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

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	4990	
Country/Region:	Burundi	
Project Title:	Community disaster risk management in Burundi	
GEF Agency:	UNDP	GEF Agency Project ID:	4922 (UNDP)	
Type of Trust Fund:	Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF)	GEF Focal Area (s):	Climate Change	
GEF-5 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s):	CCA-1; CCA-2; CCA-3; Project Mana; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:	$0	Project Grant:	$8,715,000	
Co-financing:	$28,550,000	Total Project Cost:	$37,265,000	
PIF Approval:		Council Approval/Expected:		
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Knut Sundstrom	Agency Contact Person:	Mame Dagou Diop	

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?	YES. Burundi is an LDC Party to the UNFCCC and it has completed its NAPA.		
	2.	Has the operational focal point endorsed the project?	YES. A Letter of Endorsement, signed by the Operational Focal Point and dated April 23, 2012, has been attached to the submission.

However, the PPG, project grant and Agency Fee cited in the letter differ from those provided in the PIF and the PPG Request. Please provide, by CEO Endorsement, a revised Letter of Endorsement, ensuring that the Agency Fee does not exceed that 10 per cent of the project grant and PPG.		
Agency’s Comparative Advantage	3. Is the Agency's comparative advantage for this project clearly described and supported?  	YES. UNDP has a comparative advantage in capacity building and technical assistance for climate change adaptation, as well as community-based approaches to adaptation.		
	4. If there is a non-grant instrument in the project, is the GEF Agency capable of managing it?	NA		
	5. Does the project fit into the Agency’s program and staff capacity in the country?	YES. UNDP has relevant programming as well as adequate staff capacity in the country.		

Resource Availability	6. Is the proposed Grant (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	the STAR allocation?			
	•	the focal area allocation?			
	•	the LDCF under the principle of equitable access	YES. The proposed grant ($9.66 million) is available under the LDCF in accordance with the principle of equitable access.		
	•	the SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?			
	•	Nagoya Protocol Investment Fund			
	•	focal area set-aside?			
Project Consistency	7. Is the project aligned with the focal /multifocal areas/ LDCF/SCCF/NPIF results framework?	YES. The proposed project is aligned with the LDCF/SCCF results framework.		
	8.  Are the relevant GEF 5 focal/ multifocal areas/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF objectives identified?	NOT CLEAR. The proposed project would contribute towards CCA-1, CCA-2 and CCA-3 and, specifically, CCA-1.1 on mainstreamed adaptation in broader development frameworks, CCA-2.1 on increased knowledge and understanding of climate variability and climate change -induced risks at country level and in targeted vulnerable areas; and CCA-3.1 on the successful demonstration and deployment of relevant adaptation technology in targeted areas. 79 per cent ($6 million) of the proposed project grant would be allocated towards CCA-3.

While the proposed project would certainly contribute towards CCA-3.1, for certain activities associated with Component 2, CCA-1.2 could be a more relevant LDCF outcome, particularly as it encompasses flood management.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please ensure that the Focal Area Strategy Framework (Table A) captures the most relevant LDCF objectives, outcomes and outputs towards which the proposed project would contribute, and please reconsider the distribution of funding among objectives accordingly.		
	9.	Is the project consistent with the recipient country’s national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions, including NPFE,  NAPA, NCSA, or NAP? 	YES. The proposed project is aligned with the National Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS), Burundi's Vision 2025, and other relevant development strategies, policies and frameworks. The project would address Burundi's NAPA priorities in the areas of climate forecasts for early warning, protection of buffer zones in Lake Tanganyika Floodplain and around the Lakes of Bugesera, and the stabilization of river dynamics in Mumirwa and Imbo, including Bujumbura.		
	10.	Does the proposal clearly articulate how the capacities developed, if any,  will contribute to the sustainability of project outcomes?	NOT CLEAR. The proposed project combines investments in flood protection and erosion control with vulnerability assessments, capacity building, as well as climate-resilient development planning and policy measures. Overall, the capacity building and technical assistance activities proposed under Component 1 appear to contribute towards the sustainability of the investments carried out under Component 2. However, given the high pressure on natural resources, and the limited capacity of national and sub-national authorities, it is crucial to ensure that the revegetation activities proposed under Output 10 and the anti-erosion and flood control investments under outputs 11 and 12 are adequately maintained and sustainably managed beyond the duration of the project. (See also Section 18 below)

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please clarify how the technical assistance activities proposed under Component 1 will contribute to the sustainability of outputs 10, 11, 12, given in particular the limited capacity of national and sub-national authorities and local communities to maintain physical infrastructures and to manage natural resources in a sustainable manner.		

