuances that were possibly harder to garner telephonically. The review team provided a suite of questions that were developed and adapted appropriately to suit each stakeholder group. These groups were: World Bank PMU staff, World Bank Regional staff and TTLs, Advisory Committee, Other development partners, Continental Actors such as AMCOW, ANBO and AFDB, and RBOs, RECs and Member states. Clearly, with each interview there were distinctive areas of focus for the discussion and in many instances interviewees felt ill-equipped to answer certain questions and, therefore, refused to answer. This was useful in that it did remove some of the bias that is created from what are ostensibly uninformed opinions. This was further supported by the fact that very few people interviewed did not have a direct working relationship with CIWA, the World Bank and/or the projects The questions were categorised according to the key focal areas of the MTR, namely: Overall performance, Programme relevance, portfolio review and progress, Programme management structure, Results Framework and monitoring and evaluation system, Risk management, Value for money, and Way forward The teams approach towards assessment of credibility and plausibility of inputs was as follows: The project team undertook an initial document review and as a result started to develop opinions, as independent reviewers, of areas of the programme that could be strengthened based upon the experience of the team in working in transboundary basins and with development partners; Subsequent documentation reviews were undertaken when triangulating comments received, especially when an opinion was misaligned to previous comments or to what the project team had gleaned from the documentation; Interviews did focus on areas where the interviewee clearly has insight and an informed opinion; In answering questions interviewees were asked to justify their comments with evidence; In nearly all interviews the discussions were actually incredibly frank and open with the intention of finding ways to improve the program; and Generally, there was a very significant amount of alignment in the various reflections on the program. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 18

32 This report is a synthesis report and does not reflect all the comments and inputs received. These have been captured in questionnaire templates and were analysed through a discussion document that was shared with the AC and the PMU at a workshop in Livingstone, Zambia, in September Structuring the MTR The methodological process employed by the review team provided a slightly nuanced approach to the project as set out during project inception. The methodological process adopted is reflected diagrammatically below highlighting the key processes from inception, consultation and compilation through to analysis, validation and formulation. Figure 8: MTR Methodology Document Review- A robust and comprehensive document review of strategic documentation, project documentation, reports and reviews was conducted. The documents were made available to the project team through a shared platform, the box. A full list of documents reviewed is provided in Appendix 3. Stakeholder Consultations- As highlighted earlier, consultations targeted a range of stakeholders from the list provided by the World Bank and some additional stakeholders. Specific methods for reaching out to the stakeholders included face-to-face meetings, telephone or video conferencing. During consultations with external parties (i.e. excluding the WB and donors) the review team focused on inquires to gain feedback relevant to the respective organization and its role in the CIWA program. Site Visit The review team also undertook a site visit to the Volta Basin. The site visit discussions and observations provided the project team with nuanced insights on CIWA supported projects in the Volta Basin. During the site visit, the review team managed to discuss with a range of key stakeholders in the Basin. This provided a more holistic view of CIWA support within a basin. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 19

33 Having completed the draft discussion report, the team submitted the report to the PMU for comments on matters of clarity and correctness. These comments were not focused on the findings, but towards programmatic or systemic clarifications. The PMU has in fact respected the independence of the review team and has such taken all comments in an open, frank and nondefensive manner. The review team revised the report and this was submitted to the PMU a month before the Advisory Committee meeting in Livingstone. The review team was invited to present the report findings at the AC meeting, where final comments and recommendations were discussed so that the MTR report can be finalised. The report presented at the AC meeting in Livingstone, was recognised as being a useful draft discussion document as it contained many of the detailed inputs and insights that emerged from the interviews. However, it was agreed that the final report needed to be more succinct with a crisper suite of findings aligned to the discussions held at the workshop. Written inputs were received from monitoring and evaluation experts in support of the Netherlands and United Kingdom. These comments have been taken on board in the production of this final report. 2.3 Understanding the MTR The TOR indicates that the MTR should reflect on: The degree to which CIWA is fit for purpose in meeting its development objectives moving forward, as well as their relevance under the current circumstances. A functionality review which considers specific elements of CIWA s governance, structure, resourcing, processes, procedures and systems. It is noted that in this regard there are different programmatic and institutional interfaces that need to be carefully considered. A progress review which will assess how the program as a whole is on-track to meet its goals. From the discussions of the AC 14, there was clear understanding that the MTR could not perform an evaluation when noting that many of the project had only just come on line, and that it would only be appropriate to undertake a qualitative assessment in reviewing the program in the light of the above mentioned aspects. The AC also noted that in undertaking the MTR that there should only be a selective consultation process. In undertaking the MTR these aspects became the lenses that were considered in looking at the various dimensions of the program. These then being that the program is: Appropriate to reach objectives; Relevant; Functionally effective and efficient; and Progressing towards targets. 14 CIWA Third Annual CIWA Advisory Committee Meeting, Nairobi, Kenya Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 20

34 During the AC workshop in Livingstone, Zambia it was agreed to capture the MTR in such a way as to reflect on the achievements that can be maximised (utilise strengths) as well to reflect on the areas of the program that could be improved upon (redress weaknesses). Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 21

35 3. Building Upon CIWA s Achievements 3.1. Continental context Due to the large number of landlocked countries, transboundary water systems, and an uneven distribution of energy resources and load centers, Africa s development agenda is inherently regional. Given that a total of 63 transboundary river basins accounts for 90 percent of Africa s surface water resources, 63 percent of its surface area, 83 percent of its precipitation, and 92 percent of its annual discharge, water resources shared by countries pose complex political and management challenges. While it is widely acknowledged that international waters have created some opportunities for fostering regional economic cooperation and political integration through cooperative development, the added complexity is also likely to lead to tension and derail the optimum development of common resources. In these transboundary contexts, there are a range of concerns which vary from basin to basin, but which Subramanian et al (2012) 15 note as key risks that influence co-operation decisions. These include: Sovereignty as deep seated concerns about national control that can re-surface at later stages, Equity and access and that deals would provide some fairness in quantity, quality or in shared benefits, Capacity and knowledge and that this would lead to some form of being disadvantaged, and Accountability and voice and that needs would not be heard. CIWA is undertaking a range of support that helps to unlock management and development Given these challenges, a multi-purpose, integrated and cooperative approach has the clear potential not only to help countries build economic resilience to climate change, but more importantly, to diversify their economies. Multi-purpose cooperative water resource development has the potential to offer significant benefits to the countries of Africa, provided that appropriate water governance institutions manage the complex dynamics of multi-country development. The CIWA program supports riparian governments in unlocking the potential for sustainable, climateresilient growth through cooperative water resources management and development. CIWA achieves this by improving the quality and accessibility of information in order to raise awareness of increased benefits and reduced risks that can result from joint action. Such joint actions include strengthening the ability of institutions to provide platforms for riparians to act cooperatively; enabling African governments to bring a wide range of stakeholders to the table; and enhancing the quality of regional investments through adoption of benefit-sharing approaches. CIWA strengthening cooperation in transboundary waters in Africa In doing this, CIWA leverages the comparative advantage (as detailed in section 3.2 below) of its host institution, the World Bank, which offers strong technical expertise in international waters and across 15 Subramanian, A., Brown, B. and Wolf, A Reaching Across the Waters: Facing the Risks of Cooperation in International Waters. Water Papers, The World Bank Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 22

36 other relevant sectors such as agriculture, energy, and service delivery, while also having the power to convene and mobilize multiple stakeholders and to utilize the experience gained from work on international waters issues around the world. To this end, demand for CIWA program support from potential recipient organizations exceeds available funding and so the need to accelerate fund-raising efforts to address needs across Africa has increasingly become a matter of growing concern for the program. While CIWA is continually seeking additional funding from existing and prospective partners, it takes a cautious approach by matching the pace of project preparation with funding availability. CIWA advancing investments across Africa Finally, the program s focus on facilitating cooperation that reaches across sectors for sustainable, climate-resilient growth in Sub-Saharan Africa makes it a key vehicle in support of the recently proclaimed SDGs. The strategic alignment of CIWA s support with national and regional priorities, as well as with World Bank and other development-partner interventions, continues to provide the basis for on-going engagement in Sub-Saharan Africa. The comparative advantage of the CIWA program under the auspices of the World Bank is outlined in detail below Comparative advantage CIWA is a unique program through which development partners and the World Bank are leveraging the expertise, convening power and resources of the Bank for managing and developing transboundary water resources in Africa. This is the primary rationale for the World Bank to lead and host the CIWA program. The World Bank ensures systematic and prudent management oversight of entrusted funds, owing to its credible reputation as a trustee of more than $25 billion dollars annually. Besides, the World Bank has vast experience in program delivery with the highest level of technical capacity, collaborative partnerships with recipient countries and a global operational platform. In the water sector, the Bank s team is recognized for its world-class expertise as well as its extensive experience in project design and implementation. This technical capacity and broad experience enables the Bank to play a catalytic role in fostering cooperative water resources management and development. CIWA is a unique program leveraging on WB convening power, credible reputation, expertise and global presence The following table expands upon this, detailing the Bank s comparative advantage and suitability as host institution for CIWA. Table 5: Comparative advantage Comparative theme advantage Explanation Convening Power and Fostering Collaboration It is a neutral party and has extensive partnerships with both recipient countries and global collaborators. It has the convening power to mobilize multiple stakeholders, including riparian governments, donors, investors and other interested parties. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 23

37 Comparative theme advantage Explanation It has established a reputation as a neutral mediator bringing together parties to collaborate on international waters development. It has strong technical expertise, including doing similar work through the Nile Basin Trust Fund (NBTF), South Asia Water Initiative (SAWI) and Water Partnership Program (WPP). It has a broad perspective on economic development and has the ability to mobilize expertise from across the relevant sectors. Technical Expertise and Work in Africa It has established a reputation for work in international rivers in several of Africa s river basins and is also engaged in supporting the water sector at a national level in many countries. It has a broad range and depth of multi-sectoral technical expertise that it can use to support detailed analytical assessment of strategic and investment options as well as the design, development and oversight of projects. The Bank s primary function and one of its major strengths is as provider of investment financing to support economic growth which corresponds directly with CIWA s objectives. Trust Fund Management It has expertise and track record in managing trust funds. Impeccable systems, processes and protocols Extensive and unique presence across SSA Alignment with national and regional objectives It has tried and tested fiduciary and operational instruments and procedures, including extensive safeguards. The Bank has a multi-sectoral presence in most African countries and is engaged with governments at a strategic level in the promotion of growth and poverty reduction. It is thus uniquely placed to provide strategic input and guidance to transboundary water programs as well as linking national and regional perspectives. Observations from interviews pointed towards an alignment of CIWA s objectives with that of the regions and basins in Africa. This is very significant especially given the contextual and hydro-political diversity of the basins and regions. Beneficiary perspectives on the CIWA program highlight that since the program is demand-driven, it offers flexibility in terms of tailoring support to beneficiary needs. CIWA s Strategic Framework notes that all CIWA s work is demand-driven 16, and this was confirmed by interviewees who also noted that this ensure that it meets the needs on the ground in maximising basin and member state beneficiation. In being a demand-driven program, respondents highlighted CIWA s flexibility in tailoring support to beneficiary needs. In addition, CIWA notes that TTLs have been extremely supportive in identifying 16 Demand takes various forms including requests from RBOS and RECs, requests during Consultative Group meetings, and assessments made by the World Bank during implementation of activities which are relevant to CIWA (CIWA, 2013) Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 24

38 major technical assistance programs. Thus, clients of CIWA noted that the kinds of projects that are being supported speak to beneficiary needs. CIWA interventions are aligned with national and regional objectives, and considered highly relevant by recipients. The need to convert upstream projects into bankability was aptly captured by one continental partner, we should come out of technical assistance and now we need to design and build infrastructure projects, through engagement with private sector and governments,the collaboration should take a different direction to encourage investment. The same sentiments were shared by an RBO representative who indicated that people (beneficiaries) want to see some things on the ground above and over the analytical work upstream activities of institutional development. We would like to see infrastructure projects on the ground. In dealing with infrastructure, CIWA s Strategic Framework notes that it engages with infrastructure in promoting and improving investment in many types of water-related infrastructure, and that its focus is on upstream work helps to improve the quality of investments, thus leading to more sustainable investments. This results from a stronger linkage between investments and the Basin Framework and CIWA s support for environmental and social analysis. In addition, CIWA is working to improve linkages with capital markets which it feels could support in closing the gap in funding Africa s infrastructure (CIWA, 2013). Thus, the need for hard infrastructure projects (as articulated by some of the respondents) must be balanced with what CIWA is intending to achieve as well its available purse. CIWA is doing difficult upstream work which is largely demand driven and flexible to deal with the different approaches required across Africa Programmatic progress to date As indicated earlier, the CIWA program s objective is to strengthen cooperative management and development of international waters in Sub-Saharan Africa to assist in achieving sustainable climateresilient growth. In order to accomplish this objective, CIWA supports the institutions that manage and develop the basins, catalyzes and enables transformative water-related investments, and facilitates information gathering and sharing on the benefits of cooperation. The CIWA 2015 Annual Report (CIWA, 2015) provides a synopsis of program level results against set targets. It should be noted from the outset that, as with all infrastructure preparation projects, information sharing efforts, and institutional strengthening work, the impact of any support provided may only be realized after many years. It is against this background that the review team analysed the progress made by the program. The indicators, targets and progress towards the attainment of the PDOs are outlined below. Table 6: Overview of progress against the PDO Indicator Target for FY15 Progress against target i US$8 billion (value of potential projects influenced by CIWA) US$7.6 billion in potential investments influenced by CIWA; US$1.3 billion in mobilized investments influenced by CIWA Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 25

39 ii 10 million (number of potential 43 million potential beneficiaries of projects influenced by beneficiaries of projects influenced by CIWA; 5.6 million direct beneficiaries of mobilized CIWA) investments influenced by CIWA Table 7 below lists the potential investment projects influenced by the program where preparation studies allow for estimation of investment values and project beneficiaries. Table 7: Potential investments influenced by CIWA (CIWA, 2015) Table 5 below lists those investment projects influenced by CIWA that have thus far mobilized resources. Table 8: Mobilized investments influenced by CIWA (CIWA, 2015) Table 9 provides an overview of all the four IRs, their targets and progress against targets. As illustrated in Table 6 below, overall progress per Intermediate Results (IR) of the program indicate a general positive progress for the program where four targets were fully achieved, two targets partially achieved and only one target not achieved. Despite this seeming success, there is a need to focus on improvement in areas where targets were not met. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 26

