Download Project Review Sheet - Global Environment Facility

GEF-6 GEF SECRETARIAT REVIEW FOR FULL-SIZED/MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECTS
THE GEF/LDCF/SCCF TRUST FUND
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
GEF ID:
Country/Region:
Project Title:
9420
Regional (Malawi, Tanzania)
Strengthening Trans-boundary Cooperation and Integrated Natural Resources Management in the
Songwe River Basin
GEF Agency:
GEF Agency Project ID:
AfDB
Type of Trust Fund:
GEF Focal Area (s):
GEF Trust Fund
International Waters
GEF-6 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s):
IW-1 Program 1;
Anticipated Financing PPG:
Project Grant:
$200,000
$6,392,694
Co-financing:
Total Project Cost:
$11,000,000
$17,392,694
PIF Approval:
Council Approval/Expected: October 03, 2016
CEO Endorsement/Approval
Expected Project Start Date:
Program Manager:
Agency Contact Person:
Astrid Hillers
Daniel Verdeil
PIF Review
Review Criteria
Questions
1. Is the project aligned with the relevant
GEF strategic objectives and results
framework?1
Project Consistency
Secretariat Comment
Agency Response
This will need some adjustment. The
project needs to still address
foundational elements in more
comprehensive manner before
applying for funding from GEF IW
objectives 2. PIF component 3
elements in majority aim at
strengthening the enabling
environment for the cooperation and
are eligible under IW-1.1.
1
For BD projects: has the project explicitly articulated which Aichi Target(s) the project will help achieve and are SMART indicators identified, that will be used to track the
project’s contribution toward achieving the Aichi Target(s)?
GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015
1
PIF Review
Review Criteria
Questions
Secretariat Comment
Agency Response
(7/24/2016):
2. Is the project consistent with the
recipient country’s national strategies
and plans or reports and assessments
under relevant conventions?
The PIF has been fundamentally
revised and comments and informal
comments taken on board. The
anticipated timing of operationalizing
the Joint Commission, drafting a
transboundary agreement (beyond the
existing based of the joint
commission), and joint assessments of
impacts on interaction of river and the
lake ecosystems provide provide a
base for IW funding and is aligned
with the GEF IW objective 1 - 1.
Consistency and anchoring in the
country strategies and development
plans need to be outlined, including
those related to natural resources (
e.g. fisheries are major source of
income alignment with the impacts of
infrastructure on fish resources both
in the river and potentially in the lake
due to impacts on fish migration and
impacts on spawning areas).
(7/24/2016):
The alignment with regional and
national planes has been much
improved. Additional detail especially
with relation to the demonstration
activities should be included during
project design (i.e. included at
endorsement ).
GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015
2
PIF Review
Review Criteria
Questions
3. Does the PIF sufficiently indicate the
drivers2 of global environmental
degradation, issues of sustainability,
market transformation, scaling, and
innovation?
Project Design
Secretariat Comment
Agency Response
The project addresses some of the key
drivers including, e.g. such as
watershed degradation from land
conversion. Other looming drivers of
serious impacts are from planned
infrastructure (as mentioned in the
PIF).
The project suggest to update the
TDA (dating back to 2004) including
incorporating the impacts of climate
change. An updated, participatory
TDA would provide an updated
analysis on root causes of resource
degradation. The feasibility in 2004
falls short on assessing some key
issues. The GEF guidance on TDA
processes may be helpful to inform
the TDA update (available on www.
iwlearn.net).
(7/24/2016):
The revised PIS has taken effort to
openly address the opportunities and
the real risks of the implementation of
the SRBDP. Besides describing a
wider set of drivers and addressing
these, the timely GEF support - if
included in work program - will
support building a foundation for
collaborative governance and
2
Need not apply to LDCF/SCCF projects.
GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015
3
PIF Review
Review Criteria
Questions
4. Is the project designed with sound
incremental reasoning?
Secretariat Comment
Agency Response
management, enhanced participatory
processes and assessing the impacts
and addressing/preventing possible
adverse effects of future planned
infrastructure on Lake Malawi.
Two points on this:
- the project incremental reasoning on
strengthening transboundary
cooperation and strengthening the
operationalization of a permanent
cooperative institution is well in line
with the GEF incremental reasoning
and creation of IW related GEBs.
- Including the HP dam and irrigation
investments in the increment/cofinance is not in line with GEF GEB
and reasoning. The PIF states that are
risking 'important adverse hydroecological impacts" and with specific
concern on fish spawning areas.