Project Design	11.	 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?	NOT CLEAR. The proposed project would build on the following baseline initiatives: (i) Burundi National Disaster Risk Management Strategy and National Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction; (ii) Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD); (iii) the UN Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) Reintegration Programme; (iv) the World Bank Public Works and Urban Management Project; and (v) FAO's emergency assistance in Burundi.

The PIF would benefit from a more consistent description of the five baseline initiatives, including their duration, targeted regions, and associated financing. Moreover, it is not entirely clear how the baseline initiatives are associated with the indicative co-financing figures presented in Table C. Overall, the PIF should more clearly identify the elements of each baseline initiative that are at risk in the face of climate change and the resilience of which the proposed LDCF project would enhance.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please (i) provide a more consistent description of the five baseline initiatives, including their duration, targeted regions, and associated financing; (ii) clarify how the baseline projects are associated with the indicative co-financing figures presented in Table C; and (iii) identify the elements of each baseline initiative that are at risk in the face of climate change and the resilience of which the LDCF project would enhance.		
	12.	Has the cost-effectiveness been sufficiently demonstrated, including the cost-effectiveness of the project design approach as compared to alternative approaches to achieve similar benefits?			
	13.	Are the activities that will be financed using GEF/LDCF/SCCF funding based on incremental/ additional reasoning?	NOT CLEAR. Please refer to section 11 above. In absence of a clear and consistent description of the baseline initiatives on which the LDCF project would build, the additional cost reasoning cannot be fully assessed at this stage.

With respect to Component 1, the PIF could describe more clearly the added value of Output 1 vis-à-vis the baseline initiatives and other elements of the LDCF project. As for Output 7, it is not clear what the village-level programs for the repatriation and reintegration of refugees entail, how these relate to other local development plans and regulation, and to what extent these are vulnerable to climate change.

With respect to Component 2, the description of the baseline situation suggests that the UNDP and PBF recovery programs have already been completed or have made significant progress. This appears to be at odds with the description of the PBF program on page 6 of the PIF. Moreover, there are elements in the PBF and UNDP programs that do not appear to form an appropriate baseline for the adaptation measures proposed for LDCF funding, particularly in the areas of education and public health. Finally, unlike outputs 10 and 11, Output 12 does not provide an indicative, measurable target, even though it is by far the largest investment proposed.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Upon addressing recommendations under Section 11 above, please (i) clarify the added value of Output 1 vis-à-vis the baseline initiatives and other elements of the LDCF project; (ii) explain what the village-level programs for the repatriation and reintegration of refugees entail and how their resilience would be improved; (iii) distinguish between completed and planned activities under the UNDP and PCB recovery programs and clarify how the LDCF project would enhance their resilience in the face of climate change; and (iv) consider providing an indicative, measurable target for Output 12.		
	14.	Is the project framework sound and sufficiently clear?	NOT CLEAR. Please refer to section 13 above. Component 1 currently has nine outputs and could perhaps be streamlined to facilitate monitoring. In particular, outputs 1 through 3 appear to be very closely linked and could perhaps be articulated as a single output. Outcome 2 could perhaps be rephrased as the component does not appear to invest in early-warning systems. Finally, the indicative co-financing for components 1 and 2 does not match the sub-total provided in Table B.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please (i) ensure that the co-financing figures in Table B add up and consider (ii) streamlining Component 1 and (ii) rephrasing Outcome 2.		
	15.	 Are the applied methodology and assumptions for the description of the incremental/additional benefits sound and appropriate?	NOT CLEAR. Please refer to Section 13 above.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Upon addressing the recommendations under Section 13, please describe the adaptation benefits associated with the proposed project.		
	16.	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?	YES. The socio-economic benefits and gender dimensions of the proposed project have been adequately described.		
	17.	Is public participation, including CSOs and indigeneous people, taken into consideration, their role identified and addressed properly?	YES. The PIF considers public participation and stakeholder involvement at the national, regional and local levels.		
	18.	Does the project take into account potential major risks, including the consequences of climate change and provides sufficient risk mitigation measures? (i.e., climate resilience)	NOT CLEAR. Please refer to Section 10 above.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please discuss the risks to the sustainability of outputs 10, 11 and 12, as well as relevant mitigation measures.		
	19.	Is the project consistent and properly coordinated with other related initiatives in the country or in the region? 	YES. The proposed project will be closely coordinated with the AfDB-LDCF project Enhancing Climate Risk Management and Adaptation in Burundi, and the UNDP-GEF project Lake Tanganyika Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis.		
	20.	Is the project implementation/ execution arrangement adequate?	NOT CLEAR. The proposed project would be coordinated by Institute Geographique du Burundi (IGEBU). While the agency is well placed to oversee the project, it is unclear how it will contribute towards project execution. In this regard, the PIF could provide further information about the role of relevant line ministries (Water, Environment, Land Management and Urban Planning; and Agriculture and Livestock) in project execution.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please clarify the role of IGEBU vis-à-vis relevant line ministries in project execution.		
	21.	Is the project structure sufficiently close to what was presented at PIF, with clear justifications for changes?			
	22.	If there is a non-grant instrument in the project, is there a reasonable calendar of reflows included?			