40 Table 9: Overview of progress against the IRs (CIWA, 2015) Focal Area Target for FY15 Progress against target IR 1 IR 2 Six relevant institutions with projects in operation that contribute to strengthening regional cooperation and Fully achieved integration Four strategic analyses conducted that will be used to illustrate the evidence base for cooperation Partially achieved Five relevant institutions with projects in operation that improve water and climate risk management and/or investment Fully achieved operation coordination Four investment opportunities with regional benefits influenced by projects in operation Fully achieved IR 3 IR 4 Three institutions with projects in operation that improve the approach to sustainable investment planning and bankable Fully achieved investment preparation Four basin institutions with projects in operation that contribute Partially achieved (sub-indicator to strengthening stakeholder engagement and coordination, 50 on gender & poverty not percent of which include organizations representing the achieved) interests of women and/or the poor Two basins with increased water resources management and development information in the public domain Not achieved Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 27

41 Figure 9: Funding allocation per basin (CIWA, 2013; 2014; 2015) Figure 9 above illustrates programmatic shift and progress towards funding allocation. Notably, program funding allocation improved from 3 sustained basins (Nile, Volta and Zambezi) in FY2013 to include Niger in FY2014. Moreover, the funds allocated also improved towards a more equitable and balanced portfolio across basins, although the Nile and Zambezi basins still receive the largest allocations respectively. Figure 10: Allocation per region (CIWA, 2015) With regards to funding allocation per region, Figure 10 illustrates an increasingly equitable balance in terms of funds allocation per region. East Africa has historically received the largest allocation followed by Southern Africa and West Africa respectively. Although the allocations vary from one fiscal year to the other since 2013, there is a general recognition that the allocation is balanced. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 28

42 Figure 11: Area of support Figure 11 illustrates an increasingly balanced support towards soft and hard projects within the program. Whilst support for soft projects was significantly higher at 59% in FY2014, with infrastructure support (soft and large) having a combined 41%, there is a balance in FY2015, where support for soft and hard investments is 50% apiece. This shift might imply that as more upstream work is finalised, more investments might be shifting towards infrastructure support. Figure 12: Partner type Figure 12 illustrates an increasing proportion of recipient executed projects by RBOs, from 78% in FY2013 to 83% in FY2015. The other partners, including REC, NGO, BE/KM have largely remained the same from FY2014 to FY2015. Overall, the increasing shift towards RBO executed projects has the benefit of improving ownership. The progress and process flow of institutions with projects in operation that improve the approach to sustainable investment planning and bankable investment preparation is best illustrated under figure 13, while the progress and key elements for strengthening cooperation is illustrated by figure 14. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 29

43 Figure 13: CIWA advancing investments across Africa Figure 14: CIWA strengthening cooperation Financial reporting and progress As of June 30, 2015, US$61.7 million has been allocated to CIWA projects and activities, which effectively has assigned most of the available funding (97 percent) to activities under preparation or implementation. Furthermore, the majority of available funds (US$47.7 million, or 75 percent) are Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 30

44 allocated to CIWA s four priority basins - Nile, Niger, Volta, and Zambezi. Table 10 presents a detailed account of the allocation of available funding. Table 10: Detailed account of allocation of available funding (CIWA, 2015) By the end of FY15, the program had committed a cumulative US$56.2 million in grants, of which US$11.3 million was disbursed in projects and activities. Although the pace of disbursement in FY15 more than tripled from the previous year, it is clear that a lot still needs to be done to improve disbursements. To this end, it is envisaged that the pace of disbursements will increase as the full portfolio is now in full implementation. Table 11 provide a summary of the overall cumulative allocations, commitments, disbursements, commitment balance, and current pipeline activity amounts. Table 11: Allocation, commitment, disbursement, and pipeline amounts (CIWA, 2015) Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 31

45 Overall, the program has been very cost efficient in its management, benefiting from the solid and embedded World Bank financial management and monitoring systems put in place at program inception. However, there are concerns that attaining the US$200 million might not be possible given that the program is already at mid-point having only raised less than US$70 million as of June 30, Lessons learnt There is a general understanding and acknowledgement that CIWA supported interventions in key basins are sustainable and stand to yield benefits in the long run. This is further supported by the great need for transboundary cooperation in Africa, and CIWA s focus on transboundary water resources management and cooperation is considerably important. The Nile, Niger, Volta and Zambezi basins provide good examples. In these sustained basins, there is a general sense that the program is supporting the attainment of long-term objectives in addressing regional integration, poverty alleviation and economic development among other key issues (though there are challenges with how some RBOs function). Notably, however, there is also a strong realisation and appreciation of the program s opportunistic element through the catalytic sub-program. Combined, these provide a balanced portfolio of interventions in terms of geographic reach, sustained and opportunistic engagements. The program is doing very well in this regard. CIWA s sustained engagements in Basins reaps longer term rewards. One interviewee noted the gains that CIWA has made in the Nile Basin regarding fostering cooperation. Due to conflicting interests and other reasons, countries such as Sudan and Egypt froze relations with the Nile initiative. However, Sudan returned to ENSAP/NBI and there is positive anticipation that Egypt will likewise find a way to get back. Through CIWA supported intervention on cooperation have largely resulted in Sudan coming back on-board, further attesting to the positive outcomes from CIWA. The key lesson is that the difficult upstream work that CIWA engages in has the potential as an enabler for unlocking long-term benefits. Facilitating cooperation through diplomacy has kept countries engaged. The presence of the World Bank across Africa and its ability to convene is a strategic advantage from which CIWA can easily benefit. Moreover, the World Bank is not only present in Africa but also in other regions of the world, thus giving the Bank a comparative advantage in leveraging experience from elsewhere. Whilst leveraging on this strategic advantage, there is a sense that the World Bank still needs to improve engagement with other continental partners. This is a key a lesson about having clear strategic intent. World Bank has convening power, broad expertise and experience from elsewhere - CIWA benefits from this. The CIWA program implementation mainly occurs through recipients executed projects by RBOs and RECs, being the direct beneficiaries of program. The member states and communities are largely indirect beneficiaries. Since the CIWA program is demand-driven, in general, the relevance and ownership of projects is quite high. It is not surprising to note that more than 80% of the CIWAsupported projects are recipient executed. One interviewee noted for instance that the relevance of projects is decided upon by the riparian governments through the RBO/REC, and it is therefore the Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 32

46 RBO/REC that determines the appropriateness/relevance of the CIWA-supported projects (see NBD). The demand driven nature of the program seems to have fostered a strong sense of ownership among recipients and being largely relevant. This is a key lesson about ownership and longer term commitment. The demand-driven and flexible nature of the program renders it highly relevant to beneficiaries Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 33

47 4. Improving the Programme 4.1. Improving Programme modalities Strategic issues Strategic Intent The nature of program is such that support by CIWA is requested and this initiates a process of project co-design and development. Therefore, the program has developed organically over space and time and this makes it difficult to have specific strategic clarity of intent. The nature of such programs is often one of difficulty in finding clear and measurable objectives, and being able to work with these same objectives consistently. Importantly, in being demand-driven the program does remain both flexible and relevant, however, despite the difficulties the program does need to articulate a strategic intent for the program in order to guide the program in terms achieving its objectives, but equally importantly to be able to place the program within the array of programs being undertaken across the continent. This strategic intent has both internally facing and externally facing benefits. Hence, there is a real concern that if CIWA does not strengthen this it will be difficult for the program to attract other donors/funders to support the program and potentially difficult create alignment and leveraging opportunities with other programs and initiatives. This can be linked to comments made later in this review regarding the need for a Theory of Change Therefore, there is need for an improved strategic intent at program level without losing the benefit that comes with demand driven projects. Project pipeline From the review of documentation it was not entirely clear as to the sequencing of projects and whether those projects under the catalytic sub-program were intended to be developed and migrated into the basins sub-program and whether there were other basin projects that were expected to emerge. If this is the case then it was not clear as to the types of criteria that would be used to shift from one sub-program to another. Part of this uncertainty was also fuelled by the fact that the basin projects do take a number of years to get to implementation. This lack of clarity in terms of the projects pipeline further undermines the strategic intent of the program and creates further uncertainty as to how CIWA fits in with other programs and where funding support is required. Noting that many development partners want to provide targeted funding (either geographically or technically, or both), it becomes essential to understand the longer term pipeline of projects. Developing a strategic planning case for a pipeline of projects is essential. Strategic communications Arguably, there is some misunderstanding of the strategic intent of the program within the basins. This emerged through interviews where the focus of projects was questioned and where there were requests for projects to focus on community based projects and /or small scale localised infrastructure projects. This is in part due to limited, or the lack of, clear strategic communication. This lack of clarity regarding strategic intent has often resulted in various perceptions being created about the program. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 34

48 Despite the intensive efforts of World Bank staff within the basins, there is a perception that CIWA does not do small-scale projects, but only focuses on large scale investments. This is further underlined by the perception that the CIWA program is not seen as working closely enough with local partners. To some extent this is exacerbated by the fact that the vast majority of the program is recipient executed, and as such the World Bank staff are key stakeholders to the projects. It is important for CIWA to provide strengthened communications tools. CIWA can undoubtedly, where relevant, have projects that impact at a range of project and geographic scales, however, it is not clear to stakeholders and even some World Bank staff when and where this would be appropriate. Of course, in some instances it is more appropriate to leverage the possibilities of other programs. The sense is that although CIWA might be one of the largest water sector support funds in Africa, if it improves its engagement and collaboration with other existing funds and continental actors, the program and project ownership and impact in Africa will be more effective and sustainable, and garner further funding support. The strengthening of strategic communications will be a key step in creating an aligned vision of the program and will support the drive to bring more funders into the program. Leveraging lessons The fact that CIWA is operating in several basins on the continent gives it an advantage in terms of delivering synergistic support and sharing knowledge across basins, and there is a sense that CIWA should leverage that further through the catalytic sub-program. This is a clear strategic advantage for CIWA and the program needs to make more of this through an improved knowledge management approach. The Basin Advisory Committees can play a key role in sharing this knowledge and in leveraging basin level opportunities, however, this will require that the BACs are strengthened. The thought leadership that potentially emerges from the programme through strengthened knowledge management is extremely valuable and provides possibilities for working more synergistically with other programs and initiatives across the continent. Guideline documents The importance of CIWA s own guides and documents must not be underestimated in terms of supporting the strategic communications and the strengthening of the programs strategic intent, in that these guidelines provide a richer understanding of the program and its modalities. These documents have developed organically and have been amended as the program has developed. This gives the sense that these are still working documents and this is exacerbated by some inconsistencies across these documents. In addition to improving these documents they also need to be more readily available through the World Bank website so that stakeholders can access these to enrich their understanding of the program and its approach. The improvement of CIWA guidelines and program documents is essential to improve understanding of the program and its modalities Gender The program has made significant improvements regarding the elevation of gender and poverty. However, there are still some gaps in terms of improved ways of articulating the gender and poverty Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 35

49 intent of CIWA. There is a sense that gender and poverty elements are currently under reported within CIWA. This implies that more support is required at basin level in addressing gender. To this end, a gender strategy might go a long way in ensuring that that gender reporting and monitoring is articulated clearly and managed across all levels within CIWA. Given these challenges, there is a clear need for a gender strategy to guide reporting and monitoring on gender mainstreaming within CIWA supported interventions. Strategic planning There is a sense of some disjuncture between PMU and regional WB staff. Notably, it was reported that the WB used to have annual strategic planning sessions but these have since ceased occurring. It was clear that some of the staff working on the project did not have a common understanding of some aspects of the project. It was suggested, especially by regional/basin WB staff that the reviving such strategic planning session annually or bi-annually might go a long way in fostering a common position and understanding within the program at the WB level. This would additionally support the knowledge exchange that is not currently taking pace as well as it could. Reintroduction of strategic planning events for World Bank staff supporting CIWA will support alignment in staff understanding and approach, will foster exchange of experience and will support a broader programmatic review of actual progress and strategic direction. Strategic action planning Recognising that the CIWA program has grown organically, the World Bank has also passed through some key phases of lesson learning that have enabled the program to develop over time and the World Bank to improve upon its management of the program. It was generally recognised during the interviews that in the last 2 years the management of the program has improved considerably. Prior to this it was noted that limited effort and resources were being applied by the World Bank to the program. During these initial phases of the program, it is clear that the trust of the development partners was broken and as such these partners used the Advisory Committee structure to play a stronger oversight role. This needs to shift and the World Bank needs to take full account of its fiduciary responsibilities to manage this program. These issues are further discussed under the program structure, but it is of significant strategic concern that CIWA regain the trust of its donor partners, that a strategic action plan be developed that provides a plan for addressing the key strategic actions that will enble the World Bank to effectively and efficiently run this program. The nature of this action plan is articulated in the recommendations section of this report. The development of strategic action plan to address challenges faced by CIWA will importantly support in regaining the trust of the development partners Funding The CIWA programme is supported by a multi-donor trust fund (MDTF) administered by the World Bank. This trust fund, programmatic in nature, sees funds committed to support CIWA s broad Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 36

50 thematic framework, and not specific projects although it is clear that partners do want to support certain initiatives and so some soft-earmarking does take place. Broadly, this allows the programme more flexibility to deploy funds. Including existing initiatives, CIWA has an identified the aspirational target of having a pipeline of projects in excess of US$200 million. The programme initially sought to mobilise this amount over a 10-year period from its inception. However, it has faced challenges in fulfilling this intent, with a current envelope of approximately US$68 million pledged by its small group of current partners of the European Commission, Denmark, United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands. There is hence a clear and perhaps urgent need, for CIWA to not only source additional funding to suitably cover its pipeline, but also to expand potential funding streams and reduce reliance on its core existing partners. Funding Strategy When one examines the progress of the programme to date it is clear that the program faces some challenges that impact upon the financial status and management: Processes to get projects to implementation take time and in the order of two years. The rigour and time applied to these processes does potentially provide a strong basis for the project to thereafter kick-off quickly and to rapidly ramp-up the project expenditure, however, this does significantly influence program expenditure during those two years of getting project approval. Some 83% of the program is being managed by the RBOs and as such CIWA is in the hands of the RBOs to ensure ongoing project progress and expenditure. To date, of the US$ 61,672,637 that has been allocated, an amount of US$ 11,322,668 has been dispersed. There is not the strategic clarity as to whether CIWA continues beyond In reviewing the program financials (Figure 15, below), it is observed that funds dispersed are approximately 17% of the current funding envelope. Whilst this is considered to be low for this midterm juncture, it is important to note that CIWA has spent extensive time getting an impressive suite of projects ready for implementation. We can therefore expect disbursements to increase considerably during the second half of the program. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 37

