GEF Secretariat Review for Full/Medium-sized Projects*
The GEF/ldcf/sccf/NPIF Trust Funds

  
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	5628	
Country/Region:	Botswana	
Project Title:	Promoting Production and Utilization of Biomethane from Agro-waste in South-Eastern Botswana	
GEF Agency:	UNDP	GEF Agency Project ID:	5299 (UNDP)	
Type of Trust Fund:	GEF Trust Fund	GEF Focal Area (s):	Climate Change	
GEF-5 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s):	CCM-3; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:	$100,000	Project Grant:	$2,632,300	
Co-financing:	$14,930,600	Total Project Cost:	$17,662,900	
PIF Approval:		Council Approval/Expected:	March 03, 2014	
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Franck Jesus	Agency Contact Person:	Lucas Black	

Review Criteria	Questions	Secretariat Comment at PIF (PFD)/Work Program Inclusion 	Secretariat Comment At CEO Endorsement(FSP)/Approval (MSP)	
Eligibility	1.	Is the participating country eligible?	FJ - November 15, 2013:
Yes, Botswana ratified the UNFCCC on January 27, 1994.		
	2.	Has the operational focal point endorsed the project?	FJ - November 15, 2013:
Yes, by letter dated July 25, 2013

FJ - Jan 07, 2013:
a) Please provide a letter of endorsement from the government of Botswana mentioning their decision to make use of the marginal adjustment flexibility option to increase the amount allocated to the project beyond the remaining CCM allocation.
b) The new letter of endorsement provided does not seem correct. It has the same reference number and the same date as the previous letter of endorsement when it is expected to have been made several month later. Please clarify.

FJ - Jan 21, 2014:
Comments cleared. The revised Letter of Endorsement is expected prior to the work program submission to GEF Council Members.		
Resource Availability

	3. Is the proposed Grant (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	the STAR allocation?	FJ - November 15, 2013:
Yes.		
	•	the focal area allocation?	FJ - November 15, 2013:
Yes. Botswana's remaining CCM allocation is $2,868,000. The project requests $2,847,000.

FJ - Jan 07, 2013:
Yes. Botswana's remaining CCM allocation is $2,868,000. The government of Botswana has decided to use a marginal adjustment of the country's STAR allocation and to allocate an additional $132,300 from currently un-programmed STAR allocations from other focal areas (non-CCM) for this project. The revised total available amount for CCM is $3,000,300. The project requests $2,991,869.		
	•	the LDCF under the principle of equitable access			
	•	the SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?			
	•	the Nagoya Protocol Investment Fund			
	•	focal area set-aside?			
Strategic Alignment	4. Is the project aligned with the focal area/multifocal areas/ LDCF/SCCF/NPIF results framework and strategic objectives?
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 progress toward achieving the Aichi target(s).	FJ - November 15, 2013:
Yes.		
	5. Is the project consistent with the recipient country’s national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions, including NPFE, NAPA, NCSA, NBSAP or NAP?	FJ - November 15, 2013:
Please clarify what proportion of the country's annual GHG emissions the project's targeted sector/activities represents and the potential future emissions impact if the project activities are scaled up effectively.

FJ - Jan 07, 2013:
The project targets a sector representing a marginal portion (1.5%) of the country's total GHG emissions. Botswana has seen very few GEF CCM projects over the years and one would expect a focus on a more impactful sector in terms of GHG emission reduction potential.

FJ - Jan 21, 2014:
The amount of GHG emissions potentially targeted by the project and its replication has been corrected. Comment cleared.		

Project Design	6. Is (are) the baseline project(s), including problem(s) that the baseline project(s) seek/s to address, sufficiently described and based on sound data and assumptions?	FJ - November 15, 2013:
The project document mentions, page 5, a waste management plan covering 2000-2005. Is this plan already in place? Please clarify.

