S ignposts The GEF in the South China Sea and Adjacent Areas October 2012 The South China Sea (SCS) legal experts, and local government officials across the is one of the most productive region. GEF support has helped develop and test a num- marine areas in the world, but ber of management approaches and tools to address SCS political, economic, and social priority environmental concerns. Financial mechanisms to drivers have created great envi- implement these approaches have also been introduced ronmental pressures on this ecosystem: overfishing, habitat with GEF support. Furthermore, the GEF has made signifi - loss and degradation, and land-based pollution. The Global cant contributions in building trust by facilitating cooperative Environment Facility (GEF) has sought to catalyze coop- agreements between community members and between eration among the countries along the South China Sea government agencies at local and national scales. At the regional level, the GEF has facilitated five important inter- so these pressures may be addressed across national bor- governmental arrangements in the SCS. ders. Since 1992, the GEF approved funding of $115 million to address transboundary international waters–related con- The GEF has become a critical player in the region by cerns in the region, with total cofinancing of $689 million. linking initiatives at multiple scales, and providing a channel for other donors and stakeholders to support In 2012, the GEF Independent Evaluation Office completed transboundary concerns. Social network analysis shows the Impact Evaluation of GEF Support to the South China that all major SCS regional actors addressing environmental Sea and Adjacent Areas to assess the environmental and concerns have been partners in GEF initiatives in one way institutional impacts of 20 years of GEF support addressing or another. The analysis shows that some actors would have marine and coastal concerns in the region. The four main had their reach reduced by as much as 44 percent in the evaluation questions were: (1) Has support been relevant absence of the GEF initiatives. The GEF has become the to SCS transboundary environmental threats and priori- primary funder of regional coastal and marine initiatives in ties? (2) What are the effects of GEF support on country the SCS in the last 20 years. GEF support was also found efforts and environmental problems? (3) What are the to have enabled long-standing organizations in the region to critical factors that affect the likelihood that support will expand the nature and scale of their support in addressing catalyze broader actions to reduce environmental stress transboundary environmental concerns. and improve environmental and socioeconomic status? (4) What lessons can be learned that apply to the SCS In 21 of 26 cases where comparative data could be and elsewhere? The evaluation used a systems approach obtained, the GEF has supported initiatives that reduced environmental stress, and improved or main- and covered 34 projects in 7 countries: Cambodia, China, tained socioeconomic conditions. The evaluation shows Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. that GEF-supported approaches have generally been effec- tive at the specific sites where they have been implemented, Findings and Conclusions as opposed to the rest of the respective countries and the Although environmental pressures in the SCS continue region, where these approaches have not been widely to increase, the GEF has made important contributions implemented. In 9 of the 20 completed demonstrations that are relevant to addressing regional transboundary that were sampled, GEF-supported management initia- issues. The GEF has increased opportunities for communi- tives not only reduced environmental stress, but were also cation and collaboration by supporting networks of scientists, reported to help foster cooperative relationships, improve The GEF in the South China Sea and Adjacent Areas S ignposts livelihoods, and diversify sources of income as direct results Recommendations of improvements in environmental status. Despite successful On the South China Sea and Adjacent Areas implementation of the demonstrations, the extent of stress ●● GEF support should more fully draw on the GEF partner- reduction has been limited in several sites because of large- ship to mainstream transboundary concerns within coun- scale factors that the demonstrations failed to or could not tries and existing regional organizations. address. These sites have generally used habitat protection as the main approach, which does not consider the larger ●● The GEF should give more attention to supporting countries context in which the targeted concern exists. to work together to address concerns related to regional environmental goods and services. Broader adoption of GEF-supported initiatives is taking place and is critical to fully addressing environmental ●● The GEF should more clearly define the role and linkages of pressures at the appropriate scales, but faces constraints regional mechanisms in the context of its broader regional to further progress. In SCS, 20 sites were completed or were strategy, and ensure country and donor commitments to at a stage in which indications of broader adoption could be increasing levels of cofinancing to cover the full costs of identified. While there were differences in extent, 18 of these regional services by the end of the next phase of support. 20 sites reported some form of broader adoption: 13 cases of ●● The United Nations Development Programme needs to mainstreaming, 14 cases of replication, and 9 cases of scal- ensure that the social risks of the projects it finances in the ing-up. However, broader adoption at the local, national, and SCS are identified and addressed. regional scales is impeded by the following barriers: (1) condi- tions for broader adoptions are not always present; (2) systems ●● A more robust programmatic approach should be devel- for managing trade-offs and risks are not always in place; oped for GEF international waters support to the SCS and (3) countries are reluctant to support initiatives addressing adjacent areas. regional transboundary environmental concerns and global On Monitoring and the Use of Monitoring Data environmental benefits; (4) differences exist in the extent of ●● Impact monitoring and related reporting systems supported country support for environmental multilateral mechanisms, by the GEF should be consistent with local capacities and and regional environmental mechanisms currently heav- priorities. They should also be sufficiently flexible to accom- ily depend on donor funding—including GEF support; and modate the more user-friendly and affordable technologies (5) there is low coordination and insufficient management of that are rapidly emerging. internal risks within the GEF partnership. ●● Impact of monitoring and evaluation data and information GEF projects in the SCS and adjacent areas have major should be made available to the GEF Independent Evalu- deficiencies in the accessibility, use for management, ation Office in a timely and transparent manner. and reporting of environmental monitoring data. Envi- On the GEF-6 International Waters Focal Area Strategy ronmental monitoring data are being collected in 32 of 40 cases, but only 19 cases had data available, due to information ●● The findings of this evaluation should be considered in management systems either not being in place or not suited developing the international waters focal area in GEF-6, to country conditions. In 9 out of 20 sites that had completed and, when applicable, the strategies of other focal areas. demonstrations, no evidence was found of data being used and reported for management and public accountability. In The GEF Independent Evaluation Office is an independent entity cases where monitoring data have been used for management reporting directly to the GEF Council, mandated to evaluate the or public accountability, the technologies and systems typically focal area programs and priorities of the GEF. The full version of The GEF in the South China Sea and Adjacent Areas (Evaluation already existed in the countries. Report No. 75) is available on the GEF Independent Evaluation Office website, www.gefeo.org. For more information, please contact the Office at gefevaluation@thegef.org.