51 Figure 15: Allocated and disbursed funds Nonetheless, it seems that the aspirational target of US$200 million will not be required for the program to deliver on its existing suite of projects and any possible new projects, noting the time frames required to get projects prepared and approved for implementation. A key question then becomes the time-frames for CIWA and whether there will be continuation of the program beyond During the October 2015 Advisory Committee meeting this was discussed and it was in principal agreed that the program should carry on beyond It is therefore imperative that CIWA s approach to fund raising be strengthened. The strengthening of the fund raising approach must be based around three key pillars, namely: There is a need for a dedicated fund raiser so that there is a structured engagement with potential donors A funding strategy needs to be developed that looks to other conventional and possible nonconventional donors, and provides an ongoing approach to funding for the program as it develops There is a need to diversify the funding base for CIWA so that there is not an over reliance on the existing donors A brief review of possible other funders/ funding opportunities is included in Appendix 4. This review has been based upon desktop research and is only indicative Capacity In terms of capacity, there are multi-faceted issues and concerns that were raised and require redress. Capacity issues relate to both World Bank (PMU and regional) as well as capacity challenges for CIWA recipients. For the CIWA donors, there is a need to have a clear indication on the preferred modality for capacity addressing capacity issues (hiring staff vs consultants). For the donors, staffing within Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 38

52 CIWA seems to be of significant concern, especially given the number of dedicated resources in comparison to the size of the program. For the PMU, there is a concern that the 6% cap restricts CIWA s manoeuvrability regarding staffing. Some of the pertinent capacity issues are outlined below. WB/CIWA staff over-stretched Concerns have been raised about the lack of capacity of Bank staff to attend to CIWA project issues. This applies at both PMU and regional/basin levels. PMU staff are stretched in providing program support and administrative function whereas TTLs are also over-stretched and working on different projects. To mitigate this challenge, it was suggested during the interviews that there is a need for the Bank to add a few more full-time resources/staff to work on CIWA. However, the counter-argument proffered by PMU was that having additional dedicated staff to CIWA would mean that staff would not be fully occupied. Other inputs noted that if the Bank appointed a few permanent CIWA staff this would indicate that the Bank is indeed taking this programme seriously. It is noted that the current structure with staff having operational portfolios for the bank results in these operational teams having relationships in the basins as well as having the strategic vision for needs in the basin. This is a major advantage of CIWA and does support the opportunity to coordinate with other initiatives. This does need to be balanced with dedicated staff who can help accelerate CIWA projects. This is not to say that the staff working under the CIWA banner are not doing a good job and the interviews reflected a recognition of the value of the program and the hard work of the staff. So for example, there has been remarkable involvement and interaction between/among the CIWA team and TTLs of the WB with other stakeholders in the Nile Basin (see NBD). It was reported that the NBD staff are in constant liaison with CIWA & the TTL regarding project activities through skype what I like with CIWA, is their involvement. A representative from the WB/CIWA supervises project activities. In this instance, CIWA is providing sufficient support when called upon. A number of other examples have been provided during the interviews of staff being committed and working long hours to provide support. A resource and capacity strategy is urgently required to guide and strengthen the program. Although the Table 12 provides some useful information regarding staffing, it is difficult to make a full assessment of staffing needs without doing a full analysis of staff, their job profiles and the range of projects that they are required to work upon. The intention is not to undergo a job analysis process. However, there are areas of the program that do require a fuller effort to redress challenges that are being faced and an analysis of staffing will be important. It is noted that the World Bank undertaking a restructuring process, but this has not been engaged through the MTR. The table below illustrates the CIWA staffing levels as of June 30, The way the World Bank works enables staff to work across projects. As illustrated in Table 12, the program only has 4.5 full time staff (FTS). For a program this size, FTS compliment of 4.5 persons is considerably low. The program management need to seriously consider additional FTS resources given that staff at PMU and regional/basin level are already over-stretched. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 39

53 Table 12: CIWA staffing (as provided by CIWA in October, 2015) Sub-program Staff week Labour Travel Other* Total No of FTS Niger ,088 41,443 39, , Nile (NBD) 3 11,419 1, , Volta ,714 48,164 32, , CIWA Zambezi 25 90,732 45,531 54, , Orange-Senqu 3 19,991 13, , SADC 7 28,841 5, , Catalytic SP ,458 22, , , PMU ,607 13, , , Total , , ,557 1,684, NBTF Nile (NCORE) ,999 45,971 69, , *Mainly includes costs on short term consultants and firm consulting services. Nominal contractual service also included. Not including costing of strategic directions and guidance from the Bank s GP leadership team Retaining institutional memory The need to augment staffing capacity cannot be over-stated. Noting the current re-structuring within the Bank, there are concerns about the program s institutional memory. This is particularly important given how institutional relationships help CIWA to deliver, based on the trust build over years. Hence, there is real fear that the on-going shuffling of Bank staff might have a negative effect in terms of disturbing the operational experience, connectivity, and institutional memory that the TTLs and others have built over the years. Importantly, the Bank also recognised that although it has institutional enablers, there is no surplus, hence, the need to consider staffing models that create that surplus. The surplus model entail focusing long term CIWA money into staff that operate at the basin that will make the delivery of work more practical. However, such surplus cannot be achieved using the Bank s current staffing model. An appropriate and responsive staffing model is required urgently to augment the current capacity constraints. An appropriate model will address some of the following staffing issues: Dedicated specialist staff needed to service key areas such as gender mainstreaming and monitoring and evaluation across the full program, at both program level and basin level; Dedicated staff/resources for coordinated fundraising for CIWA; Dedicated staff to support the ongoing administration of the program and improvement of the key strategic and operational documents; and Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 40

54 Dedicated CIWA staff in the regions to assist the TTLs, the RBOs and RECs to keep processes moving and to assist in building capacity in regional institutions. The additional support will be critical in assisting the projects and to redress the monitoring of their performance. To this end, a resource and capacity strategic action plan is urgently required. Such a plan will assist in detailing resource mobilization, augmenting Basin and PMU Staffing, strengthening strategic communications, and strengthening knowledge management. Although the WB/CIWA has institutional enablers, the program needs to consider staffing models that create capacity to aid delivery. Capacity issues of recipients RECs/RBOs The capacity at basin and regional level in the recipient RBO s and RECs is important in order to take approved regionally executed projects through to implementation. However, capacity at basin level is equally stretched and under-resourced to support and unlock processes, as well as support monitoring and reporting. It has been noted that CIWA faces challenges in the sense that funds have been committed and but are not being dispersed, and this can be translated as the difficulties relating to management in transboundary contexts and/or capacity within those regions to keep processes moving. The TTLs do play an important role in providing this support, but the TTLs are also stretched. The MTR has often reflected that the true beneficiaries of the CIWA support is the RBOs through their strengthening and so increased efforts to develop capacity in the basins would only be welcomed by the RBOs. Strengthen knowledge management There is a sense that the program does not currently have adequate arrangements for capturing the richness of the information and knowledge at basin level. Hence, there is needs to capture the program s rich experience from basin scale to program level. Knowledge management systems need to be improved in order to capture the rich experience developed at project level Processes Approval processes Through the interviews a number of comments were received about the length of time that it takes to obtain the necessary project approvals. Granted, these approval processes are indeed long, however, it is not a design fault of the program, but does appear to be the nature of these type of long-term intervention. There is recognition of the complexity of transboundary basin management and that the approval processes at RBO level can be time consuming. Without undertaking any specific or detailed analysis, the MTR team recognises that within the transboundary basin that the RBO Council and /or a Technical Task Team may only meet twice a year, and as a result getting project concepts agreed upon can take time. However, there is recognition that the CIWA/World Bank processes are also time consuming. Yet there is equally a firm thematic that underlines the strength of the CIWA program as being the rigour of the World Bank systems that provide surety for the various donor partners. The divide in these Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 41

55 comments is then between the recipients of support, who potentially would like to see funds flowing as quickly as possible, and the funders/managers, who despite wanting the funds to flow want the rigour in approval to ensure that funds are directed and managed appropriately. There is; therefore, a need to articulate the processes clearly and where possible, investigate how these can be streamlined. It is envisaged that if and when the steps and processes is communicated clearly, there are significant gains to be realised in terms of efficiency. There is need to articulate the CIWA processes clearly to enable focused responsiveness by recipients. Additional layer of bureaucracy Associated with the comment above, there was some comment that the additional layer of bureaucracy introduced by CIWA is unnecessary and potentially a duplication of the WB procedures and this then results in protracted approval times. Figure 16 does reflect that on average it does take in the order of two years to take a project from Project Concept Note through to project effectiveness. The review has not examined the length of time that it takes from the initial discussions through to Justification Note and preparation of the CSP, and the Project Concept Note, however, it is assumed that this would take in the order of a year. Notably, it is recognised that this length of time is not just due to the CIWA team, but does involve the necessary basin processes. In effect, this additional layer of bureaucracy, which is effectively the engagement of AC in this process and the development of the Justification Note and the CSP, is questioned when the existing World Bank systems are understood to be so rigorous. Figure 16: Preparation time for RE grants (CIWA, 2015) There is clearly a sense that the additional layer of bureaucracy is a result of earlier phases of the program where the management of the program was not as strong as it should have been. The management of the program has been strengthened in recent years and hence it has been noted in Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 42

56 this MTR that the role of the AC should shift and the accountability for the program be more firmly placed on the WB. With this shift it may be possible to look at streamlining these processes where possible. At the same time there is recognition that projects in transboundary contexts take extensive time to initiate and take to implementation. These concerns may also be ameliorated by a stronger and clearly planned out project pipeline. While the AC needs to step back from transaction advisory oversight, the WB/CIWA needs to step up in terms of operational performance to calm the concerns of the AC. Communicating systems and processes It has been noted that the newer projects seem to struggle and reflect frustration with the processes in order to obtain approval. It does seem that these processes could be better described and captured in a brief and pragmatic document so that those newer basins and projects fully understand the processes and the time frames associated with these Disbursement and delivery issues It is widely acknowledged that the capacity issues within RBOs is holding WB/CIWA hostage. This is despite the fact that CIWA is held accountable for program and project performance. Hence, it is critical to note from the outset that the process for approval will influence ability of the program to deliver. For recipient executed projects, the rate of disbursements is dependent on the efficacy of the RBO capacity and responsiveness thereby impacting CIWAs ability to influence progress. It is therefore not surprising that disbursement levels are low at this stage and requires redress. Despite these challenges, it is widely acknowledged across basins that CIWA has put in place frameworks, procurement process and financial reporting support systems that assist in providing transparency and accountability at REC/RBO and project level (ZMC1; NBD). However, there is still need for clearly communicating the processes to improve efficiency across the program. Given these challenges, CIWA is unlikely to attain PDO targets of funds directly mobilised and people directly benefitting. Although disbursements have significantly improved in the current FY, the lack of capacity and efficacy by RBOs has tended to slow disbursements Risk management Risks are identified and managed both at program and basin levels. At the program and basin level these risks are categorised into the risk areas captured in Table 13. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 43

57 Table 13: Program and basin level risks Program level risk category Basin level risk category Project Stakeholder Risk Political and developmental, Operational, Financial, and Sustainability. Implementing Agency Risk (Capacity and Governance) Project Risk (Design, Social and Environmental; Program and Donor; Delivery Monitoring and Sustainability) Overall Implementation Risk The risk management framework for the program does need to be included in the Operational Guideline articulating the reporting requirements. At program level, the existing framework is appropriate and could possibly be strengthened by including a risk area regarding the monitoring and evaluation of program delivery and impact. At the basin level, there is a need to improve upon the Systematic Operations Risk-rating Tool in order to reflect upon how risks are being managed. In discussing the risk management of CIWA during the interviews it was reflected that CIWA is good at identifying risks, as this is an integral part of the project identification, project preparation and ultimately the selection under the basin sub-program. In fact risk is articulated in the Justification Note, the Project Concept Note, and the Project Appraisal Document. Clearly the Project Appraisal Documents do reflect risk and the mitigation of these risks in some detail and this mirrors the fact that projects in transboundary contexts are inherently risky. However, during the interviews it was noted that the program is not so effective in managing these risks (CHOM1; DNF). This insight may have differing dimensions namely that actions are not taken to mitigate risks or that there is not effective reporting on risk management. It was difficult in this review to effectively assess whether actions are being taken to mitigate risks, and it is conceivable that this varies from basin to basin, but it was possible to assess the degree of reporting as an indicator of the management of risk. The program level risk analysis is presented in the CIWA Proposal for Development Partners March 2014 and then as Annex 4 of the 2014 Annual Report. The 2014 Annual Report rightly notes that the program level risk whilst informed by the basin and project specific risk analyses, does not reflect the detail of these basin and project risks and mitigation actions. There are clear linkages in structure between the different levels of analyses and similar themes flow through the two levels of analyses albeit using slightly different terminology. This risk framework and the program approach to risk management is not described in the Operational Guidelines as it needs to be. For a program of this nature and magnitude it is necessary that there is a well-structured risk framework supported by an appropriate and thorough reporting system. Whilst there is some level of reporting on programmatic risks in Annex 4, it is not sufficient and it is suggested that risks against this framework be improved and incorporated into the body of the Annual Report as a key element of the report. The existing risk framework needs to be strengthened by including an appropriate and thorough reporting system. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 44