FJ - Jan 07, 2013:
Cleared.		
	7.	Are the components, outcomes and outputs in the project framework (Table B) clear, sound and appropriately detailed? 	FJ - November 15, 2013:
a) Please provide a rough economic analysis indicating whether Component 3 activities can make sense economically. With the current description, one wonders if it would be worth investing in a refueling station to supply for 10 trucks and if it would be worth investing in 10 refurbished trucks to save on fuel costs. One also wonders if the size of the refueling station is in line with the needs of the 10 trucks.
b) Please clarify what will happen to the remaining wastes after biogas fermentation. If an agricultural use is considered, please clarify (i) how the quality of the product will be monitored and certified, (ii) whether the distribution of the remaining waste can be organized in a range wide enough to avoid too high concentration of fertilizer in soil and subsequent run-off.
c) Biogas production projects are more successful if there are multiple off-take opportunities. Please clarify if vehicle consumption of the biogas is the single and solitary off-take, which would increase the riskiness of the project.
d) We urge the project team to consider whether the project as proposed should also address CCM-3, renewable energy, especially if the vehicle consumption option becomes untenable.
e) the project calls for retrofitting of trucks to biogas capability. However, this in itself is a rather expensive undertaking. Please clarify the expected relative costs of the refueling station and the retrofits. The GEF can only pay for the incremental retrofit cost; it cannot pay for the acquisition of trucks which must come from co-financing.

FJ - Jan 07, 2013:
a) Please clarify whether the estimated IRR calculation takes into account the investment needed for the peletisation unit, the fertilizer quality monitoring, the collection of waste sources, the gas/heat distribution system, the refueling station and the truck retrofitting. Please also clarify where the biogas will be produced, where its produced heat will be used and how the two will be linked.
b) Please address previous comment b) (ii).
c) and d) cleared
e) See comment a) above.
f) According to the estimation provided, the proposed biogas plant to be supported would reduce 41% of waste sector emissions. Please clarify how the biogas plant will manage to ensure the collection of 41% of the waste emission sources.

FJ - Jan 21, 2014:
a), e) and f) Comments cleared.
b) ??		
	8.	(a) Are global environmental/ adaptation benefits identified? (b) Is the description of the incremental/additional reasoning sound and appropriate?	FJ - November 15, 2013:
a) Please clarify why GEF support is needed for the investment part of the project since the description of the baseline seem to infer that several financing sources already exist but are waiting for a decent feasibility study and due diligence preparation to engage.
b) Please also clarify the way GEF grant will be used in the investment activities.
c) If GEF investment is needed, please consider providing the associated fund in a way that would be more sustainable and that would allow to do more than a demonstration or two, such as a revolving loan fund or other non-grant instrument.
d) Please clarify how the GHG emission reduction estimation take into account the fact that designing a biogas plant may lead to more methane produced than the current fermentation process.

FJ - Jan 07, 2013:
a) Cleared.
b) Please clarify the type of financial support to be provided with GEF financing. The PIF currently identifies a wide range of options that need to be narrowed done to be able to (i) identify adequate partners for the project with experience in managing the chosen financial instrument, (ii) allocate an appropriate budget for the chosen instrument, and (iii) to identify the needed activities to ensure the financial sustainability of the INV part of the project beyond its completion. 
c) Please address comment b) above and consider a more sustainable financing arrangement for component 3.
d) Please clarify the source of waste the project intends to target. Please then clarify whether, in the BAU scenario, these waste sources would face anaerobic or anaerobic fermentation. In the former case, calculating the project GHG impact based on the bio-digester's methane production would not be correct.
e) Please clarify what is the potential GHG impact of the HRAPs.