Project Financing	23.	Is funding level for project management cost appropriate?	YES. At $415,000 or 5 per cent of the sub-total for components 1 through 2, the proposed funding level for project management is appropriate.		
	24.	Is the funding and co-financing per objective appropriate and adequate to achieve the expected outcomes and outputs?	NOT CLEAR. Please refer to Section 13 above.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Upon addressing the recommendations under Section 13, please adjust the grant and co-financing amounts accordingly.		
	25.	At PIF: comment on the indicated cofinancing;
At CEO endorsement: indicate if confirmed co-financing is provided.	NOT CLEAR. Please refer to Section 11 above.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Upon addressing the recommendations under Section 11 above, please ensure that the indicative co-financing figures (Table C) are consistent with the description of the baseline projects in Section II.B.		
	26.	Is the co-financing amount that the Agency is bringing to the project in line with its role?	YES. At $4.8 million, the indicative co-financing brought by UNDP is adequate and in line with its role.		
Project Monitoring and Evaluation	27.	Have the appropriate Tracking Tools been included with information for all relevant indicators, as applicable?			
	28.	Does the proposal include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?			
Agency Responses	29.	Has the Agency responded adequately to comments from:			
	•	STAP?	NA		
	•	Convention Secretariat?	NA		
	•	Council comments?			
	•	Other GEF Agencies?	NA		
Secretariat Recommendation	

Recommendation at PIF Stage	30.	 Is PIF clearance/approval being recommended?	NOT YET. Please refer to sections 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 24 and 25.		
	31.	Items to consider at CEO endorsement/approval.	Please refer to Section 2.		
Recommendation at CEO Endorsement/ Approval	32.	 At endorsement/approval, did Agency include the progress of PPG with clear information of commitment status of the PPG?			
	33.	 Is CEO endorsement/approval being recommended?			
Review Date (s)	First review*	May 21, 2012		
	Additional review (as necessary)			
	Additional review (as necessary)			
	Additional review (as necessary)			
	Additional review (as necessary)			

*  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. 

Request for PPG Approval
Review Criteria	Decision Points	Program Manager Comments	
PPG Budget	1.	 Are the proposed activities for project preparation appropriate?	YES. The PPG is structured around four components: (i) assessment of needs and technical feasibility of adaptation options and measures; (ii) project development; (iii) stakeholder consultations; and (iv) the development of a financial plan and co-funding scheme.	
	2.	Is itemized budget justified?	YES. Most of the LDCF grant would be allocated towards Component 1. The proposed rates for national and international consultants are appropriate at $1,000 and $2,000-2,500 per week respectively.	
Secretariat
Recommendation	3.	Is PPG approval being recommended?	NOT YET. The PPG will be recommended once the PIF is ready for clearance.	
	4. Other comments		
Review Date (s)	First review*	May 21, 2012	
	 Additional review (as necessary)		
*  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.