58 From the review of documentation, the existing risk framework at the program level does cover the most important risk areas. Some concerns have been raised through the MTR as to whether there is sufficient detailed monitoring and reporting at the basin level. This is potentially symptomatic of capacity at the basin level (within the Bank or the RBO) which is considered in the risk framework. However, noting the considerable concern regarding the appropriateness of the Results Framework it is worthwhile considering introducing a risk area related to this and the monitoring and evaluation of program. Linked to the earlier discussions in this MTR, the mitigation actions for the sustainability risk area should include the development of broader strategic intent for the program linked to the array of other continental and regional initiatives. At the basin level, the risk analyses are structured around project stakeholder risk, implementing agency risk and project risk, with this all being summed up by an overall implementation risk, as noted above. These risk areas are not consistent and uses some slightly different risk areas which may prove problematic in providing a rating at approval in the Implementation Status and Results Report. In addition, the purpose of the Systematic Operations Risk-rating Tool is to reflect the management of risks at the basin level. None of these reports reviewed reflected rating at approval and only some had captured some more detailed discussion on the risk status beyond the status rating. It is understood that this risk tool is part of the World Bank system and beyond the control of CIWA, it is also recognised that this tool in itself is relatively new, but the detail of reporting on what is, or is not being done to manage risks could be improved Programme Management Structure Program management structure The management and governance of the program takes place at two levels namely at program level, focused on strategy and activities across the program, and at basin level with the focus upon the detailed activities within a basin program. At the program level structures include the Consultative Group, the Advisory Committee and the Project Management Unit (See Figure 2). These structures provide a balance between strategic support and guidance on the positioning and intent of the program (Consultative Group), the strategic content of the program to meet the programs objectives (Advisory Committee) and the provision of technical input, oversight, quality assurance and day-to-day management and administration of the program (PMU). During the interviews the comments reflected a recognition of the value-add of this structure with a balance between strategic guidance and fiduciary responsibility. There was some comment that the roles and responsibilities require clarification. A review of the Operational Guide does indicate that the membership, roles and responsibilities are well articulated. The modalities of these structures may need reconsidering based upon experience as well as observations from the MTR. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 45

59 Strengthening strategic partner engagements There is an important and critical role in engaging with key strategic partners at both the global and continental levels. This does provide strategic guidance and will support the development of a strategic understanding of how the various programs that support water resource management, climate resilience, and sustainable development all work in concert. In this regard, the value add of external CG is recognised. There are some questions regarding representivity on the CG and how this could be expanded to be a little more inclusive, especially of organisations that provide meaningful opportunities to link in with other programs and initiatives. This will support strategic coordination. From minutes and discussion documents it does appear that there are some challenges in consistency of attendance. This issue is challenging but a more formalised CG will only strengthen the strategic guidance that CIWA gains, but also powerfully unlocks a broader strategic coordination between programs. It is the considered view of the MTR that the CG is not as strong as needed. If it is to continue, there is need to strengthen the CG. However, if it cannot be strengthened, then it is better to disband/discontinue the CG and to utilise other platforms and events (ie African Water Week) to obtain the strategic guidance needed. It is also noted that the strategic engagement at basin level should be strengthened, aligned to Intermediate Result Area 4, where the program has not yet yielded all that it could. The CG is not as strong and effective as needed, and requires strengthening. Failing that, the CG should be disbanded while ensuring that the strengthening of engagement happens at the basin level through the Basin Advisory Committee. Alternatives for more continental level engagements should be sought. Advisory Committee It is clear from the MTR that there are varied opinions about the AC in terms of structure and mandate in strengthening CIWA. Some of these views may be perception, but nonetheless perceptions need to be managed. From one perspective, there is the perception that there is a tendency for the AC or its members to be too involved in the management of projects. The sense from the donors in this regard is that they do need to be able to justify expenditure and do as a result have some specific requirements in terms of information in order to support their own reporting requirements. The review of the Operational Guideline with regards to the role of the AC reflects that these roles are: Review of CIWA program strategy in order to provide guidance on the overall content and direction of the program and ensure the use of Trust Fund resources to meet the objectives of the program; Review of Justification Notes to assist with the decision for CIWA to begin sustained engagement in a prospective basin; Review of Project Concept Notes to assist with the decision for CIWA to allocate funding for specific projects in basins where CIWA has sustained engagement; Review of CIWA Support Plans as part of relevant Basin Advisory Committees in order to provide guidance on the content and direction of the program in basins where CIWA has Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 46

60 sustained engagement (this applies to basins where AC members have a particular interest, experience, or expertise; AC members are not expected to review all CSPs in detail); Provide feedback on planned and on-going projects to help ensure alignment with basin strategies and target results as well as with overall program strategy and target results; Review overall program implementation progress, financial management, and administration; Review of CIWA funding needs and promotion of participation of new donors to close funding gaps and support new program components; Encourage donor harmonization, either through the MDTF or bilaterally, for potential investments; Meet annually and if needed, consider a semi-annual meeting, virtually or in-person. These roles are strategic in nature and appear to be focused upon providing guidance, structured support and ultimately oversight. However, the structuring of the basin engagement process does reflect a revised role of endorsement. To the MTR team there does appear to be a governance mismatch in terms of this revised role of endorsement which potentially undermines the ability of CIWA to take full accountability for the program and then to deliver, monitor and report. Equally this places the AC in a position of not being able to hold CIWA fully accountable as they are compliant in the decision making process and the allocation of budget. It would therefore strengthen the program for the AC to play its strategic role of guidance and structured advisory support balanced with a firm oversight of the program. This will place a stricter burden on the World Bank to deliver, monitor and report. With this in mind the AC could hold one meeting per year to review progress and evaluate the Annual Report and then to provide strategic direction for the year ahead. The AC needs to play a strategic role of guidance, structured advisory support, and oversight whilst the WB needs to be more accountable for operational and performance issues. Basin Advisory Committee (BAC) The BAC plays an important role at the basin and project levels and the flexibility to build upon existing structures is appreciated in order to avoid duplication of structures. It has been noted that the lessons learned at the basin and project level are not being captured and shared as effectively as they should be. The BAC needs to be strengthened to enable more engagement and coordination at the basin level and to support an improved knowledge management approach within the program. Strengthening Basin Advisory Committees for improved knowledge management is a key aspect of strengthening CIWA. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 47

61 4.3. Improving Monitoring The need to report on progress is a key part of any program, but beyond that the reporting process becomes an important vehicle for transferring knowledge. Whilst CIWA has gone through an intensive start-up phase there is only limited access to the knowledge and experience that has been generated to date. This generally needs to be improved and the knowledge that the program has garnered over the last few years would not only be useful to other transboundary situations, but would also further assist in strategically placing this program Basin scale results framework It is widely acknowledged that every basin is unique, hence, the indicators in the results framework are adaptable to address the needs of each basin. There is a general sense of satisfaction with the design of the results framework at basin level, with some modifications to suit context and purpose. A number of interviews at basin level underscored this although the newer projects were less inclined to comment on the results frameworks as these have not had the opportunity to be tried and tested. It is noted that the real richness in terms of impact and the generation of lessons for future projects and initiatives lies within the projects at basin level and so having appropriate results frameworks at the project scale is critical for the program as a whole. Noting this it is observed that there are some weaknesses within the existing results frameworks that require redress at this juncture, so as to ensure that the impact of these projects can be assessed at a later stage upon completion of the project. This will be essential for the program to be able to assess impact at a later stage. These weaknesses include: There are, in some instances, no clear theory of change that articulates the intended impacts that the projects intend to have. Most of the indicators are not reflecting outcomes, but are more process oriented. So for example, with regards to the development of a charter the indicators over the years reflect whether is completed as opposed the fact that the charter clarifies roles and responsibilities, creates alignment, and strengthens governance and so forth. Many indicators are quantitative and misses the richness of qualitative indicators needed for strengthening of cooperation and development and climate resilience. From our limited view of internal WB systems there is very useful detail within these systems that underpins the targets for the results frameworks that would enrich understanding of progress. Attribution with regards to a number of indicators appears to be problematic and where the project is trying to capture results through its influence, this can only be done through contribution analysis, however, the indicators don't speak to tracking this kind of information. There are not always documented assumptions which is a critical part of being able to interpret results and track performance. Having noted the above the MTR team are under no mis-conceptions that the development of these results frameworks is easy and in fact clearly recognises that there are some real difficulties in designing appropriate results frameworks that are appropriate to international waters and have a Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 48

62 blend of qualitative and quantitative indicators. However, in order to be able to reflect impact at the next program review in five years, these results frameworks will need to be improved. Therefore, it will be essential to strengthen the results frameworks at basin level. In order to improve upon the results frameworks at basin level the following needs to happen. Basin level workshops need to be held to develop and agree upon a theory of change for each project. With the theory of change developed, results chains need to be developed so at reflect the connectivity between activities, outputs, outcomes and impact. These results chains should provide a mixture of short term and longer term interventions. Baselines need to be developed that are appropriate and linked to the actual contextual baseline within the basin ie not a baseline linked to CIWA processes. These need to be developed in partnership with the key stakeholders so as to create ownership and develop capacity for future monitoring. The engagement of a gender specialist at these basin level workshops will assist in tackling the challenges that the projects are having in addressing and reporting upon gender dimensions. Basin level workshops to develop a theory of change and improved results frameworks for projects is critical to program success Basin scale M&E The real richness of the program is at project level within the basins and as such the monitoring at this level is important for the program as a whole as well as providing a rich source of lessons for other projects and programs. The MTR generally would have liked to have seen more information and data available from the monitoring and reporting at this scale. However, it is noted that the reporting should not be onerous but rather efficient and effective. It is also noted that with a program of this nature that there are very definitely political sensitivities and nuances in processes that CIWA engages that could be hampered or even scuttled as a result of reporting. Project reporting Reporting is done every 6 months through the Implementation Status Results (ISR) reports. While these reports provide an indication of what has been achieved, there is a sense that: a) there isn t sufficient qualitative reporting against indicators; and b) that it is not always clear how the various interventions have resulted in the numbers that have been determined. These ISR Reports are a requirement of the WB and indeed provide a useful snapshot and quantitative review of progress. However, there are limited qualitative assessments and it is through these assessments that the detail of process and progress emerges. It is clear that some of these reports are better than others and also that certain projects have only been initiated more recently, however, this reporting does require improvement. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 49

63 There is a need to strengthen the reporting at project scale within the basins and that provides more detail as to process, progress and response. Basin support plans It was clear that not all WB staff were aligned in terms of understanding the nature and role of the CIWA Basin Support Plan. This tool is key in providing a bridge between the local stakeholders, the RBOs and the WB. Yet this uncertainty exists and this is an opportunity lost. Therefore, there is a need to strengthen these reports to really reflect the theory of change at basin level and to become a vehicle for structuring the lessons and knowledge that emerge through the project. The CIWA Basin Support Plans need to be reformulated and revised to reflect the basin theory of change and to provide a hub for the knowledge management within basin. RBO reporting There is a need for a little more detailed reporting at the basin level and this needs to be led by the RBOs. Noting that the WB systems are structured in a particular manner, this could be undertaken as a separate progress report. This could create improved ownership, and provides the opportunity to report on progress, risks and value for money in a more detailed manner. The role of RBOs in the reporting at basin level needs to be strengthened and this could be undertaken through a reporting mechanism apart from the World Bank systems. Value for Money Whilst the FY14 and FY15 Annual Reports did reflect on VFM at a programmatic level, there is a need to assess this at project/basin level where it will be more important to track progress. It is noted that many projects are only now being initiated, and so there is limited to no data available that can be used to reflect current progress. In order to support the developmental evaluation for the projects a suite of indicators and baselines will need to be developed for each project/basin. The ICF indicators whilst sometimes difficult to utilise do provide a meaningful first port of call for each basin. This will require capacity building support to assist the basins in undertaking this monitoring and the MTR would expect that the RBOs must take this on board as a key element of reporting The VFM reporting needs to be taken to basin level and the RBOs as executors of the projects need to track and report on this. Developmental evaluation Due to the magnitude and regional significance of the CIWA project, we recommend that the initiative takes on an on-going evaluation methodology using a learning-oriented approach to obtain timely information to help inform design/ development and support implementation. The selection of Developmental Evaluation (DE) for CIWA can support the ongoing development of the intervention within the current context it operates in. Evaluation findings resulting from the use of such an approach can strengthen programs that are modelled to adjust and adapt to the realities and complexities within development settings in a less reductionist manner. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 50

64 A DE approach will respond to the unpredictability, uncertainty and complications within this complex implementation context, aiding those submerged in these settings to employ a systemic process to develop projects. Developmental evaluation operates with the assumption that the changing dimensions of projects are necessary to accommodate a changing external environment and is therefore structured to allow for this change. Developmental evaluation begins from a premise that evaluation should attend to the utility/information needs of program personnel and stakeholders engaged in the development and implementation of the project. It recognises the value of involving stakeholders in the evaluation processes. As such, the approach focuses on principles of engagement for evaluating complex dynamic systems. Within basins the uses of a Developmental Evaluation approach will strengthen the evaluation of impact and will create a shared sense of ownership across the project Program results framework The program results framework was designed and an active monitoring and evaluation process was established at the outset of the program to provide an ongoing measure of the effectiveness of the work and to provide accurate and timely feedback to the contributors of the multi-donor trust fund. The CIWA results framework is organised as a hierarchy of impacts, objectives (Program Development Objectives) and results (Intermediate Results). Noting the complexity and diversity of projects, the development of a results frameworks for a program of this nature is extremely challenging. This is completely understood by the MTR, the development partners and indeed by the specialists that typically work in the M&E arena. However, the ongoing concerns regarding the results framework at program level remain and the MTR shares some of these concerns. These are reflected upon in terms of structure, indicators and targets. Structure There is at this point no theory of change (TOC) in place to support the results framework at program level. The MTR team does not want to be orthodox in suggesting the need for a strict TOC, but in the absence of one, the program is vulnerable in being able to provide a sense of the strategic intent, how this aims to be reached, and periodically testing the assumptions implicit in this strategic intent. If we remain with the suggested matrix of results that draws on intermediate outcomes (x axis) and basin level outcomes (y axes) the TOC becomes essential. The TOC is equally important for assessing the value/importance of new undertakings in both the basin and the catalytic sub-programs. There are clearly difficulties in aggregating up results from the basin to program level, when we are dealing with diverse projects that are demand-driven. In addition, the reporting is not reflecting how the confluence of activities is happening at the basin levels under the intermediate results areas. The Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 51