FJ - Jan 21, 2014:
b) and c) Comments cleared. Details are expected at CEO endorsement request on the proposed facility, its partners, their experience and capacity and the co-financing/financing means available (especially for the investments facilitation).
e) Cleared. To be detailed for CEO endorsement.		
	9.	Is there a clear description of: 
a) the socio-economic benefits, including gender dimensions, to be delivered by the project, and b) how will the delivery of such benefits support the achievement of incremental/ additional benefits?			
	10.	Is the role of public participation, including CSOs, and indigenous peoples where relevant, identified and explicit means for their engagement explained?	FJ - November 15, 2013:
Yes		
	11.	Does the project take into account potential major risks, including the consequences of climate change, and describes sufficient risk mitigation measures? (e.g., measures to enhance climate resilience)	FJ - November 15, 2013:
Please clarify how the project will take into account potential security risks associated with biogas-fueled trucks.

FJ - Jan 07, 2013:
a) Thank you for the clarification. Details are expected at CEO endorsement.
b) Please clarify whether there is a risk of seeing HRAPs becoming a source of soil/groundwater pollution and identify mitigation means if necessary.

FJ - Jan 21, 2014:
b) Cleared. Detailed analysis and mitigation actions are expected by CEO endorsement.		
	12.	Is the project consistent and properly coordinated with other related initiatives in the country or in the region? 	FJ - November 15, 2013:
Please clarify how this project will be coordinated with UNIDO's program to develop industrial-based waste to energy.

FJ - Jan 07, 2013:
Cleared.		
	13.	Comment on the project’s innovative aspects, sustainability, and potential for scaling up.
•	Assess whether the project is innovative and if so, how, and if not, why not.
•	Assess the project’s strategy for sustainability, and the likelihood of achieving this based on GEF and Agency experience.
•	Assess the potential for scaling up the project’s intervention.	FJ - November 15, 2013:
a) Please clarify how the training activities needed to continue the development of the biogas can be sustained beyond the project duration, and consider adding activities to that effect.
b) Please clarify how the biogas production cost would compare to the current alternatives in the different uses considered page 13 of the PIF.
c) Components 2 and 3 appear to focus on supporting one investment each, the former being rather well developed already. The PIF, however, does not clarify how replication and scaling up may occur. The activities of component 1 are aiming at improving the regulatory framework for such investment but the risk of not having a strong commitment by the local authorities is identified as high (which may question the actual buy-in of the proposed activities). Please (i) identify the technical replication and scaling up potential in Botswana and (ii) consider revising the GEF investment components to set up mechanisms that would enable replication and scaling up beyond the project implementation.

FJ - Jan 07, 2013:
a) Please clarify how the financial means necessary to continue the needed training will be sustained beyond project completion. 
b) Please provide a rough comparison between the project expected heat and fuel production cost/sale and the cost of the current alternative heat and fuel source.
c) The previous comment c) has not been addressed. The project still mainly relies on "one shot" investments with policy support activities whose outcome assessed as uncertain in the risk table. A possibility of non-grant instrument is identified for component 2 but not clearly defined. Please address previous comment c) and comment 8 b) and c) above.
d) According to the estimation provided, the proposed biogas plant to be supported would reduce 41% of waste sector emissions. Please clarify then how the PIF estimate a scaling up potential multiplying the project impact by 5 or 10.

FJ - Jan 21, 2014:
Comments cleared. Details are expected by CEO endorsement, on how the project will ensure the financial means necessary to continue the needed training will be sustained beyond project completion.		
	14.	Is the project structure/design sufficiently close to what was presented at PIF, with clear justifications for changes?			
	15.	Has the cost-effectiveness of the project been sufficiently demonstrated, including the cost-effectiveness of the project design as compared to alternative approaches to achieve similar benefits?			

Project Financing	16.	Is the GEF funding and co-financing as indicated in Table B appropriate and adequate to achieve the expected outcomes and outputs?	FJ - November 15, 2013:
Please clarify why the activities financed by UNDP for component 1 are necessary for the implementation of the project.