(7/24/2016):
The project design has been vastly
revised and now aims at contributing
to a much improved enabling
environment on regional and national
levels for the sustainable management
of the Songwe river catchment and
more comprehensive assessment and
integration with the management of
Lake Malawi.
GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015
4
PIF Review
Review Criteria
Questions
5. Are the components in Table B sound
and sufficiently clear and appropriate to
achieve project objectives and the
GEBs?
Secretariat Comment
Agency Response
The project now includes a
comprehensive formulation of the
incremental reasoning and GEBs and
rational for GEF IW investments.
As outlined in and #1 and # 4 above,
the international waters strategy is
based on a sequence and foundational
interactions. The feasibility analysis is
not the same scope as a
comprehensive, cross-sectoral TDA
and also is in need of updating -as
requested by the project. The SAP
update will need to build on the TDA.
GEF support would be well suited to
support the operationalization of the
Songwe Basin Commission and
aiding it to be created as a well
functioning and sustainable
institution. Based on the specifics of
the underlying agreement - which we
could not find (please send) - it would
be essential to also build in support to
specific protocols and the translation
of the regional agreement into e.g.
national reforms.
The project should reflect somewhere
the NR related basin Vision 2050:
"Basin societies have a broad and
sustained diversity of natural
resources (soils, vegetation, water,
wildlife, etc.) constituting the basin's
natural capital assets that are properly
GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015
5
PIF Review
Review Criteria
Questions
Secretariat Comment
Agency Response
harnessed to enhance social, human
and financial capital to alleviate
property. "
Component 3 includes many elements
and most fit into GEF foundational
and eligible activities. A GEF
foundational support to the Songwe
basin should focus on these issues
with a funding envelope more in line
with foundational projects (around
USD 5 million). Interventions under
foundational phase could include
(citing from the PIF component 3
below):
- supporting the basin organization to
be made functional (to guide SAP
implementation in a later stage) and
building its capacity;
- a Transboundary Diagnostic (which
for some features, such as fisheries,
needs to also include the interaction
between the fish resources in the lake
and the river spawning grounds some
of which are likely to be found in the
river and river mouth);
- SAP update (to include climate
change) and adoption in ministerial
levels;
- capacity building on regional and
national levels;
- assessments of soil, groundwater,
biodiversity, and eco-systems (and
aiding to develop policies and
GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015
6
PIF Review
Review Criteria
Questions
Secretariat Comment
Agency Response
strategies on regional and national
levels to enhance their sustainable
management);
- a knowledge management and
outreach strategy;
- In addition, as an early
investment/low hanging fruit
investment which is not unusual in
GEF foundational project, the flood
early warning and response system
could also be eligible and is also
mentioned under component 3 in the
PIF.
Please also note in the PIF that 1 % of
the project grant is to be allocated to
IW-Learn activities.
On the hydro-metereological
monitoring system (also component
3), please note that GEF does NOT
fund national hydromet stations but
GEF can fund regional data
management and information
systems. For national hydromet
stations LDCF/SSCF funds can be
used in principal, but are currently
limited.
As for the other two components
(SAP implementation) these are not
clearly fitting under the GEF IW
window in a foundational phase. This
project needs to first conduct a full
GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015
7
PIF Review
Review Criteria
Questions
Secretariat Comment
Agency Response
TDA (in your view a TDA update)
and SAP update. To create or
maintain momentum as highlighted in
the PIF and to show some visible
investments in foundational projects,
proponents could consider a
partnership with the Small Grants
Program (as a local SGP).
(7/24/2016):
The components have been revised
and are focusing on providing for a
permanent regional institution,
enhanced environmental information,
explicitly addressing the importance
of and risk to river and lake fish
stocks, and including of initial
information on groundwater and
mapping recharge areas.
Comments raised previously have
been addressed, including being
explicit in not financing hydromet
stations from GEF resources.
Emphasis on participatory processes
and gender dimensions, addressing
and enhancing country based
institutional and regulatory systems
within demonstration sites and
assessing lessons for scale should all
be mentioned among the actions
supported in the revised PIF.
GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015
8
PIF Review
Review Criteria
Questions
Secretariat Comment
6. Are socio-economic aspects, including
relevant gender elements, indigenous
people, and CSOs considered?
The background documents
(feasibility study, 2004, and the
Songwe Vision 2050) clearly
highlight the need for action on
gender equality. The intention to
address gender aspects during project
design needs to be addressed in the
project framework.
Agency Response
In addition the TDA (to be
undertaken) will aid in analyzing use
values that are currently not clearly
addressed such as the ecosystems and
livelihoods values of floodplains,
river and lake fisheries and their
interaction, and other.