65 development of improved results chains at basin level will support in redressing this issue. Similarly, there are challenges in the connectivity between the intermediate results areas and the program development objectives. Some assumptions are provided in the description of the IRs i.e. (IR 2, 3 & 4) and the program needs to have a more complete set of assumptions that we can use to understand all our indicators, both at program and basin levels. These assumptions need to be regularly tested so that we can be more responsive to emerging requirements of the program. The development of a theory of change for the program together with a more complete suite of assumptions will be critical to be able to assess impact. There has been some discussion during the course of the MTR as to the possibility of having different results frameworks for differing funding envelopes. This would in effect enable the program to shift its objectives and targets with increased funding. The MTR believes that should CIWA strengthen and clarify its strategic intent (connected with the theory of change) then this would not be necessary. It is also noted as being slightly problematic in the sense that the program could just shift out objectives and targets when the program is attaining these. The development of a clear strategic intent becomes imperative for this program. The development of a clear strategic intent for the program will nullify the need for differing results frameworks to match differing funding envelopes. Indicators There is currently no indicator for impact and so assessing impact will be difficult. This can be developed once there is clarity as to the program s strategic intent and theory of change. As noted with the basin results frameworks most of the indicators are not reflecting outcomes but are more process oriented. Furthermore, the indicators are largely quantitative in nature and miss the richness of qualitative indicators needed for strengthening of cooperation and development and climate resilience. In addition, there are indicators that are not appropriate for the program noting its upstream nature. These do require redress if the program is to be able to reflect its impact. These being: PDO Indicator (i): US$ financing mobilized for cooperative management and development of international waters resources projects supported by CIWA PDO Indicator (ii): Number of people directly benefiting from improved water resources management and development in target basins through projects supported by CIWA Indicator (i) uses the word mobilised which is in effect beyond the scope of CIWA which has little ability to ensure that funds are mobilised and is in effect an inappropriate indicator. At best CIWA can influence or leverage. This must be adjusted. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 52

66 Indicator (ii) uses the term directly with regard to benefit from improved water resource management and development. In some instances this can be quite problematic due to CIWA s upstream nature and so this must be redressed. In addition there are clearly challenges regarding beneficiaries and how to attribute benefit. The use of basin population statistics is problematic and in addition if we are talking about multi-use initiatives there can be real challenges in attributing benefits from energy, irrigation and water supply and so forth. Noting that some initiatives will have broader socio-economics benefits (e.g. hydropower has benefits to industry as well as civil society) and others will impact upon more localised livelihoods (e.g. access to irrigation) it is useful to consider rewording this indicator to cover these aspects of broader economic development and possibly more localised social development. Suggested amendments to these indicators are: PDO Indicator (i): US$ financing influenced for cooperative management and development of international waters resources projects supported by CIWA. PDO Indicator (ii): Number of people benefiting from water resource development and number of livelihoods improved through strengthened water resources management in target basins through projects supported by CIWA. The indicators for the Program Development Objectives need to be reworded to truly reflect the nature of the program. Targets Reflection on the targets for the program link to the nature of the program and to the current performance. Whilst it is not appropriate to adjust targets to meet underperformance it is fair to redress targets that appear to be unreasonable or overly ambitious. There are a number of targets that require redress and if not addressed will create problems in assessing performance: There are a number of challenges with regards to the suite of existing targets that must be redressed. The following matter require attention. The results framework does not have targets for FY and these need to be developed. Targets for PDO indicator (i) are problematic in that CIWA s upstream nature means that it has limited to no influence on direct mobilisation of funds. In addition the target for FY16 notes potential projects whilst the targets for FY20 is mobilised. The target of US$10 billion mobilised is not appropriate and likely not attainable. The suggestion is to remain with potential projects which reflects the Banks ability to leverage and influence projects with a 2020 target of US$15 billion. Targets for PDO indicator (ii) are problematic in that CIWA s upstream nature means that it has limited influence on direct beneficiaries and hence the use of the word potential. In addition the assumption is that the beneficiaries are all those living within the basin which Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 53

67 really could be tested. The leap from 15 million potential beneficiaries to 50 million direct beneficiaries between FY 16 and FY20 is unrealistic, noting at the mid-term the achievement has been 5.6 million direct beneficiaries and the projects that are currently online. The targets for potential direct beneficiaries is also unrealistic in that the achievement in FY 15 is about four-fold. At this juncture, it would be more prudent, noting the suggested amendments to the indicator, to revisit the assumptions for this indicator, and after the basin workshops to develop theories of change to develop a more realistic suite of targets for broader economic development and more localised social development. The targets for the intermediate results areas appear reasonable and achievable. There are questions regarding the assumptions that underpin these targets and these need to be reassessed. The baselines for all targets are reflected as zero, linked to CIWAs initiatives. This the MTR finds problematic as it really undermines the actual existing capacity within basin. The PDO targets need adjustment whilst the assumptions that underpin the targets for the intermediate results areas require strengthening Programmatic M&E The overall programmatic approach to monitoring and reporting is not currently documented within any of the guideline documents and this needs to be captured in the operational guidelines. This then should provide a clear framework for the reporting and effectively the knowledge management for the program. The Annual Reports in the last two years have been significantly large steps forward for CIWA with these reports providing the necessary amount of information and being accessible. However, as noted above, the rich experiences and findings within the basins is being lost and needs to be reported upon. In this regard the strengthening of the Basin Advisory Committees will also be a key step forward in supporting the basins in reporting and in ensuring that this knowledge is not lost. The monitoring and reporting framework needs to provide the basis for the programs knowledge management and needs be documented in the operational guideline. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 54

68 5. Findings and Recommendations The CIWA program has develop organically in the last four years and now has a portfolio of projects that are strongly focused on the development of the information and institutions that are critical to support and guide development, as well as those projects that focus on the infrastructural development that can support socio-economic development and improved climate resilience. The programme is at a juncture where it is appropriate to undertake a mid-term review (MTR) that is backward looking, to understand the emergent lessons, and is also forward thinking towards shaping the programme to be able to upscale to meet the growing requests for support. The aspirational targets that have been set for the program are ambitious, but with the support that the World Bank is obtaining from its development partners and from the key stakeholders in the basins, with the suite of projects that are coming online and are moving towards implementation, as well as with the lessons learned by the program to date, it does appear to this MTR team that the program is well placed to now upscale disbursements through the projects that are set for implementation. However, as with all programs there are areas where there is room from improvement. The MTR has reflected upon the program with the lenses of how the program is: Appropriate to reach its objectives; Relevant; Functionally effective and efficient; and Progressing towards targets. The TOR of the MTR does indicate that for the stage at which the program finds itself, with many of the projects now only just going into implementation, that this MTR should not be a complete evaluation of progress. Such an analysis would possibly be counterproductive at this stage. The MTR has, therefore, been a relatively light-touch review to assess whether there are strengths that need to be built upon and maximised, and whether there are weaknesses that need addressing. In order to do this, this MTR has revolved around documentation review in conjunction with a series of interviews of World Bank staff working on the program, recipients in the form of RBOs and RECs as well as a number of stakeholders. The MTR has captured much of the discussion and debate regarding the CIWA program in a draft discussion document that was presented to the PMU and AC. During the AC workshop on the September 2015 the findings were discussed. This report is then a synthesis of the MTR findings with the inputs from that workshop. It is noted that the next review, in five years, should be a more intensive evaluation with thorough evaluations at project levels within a number of the basins. The findings and recommendations of the MTR are provided below. The recommendation are summarised in a more easily digestible format in Appendix 5 in order to support submission to the World Bank Board for consideration. In order to assist the program to address some of the recommendations, which are important to prepare the program for more effective monitoring as a basis for the future evaluation, a high level action plan is presented in Appendix 6. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 55

69 5.1 Building upon CIWAs achievements CIWA s intended impact is to strengthen sustainable climate-resilient growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. Towards this aim the program seeks to support riparian governments to unlock the potential for sustainable and climate resilient growth by addressing the constraints to cooperative management and development of international waters. Regional water policies across the continent recognize the importance of transboundary water resource management and development 17 CIWA s focus on water-related growth does reflect the desire of riparian governments engaged in cooperative management to accelerate water resources development in support of economic growth and poverty reduction. The program development objective is to strengthen cooperative management and development of international waters in Sub-Saharan Africa to facilitate sustainable climate resilient grow. Continental Context and Relevance Africa s development agenda is inherently regional and is strongly linked to water which exists within a significant number of transboundary basins across the continent. Regional water policies around the continent recognise the importance of transboundary water resource management and the need to support RBOs as the central actors in these basins. In reflecting on the relevance of the program it is noted that: The program s distribution of projects around the continent is well balanced; The program supports projects regarding the strengthening of information, institutions and infrastructure as key elements of the water security needed to support socio-economic growth 18 Transboundary water resource management is understood as a key challenge that will underpin future development and this is reflected in regional policy; Climate resilience is very relevant with Africa being possibly one of the most vulnerable regions of the world; The CIWA program is taking on the difficult projects 19 in these contexts, as guided by and in partnership with key basin actors; The focus on existing initiatives as a tool to influence other fund mobilisation looks to support the development of longer term sustainability which is typically a challenge across the continent. All the interviews with recipients of CIWA support and the various development partners (both existing funders of the program and those not currently funding) agreed that the program is highly relevant. 1. The MTR finds that the CIWA program is relevant and with the current suite of projects has a good geographic spread for potential impact. 17 See, for example, SADC Regional Water Policy, 2005 and Water Resource Policy for West Africa, Grey, D and Sadoff, C Sink or Swim? Water security for growth and development. Water Policy 9, IEG An evaluation of World Bank support Water and Development. Volume 1. The World Bank. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 56

70 Comparative advantage In thinking through the notion of fit for purpose the MTR found that the heart of the question for consideration by the World Bank and the development partners was as to whether the vehicle was appropriate to reach the objectives. In effect, why should a development partner utilise the CIWA program to influence transboundary water resource management as opposed to doing this themselves. The responses regarding the comparative advantage of the World Bank systems, the experience of the World Bank through the connectivity to the Global Practice, the geographic presence of World Bank staff across the continent, and the benefit that is accrued through a pooled multi-donor trust fund were all clearly voiced. This is further supported by studies that highlight the Bank s track record in supporting work in transboundary contexts 20. The CIWA program has developed organically and interviews reflected that during the initial years the program did have some governance challenges. As a result the development partners have played a useful guiding role through the AC. The interviews with the development partners all noted the significant strides that the Bank has made in strengthening the program management. The provision of adequate and appropriately focused technical assistance prior to reaching agreement on significant investments where institutional capacity is not sufficient is both prudent and essential 21. The CIWA program recognises the importance of this and is clearly constructed to develop the sustainable institutional platforms for these later investments. 2. The CIWA program does appear to be fit for the purpose for which it was established. Establishing the Portfolio It has been noted that working in transboundary basins is complex and as such takes time. This is noted in the CIWA annual reports, but various authors have also noted the complexities related to working in these political spaces. These also vary over time and space, and the differences in approach between the various regions of Africa are also distinct. Up to this point, CIWA has proved that longer term, sustained engagement is an important aspect of unlocking the challenges in these basins. Examples in the Nile and Zambesi basins reflect this. It is important to note that the sovereign complexities in these basins do require trusted advisors and as such much of this cannot be documented. In getting to this point of the program there have been lessons learned that can support the further roll-out of the program. 3. With 4 basin projects accounting for 75% of the allocable budget and a useful blend of knowledge management, information, institutions and infrastructure projects under the 20 IEG An evaluation of World Bank support Water and Development. Volume 1. The World Bank. 21 IEG and KFW Water and Development: Taking Lessons from Evaluation. Summary of Discussions at the Berlin Conference. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 57

71 catalytic sub-program the program is well placed for a productive five year period that should see the existing budgets spent. 5.2 Improving the program In looking at ways to strengthen the existing program the MTR team looked at the program modalities, the program management and lastly the monitoring framework that will support later program evaluation. Improving program modalities 4. The strategic intent and strategic planning process of the CIWA program needs to be revisited. The CIWA program may benefit from an ongoing engagement regarding its strategic intent. This could be through an annual strategic planning session which brings together the various stakeholders including the World Bank, its TTLs and donors, as well as a broader array of continental actors (some of which are part of the Consultative Group) and results in a review of its strategic plan. This kind of strategic planning session will assist CIWA in terms of understanding what other actors are doing on the continent and how synergy can be created between the work being done by other actors and CIWA. In its strategic planning process, CIWA needs to engage with projects being implemented, and specifically with the balance between quick-wins and longer term benefits from various interventions towards developing a pipeline of projects. This kind of process will leverage CIWA s comparative advantage of bringing together different stakeholders to a common platform in order to deal with the challenges of water management and development for the poor in Africa and then starts to leverage the real power of a continental program. 5. Visibility should be strengthened through strategic communications. There is general consensus that the CIWA program is making an important contribution in dealing with water challenges on the continent, but that there is a need for CIWA to strengthen its visibility by improving its strategic communications interventions and successes more effectively. Thus, CIWA needs to market itself more effectively and share the results of interventions strategically. This could then also contribute to better fund mobilisation. It will be important for CIWA through these strategic communications to leverage the thought leadership that emerges through the basin and continental experiences. This will support working more synergistically with other programs. Similarly, the improvement of CIWA guidelines and program document will strengthen the understanding of CIWA and its modalities. 6. Develop a gender strategy: Whilst there have been improvements regarding the elevation gender and poverty dimensions there are still gaps in terms of an improved way of articulating the gender and poverty intent of CIWA. There is a clear need for a gender strategy to guide reporting and monitoring on gender dimensions of CIWA activities. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 58

