GEF-6 GEF Secretariat Review for Programmatic Framework Document*
The GEF/ldcf/sccf Trust Funds

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	9403	
Country/Region:	China	
Program Title:	China's Protected Area System Reform (C-PAR)	
GEF Agency:	UNDP, FECO and CI	GEF Agency Project ID:	5695 (UNDP)	
Type of Trust Fund:	GEF Trust Fund	GEF Focal Area (s):	Biodiversity	
GEF-6 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s):	BD-1 Program 1; BD-1 Program 2; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:		Program Grant:	$18,616,055	
Co-financing:	$129,017,808	Total Program Cost:	$147,633,863	
PIF Approval:		Council Approval/Expected:	October 03, 2016	
Program Manager:	Yoko Watanabe	Agency Contact Person:	Midori Paxton	

Review Criteria	Questions	Secretariat Comments 	Agency Response 	
Program Consistency	1.	Is the program aligned with the relevant GEF strategic objectives and results framework?	Yes.  The project is well aligned with BD1 on PA system and its results framework. 

Relevant Aichi Targets linkage is clarified.		

Program Design	2.	Is the description of the baseline scenario reliable, and based on sound data and assumptions?  Are the activities that will be financed using GEF/LDCF/SCCF funding based on incremental/ additional reasoning?	Problem/Threats/Barriers:  The key threats to biodiversity and PAs are very generally described, and the key drivers (i.e. underlying causes) for the degradation is not sufficiently described.  Please further clarify. 

Baseline:  
- National level: The baseline situation at the national level on protected areas system in China is generally described.  However, it is unclear how the former and ongoing GEF and other donor/NGO financed projects on protected areas have provided support in improving the situation and how the project will build on these initiatives.  Please clarify.  

- Target provincial level:  a) it is unclear why these three provinces are selected for this program.  Please clarify the selection criteria and the rational for the selection; b) baseline description of the provincial level could be further elaborated with substance, including barriers, gaps, and type of baseline projects/initiatives.

12 April 2016
Problem/Threats/Barriers as well as baseline activities are sufficently revised with adequate information. 

On the selection criteria for provincial level child-projects, please include the explanation provided in the response sheet. Section 9 on selection criteria (p.35) and the response are a little different.  GEBs, conservation gaps, coverage of different ecosystems, etc should be considered as key criteria.  Please revise the PFD accordingly.   

Further, it would be useful to have a table that clarify different types of PA categorization, ecosystem, etc of each of the child project site.		
	3.	Is the program framework (Table B) sound and sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve program objectives and the GEBs?	1. GEBs:  

- Is it reasonable/realistic to note improved management of national PA system covering the entire 146 million ha of terrestial and 6.7 million ha of marine PAs in China?  Not sure if it is more relevant to note the direct benefits on PA expansion and improved management effectiveness through the child-projects implementation.  Please review. 

- The numbers on PA expansion are not coherent throughout the PIF (2.483m ha or 2.518m ha?).  Please review. 

- What is the target ha for the improved management effectiveness?  Please clarify. 

2. Program framework/design:

- Please clarify how the multi-sectoral institutional framework for PA system management is envisioned. 

- The linkage between the different child (site level) projects and the policy/coordination/knowledge management activities are not clearly defined.  Please further clarify how they are linked and coordinated, and lead to achieving coherent program results.

- Please clarify that all PA expansion will be in the KBAs and addressing key gaps in the PA systems in China.  

3. Project framework/design:

- Please ensure that the each of the child project addresses: 
1) provincial level PA system mgmt (i.e. not site based, at least provincial level PA sub-system, such as wetland PA system at the provincial level); and 
2) strengthening policy, institutional, and financial frameworks, 
in addition to the site level demonstration activities.   Please revise the child-projects accordingly.  

- Please also clarify the linkages and how the outcome/outputs at the provincial level child-projects will contribute to the national level PA reform.

- Based on the MOU between GEF and FECO, the Child-project 6 needs to be substantially revised and delete component 2 on site-level demonstration/pilot.  The project could focus and further elaborate on component 1, with strong elements on policies/strategies, assessments, best practices tools/approaches, monitoring, and financing of protected areas system.    

- Key criteria for Child project selection should include significance of global biological benefit.

12 April 2016

1) Program framework/Design - In addition to the MEP, please further clarify the role of SFA in this program as they play a key role in managing most of the natural reserves in the country at this stage. 

2) Project Framework/Design - The child projects require further revisions by addressing the following clarification comments, in line with the more general comments provided earlier:

Child Project 1 National level (UNDP): Please review and revise the project, reflecting on the comments below on Project 6. 

Child Project 2 Gansu (UNDP):  Further revise and enhance project's focus on PA management, in line with the PFD.  The objective of the project should be focused on PA and ecosystem management at the provincial level, while species conservation can be one of the key indicator or benefit. 

Child Project 3 Qinghai (UNDP): Please further clarify why another GEF financed project is required when there is ongoing GEF PA system level project under implementation.  The ongoing Qinghai project already covers climate change resilience, PA assessment, and financial sustainability issues.  It seems there are substantial overlap to the project design.  

Child Project 4 Southeast China (UNDP):  Please adequately address comments that were provided by the GEFSEC earlier, when this project was submitted as standalone PIF.  As noted then, please further adopt an ecosystem-based approach, rather than pursuing a species centric approach.  Moreover, to be in line with the PFD, it is suggested that the project objective to be focused on MPA system management, by having CWD as indicator species.  Please revise the project design accordingly.  