FJ - Jan 07, 2013:
a) The previous comment has not been addressed. The response provided deals with the complementarity between component 1 and the rest of the project. This was not the question. The question concerned UNDP's co-financing of component 1. Please address the previous comment.
b) Please clarify whether the co-financing from district councils correspond to their budget for usual activities or to specific activities related to the proposed project. Please also clarify why the co-financing seems to account for more districts than those targeted by the project.
c) Responses to comment 8 a) indicates that the co-financing from BMC corresponds to effluent treatment already in place. This does not seem to qualify as a co-financing for the GEF. Please clarify or modify table C.

FJ - Jan 21, 2014:
Comments cleared.
The CEO endorsement request is expected to clarify what the co-financing sources (and UNDP in particular) will support and how these activities are necessary for the achievement of the project's objectives.		
	17.	At PIF: Is the indicated amount and composition of co-financing as indicated in Table C adequate? Is the amount that the Agency bringing to the project in line with its role? 
At CEO endorsement:  Has co-financing been confirmed?	FJ - November 15, 2013:
Please address Q16.

FJ - Jan 07, 2013:
Please clarify the risk of overlapping between the project requested support and SIDA'a grant under discussion with Biosys.

FJ - Jan 21, 2014:
Cleared. To be clarified by CEO endorsement.		
	18.	Is the funding level for project management cost appropriate?	FJ - November 15, 2013:
The co-financing ratio for the project management cost is low compared to the co-financing ratio of the project's activities. Please increase the co-financing for the project management cost.

FJ - Jan 07, 2013:
Cleared.		
	19.	At PIF, is PPG requested?  If the requested amount deviates from the norm, has the Agency provided adequate justification that the level requested is in line with project design needs?  
At CEO endorsement/ approval, if PPG is completed, did Agency report on the activities using the PPG fund?	FJ - November 15, 2013:
PPG is requested and does not deviate from the norm.		
	20.	If there is a non-grant instrument in the project, is there a reasonable calendar of reflows included?	FJ - November 15, 2013:
The project is a grant.		
Project Monitoring and Evaluation	21.	Have the appropriate Tracking Tools been included with information for all relevant indicators, as applicable?			
	22.	Does the proposal include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?			
Agency Responses	23.	Has the Agency adequately responded to comments from:			
	•	STAP?			
	•	Convention Secretariat?			
	•	The Council?			
	•	Other GEF Agencies?			
Secretariat Recommendation	

Recommendation at PIF Stage	24.	 Is PIF clearance/approval being recommended?	FJ - November 15, 2013:
No. Please address the above comments.

FJ - Jan 07, 2013:
No. Please address the above comments.
Please contact the GEF secretariat prior to re-submission.

FJ - Jan 21, 2014:
Yes. The project is technically cleared for consideration in a future work program.		
	25.	Items to consider at CEO endorsement/approval.	FJ - November 15, 2013:
Please detail, by CEO endorsement request, the activities of outputs 1.1 and 1.3 aimed at introducing punitive measures for non-compliant entities with the resulting fees returned to allow for a recurring source of revenue for enforcement activities.

FJ - Jan 21, 2014:
b) Details are expected at CEO endorsement request on the enventual further need for subsidies for replications, and the proposed investment facilitation platform, its partners, their experience and capacity and the co-financing/financing means available (especially for the investments facilitation).
c) Details are expected by CEO endorsement, on how the project will ensure the financial means necessary to continue the needed training will be sustained beyond project completion.
d) The CEO endorsement request is expected to clarify what the co-financing sources (and UNDP in particular) will support and how these activities are necessary for the achievement of the project's objectives.		
Recommendation at CEO Endorsement/ Approval	26.	 Is CEO endorsement/approval being recommended?			
	First review*	November 15, 2013		
Review Date (s)	Additional review (as necessary)	January 07, 2014		
	Additional review (as necessary)	January 21, 2014		
				
*  This is the first time the Program Manager provides full comments for the project.  Subsequent follow-up reviews should be recorded. For specific comments 
     for each section, please insert a date after comments. Greyed areas in each section do not need comments.