72 7. Strategic plan for CIWA strengthening. The recommendations from the MTR have indicated a suite of adjustments to further strengthen what is already a good program. These need to be consolidated into a strategic plan that enable the WB to take this issues forward in structured manner. There are effectively three key areas for attention namely the programmatic governance and oversight, program resourcing and capacity and project level planning and oversight. The key issues under these would be: (a) Program governance and oversight Strategic intent and placing of CIWA including program extension beyond 2020 Shifts in overall project governance Resolving issues with the results frameworks at program level Enhance reporting (including progress, risk, gender) (b) Program resourcing and capacity Resource Mobilization Coordinated Action from Water GP and Africa Region Augmenting Basin and PMU Staffing Strengthening Strategic Communications Strengthening internal documentation and guides Develop a revised approach to knowledge management (c) Project level planning and oversight Circulate Pipeline Planning Document Develop Theory of Change guidance at basin levels Develop Results chains based on Theory of Change for each priority basin Restructure the CIWA Basin Support Plan 8. Fund mobilisation needs to be improved. Given the value of the program to its stakeholders and the fact that the design of the program was predicated on raising US $200 million, fund mobilisation should be given more importance within the program. The CIWA program may benefit from appointing a dedicated person for this purpose. Furthermore, the funding envelope is currently tied too strongly to existing donors and there is a need for expansion of the donor base. The CIWA program may furthermore consider a bouquet of donors rather than having all the donors under one umbrella. If CIWA is not able to meet its aspirational target of raising US $200 million, it may need to reconsider some aspects of its model and design, but most importantly the funding strategy needs to be linked to the strategic planning and an understood pipeline of projects. 9. Building capacity. Concerns with regards to staff capacity have been discussed in nearly all interviews. There is a sense that the appointment of some key staff members would support the team to unlock some processes and to support in moving some processes more efficiently. It is clear from the interviews that this capacity would be needed at both PMU level (to support strategic matters) and at basin levels (to support project mobilisation. It is noted that expenditure on staffing is at less than 3% of budget and so there are in fact funds available for additional staff. It is apparent to the MTR that there is a need for strengthening in particular areas of the program. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 59

73 Dedicated specialist staff are needed to service key areas such as gender mainstreaming and monitoring and evaluation across the full program, at both program level and basin level. Dedicated staff are required to support the ongoing administration of the program and improvement of the key strategic and operational documents. Dedicated CIWA staff are needed in the regions to assist the TTLs, the RBOs and RECs to keep processes moving and to assist in building capacity in regional institutions. The additional support will be critical in assisting the projects and to redress the monitoring of their performance. The capping of core staff costs does not necessarily need to be revisited at this stage due to the low expenditure on staff. It has been noted that the Bank has started some restructuring activities and key individuals, who have a wealth of understanding of CIWA may be moving. There are concerns with regards to the loss of institutional memory. Therefore, a resource and capacity strategy is needed to further strengthen the program. This will need to consider the Banks developments in terms of the Global Water Practice. This needs to be linked to an improved knowledge management system that enables the exchange of experience. 10. Improving processes where possible. Whilst some stakeholders (largely those external to the Bank) felt that the approval process was excessively long, those within the Bank and some of the donors felt that the time needed was proportionate to the nature of these programs and projects. The MTR team s initial sense was that for a 10 year program approval processes in the order of two years was too long and would impinge on the ability to reach targets. Without doing an intensive analysis, it would be of value to look at ways of improving efficiencies in this process. The Bank is known for its systems and rigour and the donor partners value this. If there are not efficiencies that can be achieved then there is stronger emphasis needed on developing a pipeline of projects so that these approvals do not imprevact on the programs ability to meet objectives. The appointment of additional staff to CIWA would help smooth project preparation and would then later support in ensuring effective monitoring. At the same time, it is critically important that CIWA produces a clear and concise project document that articulates the approval process and the associated time frames so the new project clients have a better grasp of these processes. 11. Disbursements and delivery. The rates of disbursement has in previous financial years been extremely low and has only in this financial year seen a significant improvement. This is linked to the fact that many of the projects are now starting to be implemented. However, the MTR is concerned that with 83% of the projects being executed by RBOs, more accountability for delivery needs to be placed in the shoulders of the RBOs. This should include a more rigorous reporting requirement for which the RBO takes responsibility. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 60

74 12. Risk Management needs to be improved. CIWA is currently quite strong in terms of identifying risks, but it is not clear how well these risks are being managed. In order to improve the risk management framework the monitoring and reporting of risks does need to be improved. Firstly, CIWA s approach to risk, including a risk framework and appropriate evaluation and reporting system needs to be outlined in its Operating Guidelines. Secondly, the risks at the program level need to be monitored and reported in the Annual Report. Thirdly, the reporting on risk management at the basin level needs to be strengthened to reflect status at approval and how these risks are being managed. Improving Program Management 13. Revisit the program management structure. Looking at the overall program management structure the management of the program at the strategic programmatic level, as well as at the basin level in support of project implementation is appropriate. The need to have structures that engage stakeholders on continental/strategic matters as well as at the basin level on more operational matters is recognised. However, during the review it was clear that the program is not achieving in terms of the Intermediate Results area 4 on stakeholder engagement, and that some of these structures are not proving effective. The overall program governance framework does therefore require revisiting so as to clarify roles and responsibilities and strengthen these structures towards improved performance. 14. Strengthening strategic partner engagement. The CG has been less effective in recent years and needs to be strengthened to support consistency in attendance, and in order to play its role of strategic guidance. It has been noted that attendance at the CG s has dwindled with time and there have been challenges in consistency of attendance. Therefore, the CG either needs to be strengthened or it needs to be disbanded and the program will need to investigate some alternatives that will enable the program to engage in strategic discussions with key stakeholders, lead agents and development partners across the continent. 15. Unlock the strategic role of the Advisory Committee. The AC is understood to play a vital role, but this needs to revert to one of providing strategic direction and having oversight on program performance. Whilst the AC members see the value add in providing strategic guidance there is not a desire to micro-manage. A revised governance framework does need to be developed that clearly articulates roles and responsibilities and align with other Trust Funds being managed by the World Bank. This will empower CIWA to take full responsibility for the program, and accordingly be held fully accountable. This will unlock the real strength of the AC in terms of its strategic guidance on new basins or strategic issues to add to the program, interconnectivities with other programs and initiatives, and strategic discussion on areas of concern where jointly the AC, development partners and the Bank could collectively address or unlock issues. 16. Strengthening Basin Advisory Committees. The BAC plays an important role at the basin and project levels and the flexibility to build upon existing structures is appreciated in order to avoid duplication of structures. It has been noted that the lessons learned at the basin and project level are not being captured and shared as effectively as they should be. The BAC needs to be Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 61

75 strengthened to enable more engagement and coordination at the basin level and to support an improved knowledge management approach within the program. Improving Monitoring 17. Basin scale results framework needs to be strengthened. Noting that the richness in terms of impact and the generation of lessons for future projects and initiatives lies within the projects at the basin level, having appropriate results frameworks at the project scale is critical for the program as a whole. Essentially, improving upon the results frameworks at basin level entails holding basin level workshops to develop and agree upon a theory of change for each project. With the theory of change developed, results chains need to be developed so as to reflect the connectivity between activities, outputs, outcomes and impact. Moreover, baselines need to be developed that are appropriate and linked to the actual contextual baseline within the basin, and not a baseline linked to CIWA processes. This needs to be developed in partnership with key stakeholders so as to create an improved sense of ownership and develop capacity for future monitoring. It is also critically important to engage a gender specialist at these basin level workshops to assist in tackling the challenges currently experienced in addressing and reporting upon gender dimensions. 18. There is need to strengthen the reporting at project scale within the basins to ensure the provision of more detail on process, progress and response. While reporting is done every 6 months through Implementation Status Results (ISR) reports, providing an indication of what has been achieved, there is a sense that: a) there is not sufficient qualitative reporting against indicators; b) is not always clear how the various interventions have resulted in the numbers that have been determined. Notably, some of the ISR reports are better than others while certain projects have only been initiated recently, however, this reporting does require improvement. 19. The CIWA Basin Support Plans need to be reformulated and revised to reflect the basin theory of change and to provide a hub for the knowledge management within basin. Clearly, not all WB staff were aligned in terms of understanding the nature and role of the CIWA Basin Support Plan. The Basin Support Plan is important in providing a bridge between the local stakeholders, the RBOs and the WB. The uncertainty created by the lack of clarity and alignment in understanding the BSP is an opportunity lost. Strengthening these reports to reflect the theory of change at basin level and to become a vehicle for structuring the lessons and knowledge that emerge through the project is needed. 20. The role of RBOs in the reporting at basin level needs to be strengthened. There is need for enhanced reporting at the basin level led by RBOs. This could be undertaken through a reporting mechanism separate from the World Bank systems, noting that WB systems are structured in a particular manner. This could create improved ownership and provide the opportunity to report on progress, risks, and value for money in a more detailed manner. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 62

76 21. The use of a Developmental Evaluation approach will strengthen the evaluation of impact and create a shared sense of ownership across projects within basins. Given the magnitude and regional significance of CIWA projects, it is recommended that such initiatives adopt the Developmental Evaluation (DE) approach. The selection of DE for CIWA can support the on-going development of the interventions within the current context it operates in. Fundamentally, DE operates with the assumption that the changing dimenstions of projects are necessary to accommodate a changing external environment and is therefore structured to allow for this change. Finally, DE recognises the value of involving stakeholders in the evaluation processes making the approach suitable for evaluating complex dynamic systems. 22. The development of a theory of change for the program together with a more complete suite of assumptions will be critical to be able to assess impact. In the absence of a theory of change (TOC), the program is vulnerable in being able to provide a sense of the strategic intent, how this aims to be reached, and periodically testing the assumptions implicit in the strategic intent. Moreover, there are difficulties in aggregating up results from the basin to program level when dealing with diverse projects that are demand driven. Similarly, there are challenges in the connectivity between intermediate results areas and the program development objectives. Clearly, the program needs to have a more complete set of assumptions that can be used to understand all the indicators at both program and basin levels. Finally, the assumptions need to be regularly tested in order to invoke better responsiveness to emerging requirements of the program. The development of a clear strategic intent for the program will nullify the need for differing results frameworks to match differing funding envelopes. 23. The indicators for the Program Development Objectives (PDOs) need to be reworded to truly reflect the nature of the program. Indicator (i) uses the word mobilised which is in effect beyond the scope of CIWA which has little ability to ensure that funds are mobilised, and is in effect an inappropriate indicator. At best, CIWA can influence or leverage, with even the latter sometimes being difficult. This must be adjusted. Indicator (ii) uses the term directly with regard to benefit from improved water resource management and development. In some instances this can be quite problematic due to CIWA s upstream nature. This must be rectified. 24. Challenges regarding the suite of existing targets must be rectified. Reflection on the targets for the program link to the nature of the program and to the current performance. Whilst it is not appropriate to adjust targets to meet underperformance, it is fair to redress targets that appear to be unreasonable or overly ambitious. There a number of targets that require redress and if not addressed will create problems in assessing performance. The following matter require attention. The results framework does not have targets for FY and these need to be developed. Targets for PDO indicator (i) are problematic in that CIWA s upstream nature means that it has limited to no influence on direct mobilisation of funds. In addition the target for FY16 notes potential projects whilst the targets for FY20 is mobilised. The target of US$10 billion mobilised is not appropriate and likely not attainable. The suggestion is to Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 63

77 remain with potential projects which reflects the Bank s ability to influence projects with a 2020 target of US$15 billion. Targets for PDO indicator (ii) are problematic in that CIWA s upstream nature means that it has limited influence on direct beneficiaries and hence the use of the word potential. In addition, the assumption is that the beneficiaries are all those living within the basin which really could not be tested. The leap from 15 million potential beneficiaries to 50 million direct beneficiaries between FY16 and FY20 is unrealistic, noting at the mid-term the achievement has been 5.6 million direct beneficiaries and the projects that are currently online. The targets for potential direct beneficiaries is also unrealistic in that the achievement in FY15 is about four-fold. The baselines for all targets are reflected as zero, linked to CIWA initiatives. This the MTR finds problematic as it really undermines the actual existing capacity within basin. The PDO targets need adjustment whilst the assumptions that underpin the targets for the intermediate results areas require strengthening. 25. The monitoring and reporting framework needs to provide a basis for the programs knowledge management, and needs to be documented in the operational guideline. The overall programmatic approach to monitoring and reporting is not currently documented within any of the guideline documents and this needs to be captured in the operational guidelines. Doing this should provide a clear framework for the reporting and effectively the knowledge management for the program. Currently, the rich experiences and findings within the basins is being lost and needs to be reported upon. Strengthening the Basin Advisory Committees will be a key step forward in supporting the basins in reporting, and ensuring that this knowledge is not lost. 26. Further improve the Value for Money statements. Whilst the FY14 and FY15 Annual Reports did reflect on VFM at a programmatic level. However, there is a need to assess this at project/basin level where it will be more important to track progress. It is noted that many projects are only now being initiated, and so there is limited to no data available that can be used to reflect current progress. In order to support the developmental evaluation for the projects a suite of indicators and baselines will need to be developed for each project/basin. The ICF indicators whilst sometimes difficult to utilise do provide a meaningful first port of call for each basin. This will require capacity building support to assist the basins in undertaking this monitoring and the MTR would expect that the RBOs must take this on board as a key element of reporting. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 64

78 Appendices Appendix 1: Terms of Reference (TOR) Terms of Reference for the Mid-Term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa (CIWA) Program Background Climate resilient growth and poverty reduction in Africa depend on the sustainable management and development of its international waters. Two or more countries share all of the major water sources and the key sectors that contribute to growth depend on water. The transboundary nature of Africa s rivers, lakes and aquifers add considerable political, technical, environmental, and financial complexity to their sustainable development. It has been principally recognized that unilateral uncooperative development by riparian countries in a transboundary basin may have detrimental consequences for the hydrology of the basin as a whole or may foreclose on optimal development opportunities in the future; as such, this additional complexity has often resulted in stalled investments or the adoption of sub-optimal development choices that have a real and significant cost. Cooperative action is necessary to optimize benefits regionally and mitigate the shared risks including those of climate variability and change. The Cooperation in International Waters in Africa (CIWA) program, established in 2011, is a multidonor trust fund that is administered by the World Bank and that seeks to support riparian governments in unlocking the potential for sustainable, inclusive, climate-resilient growth by addressing constraints to the cooperative management and development of international waters. CIWA intends to achieve this by improving the quality and accessibility of information, strengthening institutions, and providing support for preparing and/or improving the quality of investments with regional benefits. CIWA leverages the comparative advantage of its host institution, the World Bank, which offers strong technical expertise in international waters and across other relevant sectors such as agriculture, energy, and service delivery, while also having the convening power to mobilize multiple stakeholders and experience managing international waters in other regions of the world. Through its analytical work, CIWA can also provide technical advice to bilateral or multilateral diplomatic efforts of its donors. The long term objective of CIWA is to strengthen cooperative management and development of international waters in Sub-Saharan Africa, which it intends to meet through support to activities that fall within the following four results areas: Regional Cooperation and Integration: This aims to foster cooperative transboundary institutions for greater regional stability and creation of an enabling environment for shared sustainable growth. Water Resources Management: This aims to underpin the evidence-based knowledge for planning and decision-making to maximize development opportunities and minimize climate risks. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 65