Please confirm that there are no
indigenous people 's in the project
area.
(7/24/2016):
The revised PIF is explicit and
specific in considering involvement
of communities and CSOs, and on
consideration of gender dimensions.
The gender section is well thought out
for a PIF stage.
Availability of
Resources
7. Is the proposed Grant (including the
Agency fee) within the resources
available from (mark all that apply):
 The STAR allocation?
GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015
N/A
9
PIF Review
Review Criteria


Questions
Secretariat Comment
The focal area allocation?
Yes, funds are available but eligibility
needs to be addressed as outlined
above.
The LDCF under the principle of
equitable access
 The SCCF (Adaptation or
Technology Transfer)?
 Focal area set-aside?
8. Is the PIF being recommended for
clearance and PPG (if additional
amount beyond the norm) justified?
Agency Response
(7/24/2016): Comment addressed.
N/A
N/A
N/A
No, not recommended at this stage.
Substantive revisions will be needed
in the project scope and funding
envelope.
Please address differences across
GEF datasheet tables to assure
consistency (e.g. agency is not part of
project grant). Please do not hesitate
to ask GEFSEC advise if needed.
Recommendations
Please also note that the existing cofinance cannot be counted towards/ be
part of the GEF alternative (see #4).
(7/24/2016):
The team can be commended for the
extensive work to revise the proposal
and for the cooperative and
constructive process of addressing
very substantial set of previous
comments and concerns.
GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015
10
PIF Review
Review Criteria
Questions
Secretariat Comment
Agency Response
(7/24/2016):The PIF is recommended
for technical clearance.
Please - among other - address the
following by endorsement:
- Please include in the final
documents a clear statement that the
updated SAP (or its equivalent) will
be signed at the level of respective
ministers of both countries (at least
one ministers from each country).
Also, we would strongly suggest that
the intended formation of National
Intersectoral Committees be included
as an activity/indicator in the project
results framework.
- explicitly list 1 % of funds for
participation in IW - Learn in the
project budget and include
mentioning of IWC participation,
drafting of at least 2 experience notes
and sharing these with IW-Learn, and
a project website that includes
features to allow feeds to the IW learn
website.
- expand reach to development
partners - such a IUCN - to increase
co-financing by endorsement. in
addition explore to what extend
national programs would also be able
GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015
11
PIF Review
Review Criteria
Questions
Secretariat Comment
Agency Response
to be aligned with the project
objectives and that way leverage
additional co-finance commitments.
Innovative and relatively cost
effective methods of isotope
fingerprinting to determine the origins
of sediment sources and hence
guiding future SDRP interventions
may be another aspect to consider in
case of interest and available
support/co-finance is possibility
through appropriate development
partners.
- please provide updated figures and
based of calculation of number in
table F.
March 17, 2016
Review
Review Date
July 24, 2016
Additional Review (as necessary)
Additional Review (as necessary)
CEO endorsement Review
Review Criteria
GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015
Questions
Secretariat Comment at CEO
Endorsement
Response to Secretariat comments
12
CEO endorsement Review
Review Criteria
Project Design and
Financing
Questions
Secretariat Comment at CEO
Endorsement
Response to Secretariat comments
1. If there are any changes from
that presented in the PIF, have
justifications been provided?
2. Is the project structure/ design
appropriate to achieve the
expected outcomes and outputs?
3. Is the financing adequate and
does the project demonstrate a
cost-effective approach to meet
the project objective?
4. Does the project take into
account potential major risks,
including the consequences of
climate change, and describes
sufficient risk response
measures? (e.g., measures to
enhance climate resilience)
5. Is co-financing confirmed and
evidence provided?
6. Are relevant tracking tools
completed?
7. Only for Non-Grant Instrument:
Has a reflow calendar been
presented?
8. Is the project coordinated with
other related initiatives and
national/regional plans in the
country or in the region?
9. Does the project include a
budgeted M&E Plan that
monitors and measures results
with indicators and targets?
GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015
13
CEO endorsement Review
Review Criteria
Agency Responses
Recommendation
Review Date
3
Questions
Secretariat Comment at CEO
Endorsement
Response to Secretariat comments
10. Does the project have
descriptions of a knowledge
management plan?
11. Has the Agency adequately
responded to comments at the
PIF3 stage from:
 GEFSEC
 STAP
 GEF Council
 Convention Secretariat
12. Is CEO endorsement
recommended?
Review
Additional Review (as necessary)
Additional Review (as necessary)
If it is a child project under a program, assess if the components of the child project align with the program criteria set for selection of child projects.
GEF-6 FSP/MSP Review Template January2015
14