Child Project 6 PA Reform (FECO):  
Component 1: the project presents a large overlap with Child Project 1, particularly on PA policies, assessments, and monitoring outcomes and outputs.  Further, theory of change for this project is unclear and requires further thoughts.  It is not clear how one could generalize threats and underlying drivers of negative impacts on PA management, and come up with best practice models/standards for all PA types.  
Component 2: not eligible for FECO implementation.  The GEFSEC has carefully reviewed both the GEF Minimum Standards on Involuntary Resettlement and Indigenous Peoples as well as the FECO-GEF MOU, and concluded that FECO is not eligible for activities related to site-level protected areas management.
The PM suggests that Child Project 1 and 6 to be possibly merged to avoid duplication and ensure eligibility.		
	4.	Are socio-economic aspects, including relevant gender elements, indigenous people, and CSOs considered?	Gender:  While the general approach is noted, the description provided is very general without project specific context.  Please elaborate further with tangible information. 

Indigenous Peoples: Please clarify involvement and consideration of indigenous peoples at both national and provicial levels activities.  Please clarify necessary process to ensure appropriate consultation and consent.  

Socio-economic benefits:  Please clarify any key socio-economic indicators that will be applied at both program and project levels.

12 April 2016
Adequately revised at this stage.  Please assess and review these elements during PPG and provide detailed information at the time of CEO endorsement.		
	5.	Does the program 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)	Yes, sufficiently described.		
	6.	If there is a non-grant instrument in the program, is the GEF Agency(ies) capable of managing it?	n/a		
	7.	Is the program coordinated with other related initiatives and national/regional plans in the country or in the region?	No.  It is unclear how this project will actually coordinate with related initiatives such as the CBPF and MSL programs.  Please clarify.   

It is noted that project sites are "mostly" fall with the priority areas identified in NBSAP.  The NBSAP priority areas are quite broad, and sites under the GEF projects should be all under the priority areas.  Please review and reconsider the sites as needed.

12 April 2016
Sufficient information provided at this stage.  Please include the information in the PFD, and further clarify details during PPG.		
	8.	Is the program implementation/ execution arrangement adequate?	Yes, sufficiently clear at this stage.  Further details should be provided at the time of CEO endorsement in the coordination project. 

Minor point: but please revise the "GEF IA" as "GEF Agency."		
	9.	Does the program include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?	No. Please clarify.

12 April 2016
Adequate information provided.		
	10.	Does the program have description of knowledge management plan?	Yes.  Further details are expected at CEO endorsement.		
Resource Availability	11.	Is the proposed Grant (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	the STAR allocation?	Yes, it is within the country BD STAR allocation.		
	•	the focal area allocation?	Yes, see above.		
	•	the LDCF under the principle of equitable access?	n/a		
	•	the SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?	n/a		
	•	focal area set-aside?	n/a		
Secretariat Recommendation	

PFD Clearance	Is the PFD recommended for clearance to include in the work program?	No.  Please address above comments and resubmit the PFD.

12 April 2016
No. Please address above clarification comments and resubmit the PFD.  The GEFSEC is available to discuss and provide further clarification as needed.

18 May 2016
No.  The GEFSEC received a revised PFD that largely addresses most of the comments provided earlier.  However, there are two key issues that still requires further revision and clarification:

1) GEBs:  The global environment benefits that are described in table F and texts (p.23 under d) and table 4) do not match.  It would be useful to distinguish direct and indirect benefits; and also ensure consistency in numbers of ha (both PA expansion and mgmt effectiveness of existing ones). 

2) Child Project 6:   While the PM appreciates the substantial revision that has been made, there are still several elements that require further clarification and revision:

a. Project objective (PO) - the PO is very long and confusing.  It needs to be revised to simply understand what this project is about.  Following the response matrix text and the description in the project concept, the PM understands that this is a project to develop effective tools and institutional framework to better evaluate the management performance of the nature reserve.   Please revise the PO as appropriate.  

b. Component 2 - While the PM appreciates further thought provided to the revision of this component, it is unclear: how this component adds value to the program; and how it will be implemented through other child projects.  The 8 tools/strategies that are listed here have been developed and applied already in many of the protected areas in China, including GEF supported projects.  The international standards for these activities are also very clear and established.  In addition, it is unclear how these strategies/tools will be implemented and tested through the child project, i.e. by funded by this child project?  by funded by the other child project?  who would be implementing it?  who would be accountable for this component?   The PM suggests that this component to be further reviewed and revised.  One possible option maybe is to focus on valuation of the protected area system of entire China (and potentially by province), and how it can be mainstreamed into other related development policies in the country and/or influence public expenditure and private sector involvement in protected area management.   

c. GEB and Potential for scale up (page 118) needs to be reviewed and revised to meet the specific nature of this child project.  It is too general and does not match to the design of this project. 

The PM is available to discuss and clarify on any of the element.  Please resubmit a revised PFD with the child project concepts.

11 July 2016
Yes. The GEFSEC received a revised PFD that adequately responds to the earlier comments, including revision to the FECO child project. The child project has now been revised to work on development of PA mgmt standards and economic valuation of PA system, instead of site level mgmt.   The PM recommends the PFD for CEO clearance.		
Review Date (s)	Review*			
	Additional Review (as necessary)	April 12, 2016		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	May 18, 2016		
* This is the first time the Program Manager provides full comments for the program.  Subsequent follow-up reviews should be recorded. For specific comments for each 
section, please insert a date after comments.