79 Water Resources Development: This aims to support investments that improve resilience to climate variability and change, enhance food and energy security, and enable countries to follow a lower carbon growth path. Stakeholder Engagement and Participation: This aims to enable greater voice in decision-making processes of civil society, private sector and academia in the cooperative management and development of shared basin resources. CIWA responds to demand from interested basin institutions through its Basin Engagement Subprogram whereby basin programs are selected according to their alignment with CIWA s objective, potential to contribute to one or more of CIWA s results and the expressed interest by basin countries. In addition to sustained basin engagements, the CIWA Catalytic Subprogram aims to catalyze support and provide a clearer, deeper understanding of factors influencing the cooperative development and management of international waters in Africa as a means to unlock the potential contribution to economic growth and poverty reduction. It is predicated on a combination of mutually reinforcing knowledge management, technical assistance, and advancing high-impact investment opportunities with regional benefits that support the achievement of CIWA s primary objective and further regional and national development objectives. The Catalytic subprogram will generate, share, and manage knowledge that can facilitate cooperative development and management of international waters; explore potential high impact collaborative investment opportunities in defined basins and regions; and create shared understanding of the opportunities, risks, costs, and benefits of cooperative development and management of international waters among stakeholders. More information on the CIWA program can be found on its website and in the attached 2014 Annual Report. ( Objectives of the Mid-Term Review The Mid-Term Review (MTR) will assess the degree to which CIWA is on-track for and fit for purpose in meeting its development objectives moving forward and their relevance under the current circumstances. The MTR will be conducted in 2015 and will be primarily a functionality review which considers specific elements of CIWA s structure and processes. The MTR will include a progress review which will assess how the program as a whole is on-track to meet its goals. If relevant, the MTR will make specific recommendations for changes to program elements that may improve program design and performance. Based on findings of the MTR, World Bank management, in consultation with the CIWA AC, will determine if program restructuring and reformulation are needed including any needed changes to the CIWA Results Framework. The following sections provide an initial guidance on issues to be covered under the Framework and in the cases studies. However, it should be noted that the Proposals to be submitted by the interested firms are expected to detail the methodology, general approach and work plan proposed to achieve the objectives delineated above. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 66

80 Approach The Review will be managed by the CIWA program management unit (PMU) and conducted by an external consulting firm (consultant) who has extensive experience working on complex programs and related review processes. The CIWA PMU and CIWA basin teams will provide relevant material and background to the consultant to support their analysis and review of the program. In principle, and subject to the analysis included in the proposal, the MTR may be conducted according to the scope (described below) through the following steps: 1. Document Review. A comprehensive document review that incorporates strategic documentation, project documentation, reports and reviews Inception Report. The preparation of an Inception Report which finalizes the review questions and describes the methodology and a work plan. The Inception Report could include, but is not limited to the following items: i. Implementation process, timeline and key milestones for the MTR ii. iii. iv. Strategic guidance on documentation, reports and data to review Strategic guidance on and identification of relevant stakeholders and process for stakeholder engagement (e.g., interviews, questionnaires, document review) Identification of relevant field visits (if any) v. Strategic guidance on the organization of the debriefing workshop (venue, participants, agenda) vi. Structure of the final report The Inception Report will notionally be completed one month after contract is in place. 3. Stakeholder Consultations. The consultant will conduct consultations with specific stakeholders that are in a position to inform the specific points of analysis herein. Specific opportunities include telephone or video connected consultations with: i. Interested CIWA Advisory Committee (AC) members; ii. World Bank experts; 22 Relevant documentation will include: CIWA Proposal to Development Partners, Strategic Framework, Results Framework, CIWA Support Plans for priority basins, CIWA Annual Report for FY2012, FY2013 and FY2014, Catalytic Subprogram: Structure, Process and Proposed Activities, CIWA Project Documentation, CIWA Operational Guidelines, CIWA Administrative Agreements, and World Bank strategies on water, energy, agriculture, climate change and related Country Partnership Frameworks (CPF), as well as documents which describe global development priorities such as development of the Sustainable Development Goals. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 67

81 iii. CIWA s major clients 23 ; iv. Representatives of organizations engaged with CIWA in selected opportunistic activities 24 ; v. Representatives of selected complimentary or umbrella organizations 25 ; vi. vii. National government representatives as relevant; and Other stakeholders who are identified as relevant to the Review. During consultations with external parties (i.e., other than Bank and donors) the consultant will ensure that consultations focus inquires to gain feedback relevant to the respective organization and its role in the CIWA program. 4. Draft Report. Synthesizing information gathered during the MTR documentation review and consultations into a draft report with specific recommendations for any changes required to improve the program s design and performance. The consultant will ensure that the assessments are objective and balanced, affirmations accurate and verifiable, and recommendations realistic. The draft MTR Report will notionally be completed by four months after contract is in place. 5. Consultative Workshop. Presentation of the report at a debriefing workshop with the CIWA AC and other stakeholders as relevant to gain sufficient feedback on the draft MTR Report, to validate the consultant s findings and to discuss any recommendations made for changes to the program. The consultant will convene the workshop, seeking to time the workshop with another major relevant conference and to make virtual connections possible to reduce travel required solely for the workshop. The MTR validation workshop will notionally be conducted five months after contract is in place. 6. Final Report. Based on feedback from the Workshop, the consultant will prepare and submit the Final Report. The final report will incorporate feedback received during the workshop and any agreed actions and will include specific recommendations, as relevant, for needed modifications that will improve the program design. The final report is intended to be a public document and CIWA will either make the report publically available on the website or will publish a summary version more relevant for external stakeholders. The Final MTR Final Report will notionally be completed six months after contract is in place. The consultant will also make themselves available to participate in internal Bank Review processes associated with this project as and if it becomes relevant. 23 Nile Basin Initiative, Niger Basin Authority, Zambezi River Authority, Zambezi Watercourse Commission, Volta Basin Authority, Nile Basin Discourse 24 The Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission, Economic Community of West African States, Southern Africa Development Community 25 E.g., African Ministers Council on Water, African Network of Basin Organizations, African Development Bank, African Water Facility Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 68

82 Scope of the MTR The MTR will focus primarily on the key topics outlined below. It will be set in the context of using a programmatic approach with predominantly recipient-executed grants to achieve the program s goals in Africa, and to leverage the comparative advantage of a Multi-Donor Trust Fund administered by the World Bank. Consideration will be taken for the current funding envelope vs the anticipated funding envelope, the planned program length, CIWA s comparative advantage versus other international waters, water management and water development programs. Recommendations should be provided with full understanding of lessons learned from execution of the Nile Basin Trust Fund and other international waters programs. Program relevance, portfolio review and progress: This component of the review will examine: i) CIWA s comparative advantage in the international waters in Africa and if the program remains relevant to meeting the needs of intended beneficiaries; ii) assess whether its portfolio, including balance of activity focus and regions, is aligned with its comparative advantage and stated long-term objectives; and iii) if the program is on-track to meet its stated goals. In reviewing relevance, the MTR will assess how CIWA accounts for the current realities in Africa. For instance, are the institutional and external environments still the same or have they changed in substantial way since the program s inception. This component will also review the extent that the objectives of the program are consistent with beneficiaries needs and requirements, and relevant to global priorities and donors policies, and whether or not they are still achievable. The component is linked with the Results Framework component below in that it will assess the relevance of CIWA's program development objective (PDO) and intermediate results areas (IRs) to meeting transboundary water cooperation needs in Sub-Saharan Africa. This may include a review of the expected outcomes in the results framework as well as the appropriateness of the target beneficiaries. This component will also consider how the current portfolio is set up to provide benefits to CIWA s intended beneficiaries. Is the portfolio s balance of activities, regions, and contribution to results areas aligned with CIWA s comparative advantage? Does the portfolio maximize positive outcomes for beneficiaries? This component will include an assessment of the international funding landscape for the program (i.e., what is the potential for resources mobilization?) and an assessment of the real, unmet demand for CIWA s interventions in Africa in order to inform potential future channels for CIWA funding. Does the current portfolio contribute adequately to CIWA s state objectives and intermediate results areas? This component will also provide an assessment of progress made by the program to date and if the program is on-track to meet its long-term goals. The analysis will consider how projects which are under implementation and preparation are contributing to CIWA s program-level goals but will not conduct an impact analysis of the program. This component will also consider the extensive amount of time required to develop proposals and prepare projects and how this lead time plays a role in the program s positioning in the development landscape and its ability to meet its objectives. Program Management Structure: This component of the review will analyze CIWA s modalities for governance including the Consultative Group, the AC, the Panel of Experts, the Basin Advisory Committee and the Basin Support Plan. Where relevant, this assessment will consider the decision Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 69

83 making and financial allocation process. The MTR could also look into how CIWA follows good practice for international development and will examine project planning and implementation considerations. A key area to review is how CIWA processes and programming should be implemented moving forward given the extensive project preparation time. Results Framework and the Monitoring and Evaluation System: This component of the review will examine the relevance of CIWA s Results Framework to the current portfolio. It will assess how well the Project Development Objective indicators and Intermediate Results indicators capture the intended results of the program, and how well this framework monitors outputs that are directly linked to CIWA s inputs and various interventions. It will also examine whether the indicators reflect the breadth of results expected across CIWA s portfolio and how these indicators can be aggregated at various levels. Recommendations could include revision of indicators and targets, taking into consideration the current funding envelope and a series of future funding envelope scenarios. This component of the review will also consider efficacy of the monitoring and evaluation systems currently used by the program, including the project results frameworks and results reporting, standard bank practices for supervision of projects and the Basin Support Plan results accountability mechanisms. The assessment and any recommendation for reconfiguration of the results framework will keep the program accountable for outputs and outcomes within its sphere of influence and will account for the breadth of activities funded by CIWA. This component of the review will also assess the readiness of the program for a future impact evaluation. The consultant should include impact design evaluation in the report and may collect baselines to create ability to evaluate impacts of the program at a later stage. As relevant, the analysis of the Results Framework could involve developing and reviewing results chains for each institution to understand which activities are aligned with CIWA s objectives in order to target future efforts and funding allocations accordingly. Risk management and mitigation measures: This component will examine CIWA s risk analysis framework as part of the comprehensive analysis of the program, identify additional risks that have not yet been explicitly considered and propose new or modified mitigation measures if relevant. The Review will also help the World Bank and its development partners to better understand if the program faces an acceptable level of risk. Value for money: This component will analyze if CIWA has the structure and procedures in place to ensure value, outcomes and impact. Please refer to the Value for Money annex in the 2014 CIWA Annual Report as a reference for existing assessment on value for money of the program. Professional Qualifications of the Consultant The CIWA MTR will be carried out by a Consultant (consulting firm, university, or organization) with a solid background in the following fields: monitoring and evaluation; development work with multilateral and bilateral development organizations; infrastructure; transboundary waters; social and institutional development; and environment, natural resources and water resources management. Specifically, the Consultant should ideally demonstrate practical knowledge and experience in key areas: Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 70

84 Project and program management; Knowledge and experience working in transboundary waters and in Africa; Experience in conducting or participating in similar review processes conducted by international financial institutions; Expertise in results assessment, monitoring and evaluation of programs and projects; Some knowledge of the World Bank system; Approaches multi-cultural situations with sensitivity; and Has excellent communication skills. The Consultant is expected to propose an outstanding multi-disciplinary team. The team proposed must have exceptional qualifications and competence in the main disciplines required for undertaking the MTR. Specifically, the proposed Project Manager (or Director), must have relevant background and experience in project management and leadership and deep knowledge of the relevant issues associated to the assignment. Deliverables and Schedule The proposals to be submitted by the firms shortlisted should contain a detailed methodology and work plan with main activities, their content and duration, milestones (including interim approvals by the WB), reports and delivery dates of the reports. These will be key elements for the selection of the Firm to carry out the assignment. In principle, it is envisaged that the assignment would likely be conducted with the deliverables outlined in Error! Reference source not found. however the proposal should provide additional detail and rationale for those deliverables or any deviation from the approach, scope or schedule described herein. Table 1. Deliverables and Schedule Deliverable Notional description Deadline Inception Report Based on the initial analysis and document review, the Inception report will finalize the review questions and describe the methodology and a work plan; this deliverable should detail the implementation process and provide an outline of the table of contents of the final report One month after contract is in place Draft Report Based on the stakeholder consultations, document review and analysis conducted, the draft report will be a synthesis of findings of the review and will clearly outline any recommendations for improvement of program design. The draft report should be delivered no less than three weeks prior to the consultative workshop to ensure sufficient time for review. Four months after contract is in place. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 71

85 Consultative Workshop Convened by the consultant, the workshop will be the opportunity for the consultant to gain feedback from the Bank, the CIWA AC and other relevant stakeholders on the Draft Report. Five months after contract is in place. Final Report The final report will incorporate feedback received during the workshop and will include specific recommendations, as relevant, for needed modifications that will improve the program design. Six months after contract is in place. Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 72

86 Appendix 2: List of Interviewees Name Designation Date of Interview Interviewer Tim Sumner & Ms. Lubna Ghneim DFID Rep 21/07/2015 Derek Weston/ Pinimidzai Sithole Geir Arne Schei Senior Advisor (Section for Humanitarian Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,Norway) Peter Larsen Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark Mr. Maarten Gischler Mr Durk Adema Dr. Patrik Stålgren Senior Water Adviser, The Netherlands, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Water Policy Advisor Environment and Water Department First Secretary/Deputy Head Senior Programme Manager (Water, Energy, Climate, Environment) 25/06/2015 Daniel Seddon Daines 24/06/2015 Daniel Seddon Daines 08/07/2015 Derek Weston Issues with interview scheduling/dates Daniel Seddon Daines Mr. Andre Liebaert Ms Veronica Girardi Ms Veronica Girardi Gustavo Saltiel Jacqueline. M. Tront (PhD) Mr. Jonathan S. Kamkwalala Water Policy Advisor European Union 01/09/2015 Derek Weston European Union European Union 01/09/2015 Derek Weston World Bank Program Manager (Core Team, Catalytic Sub-Program Coordinator, Political Economy project TTL) 16/07/2015 Barbara Schreiner World Bank 16/07/2015 Dr Guy Pegram Practice Manager (East and Southern Africa); PM responsible for CIWA program 08/07/2015 Derek Weston Ms. K. Anna Kim Operations Analyst (CIWA Core Team and Financial Manager) 09/07/2015 Derek Weston Alexander E. Bakalian CIWA (CIWA Head Office) 22/06/2015 Nura Suleiman Regassa Namara CIWA (CIWA Head Office) 14/07/2015 Derek Weston/ Pinimidzai Sithole Nagaraja Harshdeep CIWA (CIWA Head Office) 10&13/07/2015 Derek Weston/ Pinimidzai Sithole Eileen Burke World Bank Senior WRM specialist 10/06/2015 Pinimidzai Sithole Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 73

87 Sirein Awadalla Operations Analyst (CIWA Core Team Support; Volta and Nile Basin support 11/06/2015 Pinimidzai Sithole Anjali Lohani Basnet World Bank (CIWA Core Operations) 25/06/2015 Daniel Seddon Daines Mari H. Clarke Consultant 25/07/2015 Susan Byakika (CIWA Core Team Support; Niger and Nile Basin team support) Dawit Tadesse World Bank Declined (project assistant with no details/information to offer) Pinimidzai Sithole Dr Christina Leb Sr. Water Resources Specialist (Niger Program TTL) 18/06/2015 Nura Suleiman Shelley McMillan Sr. Water Resources Specialist (Volta Program Coordinator; ECOWAS Project TTL) 22/06/2015 Nura Suleiman Mr. Marcus Wishart Ijeoma Emananjo Berina Uwimbabazi Senior Water Resources Specialist (South Africa Program Coordinator; Zambezi Basin TTL, Okavango Project TTL) 29/06/2015 Derek Weston/Pinimidzai Sithole World Bank Regional Office 07/07/2015 Sumayya Goga Pinimidzai Sithole World Bank Regional Office 21/07/2015 Sumayya Goga Charles Biney Executive Director, Volta Basin 15/06/2015 Nura Suleiman Authority Prof Zebediah Executive Secretary ZAMCOM 22/07/2015 Pinimidzai Sithole Phiri Eng. Munesu Munodawafa Zambezi River Authority (ZRA) 23/07/2015 Pinimidzai Sithole Michael Mutale Former Acting Executive Secretary, 10/07/2015 Barbara Schreiner Zambezi Watercourse commission Habab Taifour Water & Sanitation Specialist 11/06/2015 Pinimidzai Sithole (NBD project TTL) Dr Hellen Natu Regional Manager- Nile Basin 30/06/2015 Susan Byakika Discourse Fekahmed Negash NBI-ENTRO Officer in charge 30/06/2015 Susan Byakika Fred Mwango Mr. Jean Baptiste Habiyaremye IGAD-Former prime technical person in the Nile 29/06/2015 Susan Byakika Chair Person -Nile Basin Discourse Declined interview Susan Byakika instead referring us to Entebbe NBI team Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 74

88 Eng. Teferra Beyene Executive Director, Nile Basin Initiative Secretariat (Chair Nile Com) Minister, South Sudan H.E. Jemma Nunu Kumba John Metzger Danida Ms Tracy Molefi Director, International Waters Unit, Botswana Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources. No response Unreachable No response Susan Byakika Susan Byakika Danida Advisor at ZAMCOM 06/07/2015 Pinimidzai Sithole No response Sumayya Goga Eben Chonguica Executive Secretary at OKACOM 23/06/2015 Sumayya Goga Phera Ramoeli SADC 24/06/2015 Pinimidzai Sithole Dr Kenneth SADC No response Pinimidzai Sithole Msibi Andrew GWPSA 14/06/2015 Pinimidzai Sithole Takawira Sheikh Javed Chief Water Resource Engineer for 07/07/2015 Nura Suleiman Ahmed the AfDB Dr Philip Beetlestone Water Resources Advisor GIZ 07/09/2015 Derek Weston Stakeholders interviewed during the site visit to the Volta Basin Stakeholder Group Volta Basin Authority Staff IUCN Staff Permanent Interstates Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS) Burkina Faso Ministry of Agriculture Burkina Faso Civil Society Global Water Partnership Staff Consultants who work on the VBA Country Focal Points Stakeholders Interviewed Dr. Charles Birney, Executive Director; and Jacob TUMBULTO, Deputy Director Rocca Marcello Somda Maxime Savadogo Yacouba Awaiss Aboubacar Clément OUEDRAOGO Amidou Savadogo, General Director of Water Resources Idrissa ZEBA, Executive Director of Naturama; and Ousmane DIALLO, Eau, Environnement, Developpement Durable Arnauld Adjagodo, Civil Society Expert, PPEA II Mahamadou Tiemtoré, Volta Basin Regional Manager Ketes Ouedraogo, Burkina Faso Hamidou Garane, Burkina Faso Ousmanes Diallo, Burkina Faso Bayeba Marina, Cote d Ivoire Akakpo Wohou, Togo Seydou Keita, Mali Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 75

89 Ampomah Benjamin Yaw, Ghana Kouame Koffi Fernand, Cote d Ivoire World Bank South Africa Office Donors Continental Actors Other stakeholders Face-to-Face Interviews in South Africa Mr. Marcus Wishart and Mr Ijeoma Emenanjo DFID: Mr Tim Sumner & Ms. Lubna Ghneim GWPSA: Mr Andrew Takawira GIZ: Mr Phillip Beetlestone Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 76

90 Appendix 3: List of Documents Reviewed CIWA MTR - List of Documents on BOX - March 11, 2015 Folder Name: Program Management Document Name CIWA Projects Milestones Summary CIWA MTR Concept Note Outcomes Paper 3 rd CG Meeting Dakar Senegal May 2014 Overview of Progress The Netherlands Administration Agreement CIWA Strategic Framework November 2013 INTERNAL CIWA DOCUMENT Application of CIWA Strategic Framework for Basin Selection (NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION) CIWA Proposal for Development Partners March 2014 CIWA Operational Guidelines July 2014 CIWA MTR List of Documents Folder Name: CIWA Basin Engagements Subfolder: Zambezi Zambezi River Basin Program AF Concept Note Sept 2014 Zambezi CIWA Program Basin Advisory Committee Mtg #1 Minutes Jan 28 & 29 PAD Zambezi River Basin Development Project (P133380) Zambezi CIWA Support Plan CIWA BAC Endorsed 2013 January Zambezi CIWA BAC Mtg #32014 May 21 Minutes Circulated (2) Subfolder: Niger Basin Niger CIWA Justification Note Final PAD Niger River Basin Management Project (P149714) Draft_NigerBasin CIWA Support Plan 2014 _Sept9_Final Subfolder: Volta Volta River Basin Support Project PCN Final Minutes of CN Review Meeting-Volta (P P149969) Aide Memoire-Volta-Oct 2013 PCN Volta River Basin Volta CSP Oct 10 Subfolder: Nile Zero Draft CIWA Support Plan-Nile River Basin- Oct 2013 Agenda- Nile Basin-CIWA steering Comm Meeting- Kigali-Oct Summary of Discussions- Informal Nile-CIWA partner Discussion First Nile-CIWA Basin Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes (final) Kigali 2013 Project Paper for AF of NCORE NBD Small grant Concept Note PAD-NCORE Subfolder: SADC Doc. Type.docx.docx.pdf PPTX.pdf.pdf.docx pptx.pdf word.docx.pdf.pdf.docx.docx.pdf.pdf.docx.pdf.pdf.pdf.docx.docx.pdf.pdf.pdf.pdf.pdf.pdf.pdf Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 77

91 PAD-SADC Documents Lake Chad Basin CIWA Justification Note Final Project Paper Lesotho Highlands-Botswana water transfer Folder Name: CIWA Catalytic Sub-Program Proposed Agenda CN Review Meeting for Political Economy of Cooperation (2) Comments Matrix PEA February 2015 Minutes of CIWA Catalytic Program Political Economy Meeting PCN Supplement-PEA Framework Economic Rationale for Cooperation in Trans Boundary Basins in Africa (P129777) Virtual Meeting Minutes-Oct 2014 PCN- Supplemental Documentation- Oct 2014 Justification Note ECOWAS CN- PA Chad Justification Note Oct 2013 Aide Memoire for ECOWAS identification mission- Feb 2014 Minutes of Review meeting for pillar-1 under PA Minutes of PA Catalytic Subprogram Note Programmatic_Concept Note final.pdf.pdf.pdf.doc.docx.docx.pdf.pdf.pdf.pdf.pdf.pdf.pdf.pdf.pdf.docx Folder Name: Minutes of AC Meetings Agenda - CIWA Advisory Committee Meeting October 2013 Oct 15.docx Agenda - CIWA Extraordinary Advisory Committee Meeting May 2014.doc Summary Note CIWA Partners Meeting-March 2012-final.pdf Overview of Progress pptx Agenda CIWA-Extra-Ordinary- DC.pdf Minutes of CIWA Extra Advisory Committee Meeting-Washington DC May 2013.pdf revised Third Annual CIWA Advisory Minutes December 2014 clean.pdf CIWA Decision Roster updated December 2014.pdf Minutes of Dakar CIWA AC Extraordinary Meeting May 2014 Minutes Final.pdf 2 nd CIWA AC Meeting Kigali Oct 2013 FINAL.pdf CIWA 1 st Annual Advisory Committee Meeting Oct 2012-Minutes.pdf Folder Name: Minutes of CG Meetings Summary Points-CIWA Meeting March 12-final CIWA 3 rd Consultative Group Meeting Dakar May 2014 Meeting report of 2 nd CG meeting Stockholm-2013 Minutes of CIWA CG-Marseille-2012.pdf.pdf.pdf Folder Name: Annual Report 2015_ CIWA_ AR_ web.pdf (Sept, 2015).pdf 2014_CIWA_AR_web.pdf (Revised on Nov 17).pdf CIWA Annual Report.pdf CIWA 2012 Annual Report Final.pdf Documents received from PMU/Core team Gender documents received from Gender Specialist (Sept, 2015).docx Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 78

92 Appendix 4: CIWA expanding funding options CIWA A High-Level Investigation of Funding Options Introduction The Cooperation in International Waters in Africa (CIWA) programme is supported by a multi-donor trust fund (MDTF) administered by the World Bank. This trust fund, programmatic in nature, sees funds committed to support CIWA s broad thematic framework, and not specific projects. This allows the programme more flexibility to deploy funds. Including existing initiatives, CIWA has an identified pipeline of projects in excess of US$200 million. The programme initially sought to mobilise this amount over a 10-year period from its inception. However, it has faced challenges in fulfilling this intent, with a current envelope of approximately US$78 million pledged by its small group of current partners of the European Commission, Denmark, United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands. There is hence a clear and perhaps urgent need, for CIWA to not only source additional funding to suitably cover its pipeline, but also to expand potential funding streams and reduce reliance on its core existing partners. Considerations in Identifying New Funding Streams One of the primary issues in considering potential new funding sources for CIWA is the programmatic nature of its MDTF. CIWA s mandate is broad, both in terms of possible sectors of intervention, as well as geographic locations. This requires prospective donors be comfortable that their contributions can be utilised anywhere across this mandate, and may rule out many sources of funding which have more specific objectives, or prefer more control over where their funds are deployed. Many donors prefer bilateral or direct arrangements, favouring targeted deployment of funds at a project level. A softer and possibly more controversial factor to consider, but of no less importance, is the role that political dynamics and relationships play in the donor funding space. Various funds and programmes compete for funding from the same pool of sources, whilst those sources may have agendas and desired outcomes which extend beyond the on-the-ground fundamentals. Both of these issues are difficult to ascertain with any degree of certainty without engaging with the source and allowing for a more comprehensive determination of mandate, agenda, and the nature of relationships. Fundraising is a fluid exercise, requiring adaptability in a consistently shifting space. Hence a first step in a more detailed process is to look close to home an assessment of funds of similar nature to CIWA, and an appraisal of existing funding relationships, within the broader World Bank Group. The broad questions to consider are: What other funds/trust funds does the World Bank Group administer? Which donors does the World Bank Group have existing relationships with? Which donors contribute to World Bank funds or trust funds with similar or complementary thematic areas to CIWA? Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 79

93 Which donors contribute to World Bank funds or trust funds of a similar nature to CIWA s structure programmatic and multi-donor? The high-level answers to these questions should begin to provide pointers to likely candidates, albeit at a preliminary stage of evaluation. Such candidates can be further investigated and engaged with as part of a process to develop and structure a formal fund raising strategy for CIWA. This analysis provides an initial and non-exhaustive survey of some of the higher profile and more obvious candidates for short-listing, providing a launching point for a more thorough study and development of a fund raising strategy. It should be noted that the above considerations, and following analysis, does not take into account potential funding modalities such as in-kind or co-funding arrangements. This is because it is unknown at this stage whether CIWA would consider such mechanisms which don t involve direct contributions to its MDTF, and also because such arrangements are typically negotiated and structured on a caseby-case basis and therefore would do little to assuage concerns over the long-term pipeline-funding mismatch. Early-Pass Identification of Potential Opportunities World Bank Group Funds - Overview A logical first step in the review process was to examine the contributions to International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and International Development Association (IDA) trust funds, which support World Bank development operations in low and medium income countries. An overview of the top contributors to World Bank IBRD/IDA trust funds is provided in the figure below. Figure 1: Cumulative Cash Contributions by Top Ten IBRD/IDA Development Funders FY09-13 in US$ billions (source: World Bank 2013 Trust Fund Report) At a broad level, the donors listed in the figure above are likely to share similar developmental traits, mandates and agendas. Five out of six of CIWA s current partners UK, European Union, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden are Top 10 donors to IBRD/IDA trust funds. This would suggest that the likes of the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, and possibly Spain, could be worth approaching and investigating further as potential new sources of CIWA support. If the analysis is expanded to consider contributors to World Bank Financial Intermediary Funds (FIF), Germany and France may also be appropriate possible donors to CIWA, although this is moderated by the fact they appear to prefer channelling through FIFs rather than trust funds. Looking at the level Mid-term Review of the Cooperation in International Waters in Africa Programme Final Report 80