GEF-6 GEF Secretariat Review for Full-sized/medium-sized projects
The GEF/ldcf/sccf Trust Fund

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	9040	
Country/Region:	Comoros	
Project Title:	Sustainable Development of Comoros Islands by Promoting the Geothermal Energy Sources	
GEF Agency:	UNDP	GEF Agency Project ID:	5484 (UNDP)	
Type of Trust Fund:	GEF Trust Fund	GEF Focal Area (s):	Climate Change	
GEF-6 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s):	CCM-1 Program 2; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:	$140,000	Project Grant:	$5,905,662	
Co-financing:	$47,500,000	Total Project Cost:	$53,405,662	
PIF Approval:		Council Approval/Expected:	June 01, 2016	
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Rawleston Moore	Agency Contact Person:	Saliou Toure	

PIF Review	
Review Criteria	Questions	Secretariat Comment 	
Agency Response 	
Project Consistency	1.	Is the project aligned with the relevant GEF strategic objectives and results framework?	Yes the project is aligned with CCM-1, program 2.		
	2.	Is the project consistent with the recipient country’s national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions?	Yes the project is consistent with the national plans	
	
Project Design	3.	Does the PIF sufficiently indicate the drivers of global environmental degradation, issues of sustainability, market transformation, scaling, and innovation? 	No. As structured, the project does not make a compelling case that it is addressing the drivers for environmental degradation in the energy sector, or that it is addressing the barriers to adoption of alternatives.

Update April 21st, 2015

Comment cleared.  Further information has been provided on the project on addressing the drivers of environmental degradation.		
	4.	Is the project designed with sound incremental reasoning?	No. Please address the following comments:
a) The baseline scenario describes a series of investments that will support generic development of the power sector. Resources for these are also counted as co-financing. But there is little explanation for the rationale on how the proposed GEF project will differ from existing activities, including support from New Zealand and the AfDB Geothermal Risk Mitigation Facility. Please clarify.
b) The use of GEF resources for experimental drilling is not well justified. The GEF grant funding is very small and insufficient to provide capacity for more than one or two wells. With the high risks associated, the grant funding may be exhausted with no results. In the past, GEF has not approved such investments unless they were larger, part of revolving fund program, or were shared with other investors. On the other hand, with $24 million in co-financing for experimental wells, the GEF funding is not sufficiently incremental. Please clarify why the investment is justified according to GEF-6 focal area objectives.
c) The project as proposed is very confusing, linking experimental drilling with production drilling, which will not occur if the experimental drilling proves a poor resource. The barriers to each stage of geothermal development are not likely to be well addressed in one small GEF project. Further, the PIF stays the first phase of experimental drilling funded by AfDB is completed. Please provide the results.
d) Please explain UNDP's investment in the project and role in resource mobilization

Update April 21st, 2015

Not cleared.  While further information has been provided it is still not sufficient to clear the project.  If surface exploration is to occur before the project is ready for CEO endorsement and the results of this exploration are to determine how to proceed forward, then it may be more appropriate to proceed with the surface exploration and request GEF resources only after the results of the surface exploration are available.

Update April 18th 2016

Cleared.  The surface exploration has been completed, and the project proposal has been revised accordingly.		
	5.	Are the components in Table B sound and sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve project objectives and the GEBs?	a) The technical assistance elements of the project are not well justified. If geothermal wells prove viable, there will be no need for GEF funded components 3. Facilitation of the establishment of a geothermal power plant and 4. Public relations and promoting investment. Indeed, private sector partners will take over production wells and power plant construction once the resource is proven. The components should be dropped from the project.
b) Several of the proposed baseline scenario and/or co-financing are not valid for recording at this stage. Diesel generators cannot be counted. Applications not yet submitted are too vague. IPP equity investment at the later stages of power plant development cannot be counted.
c) Component 1 of the PIF has some logic to it, but is poorly described. Are regulatory gaps truly the barriers to more sustainable development of renewable energy? Could the resources of this component be helpful to promoting solar mini-grids?

Update April 21st, 2015

Comment cleared.  Additional detailed descriptions on the components and co-financing is requested when a revised project is resubmitted after conditions on the ground are viable.		
	6.	Are socio-economic aspects, including relevant gender elements, indigenous people, and CSOs considered? 	Yes gender elements are considered in the project.		
Availability of Resources
	7.	Is the proposed Grant  (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	The STAR allocation?	Resources are available in the STAR allocation.  Comoros is a flexible country and thus can use the resources allocated across the focal areas.		
	•	The focal area allocation?			
	•	The LDCF under the principle of equitable access			
	•	The SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?			
	•	Focal area set-aside?			
Recommendations	8.	Is the PIF being recommended for clearance and PPG (if additional amount beyond the norm) justified?	The PIF is not yet recommended for clearance.

The lack of understanding of the geothermal resources is a significant risk to the project.  We do not understand how if this project is not successful in finding geothermal resources, there would be sufficient resources for any other activities. Please provide further information on the types of solar and hydro activities which will take place if the geothermal resources are unavailable. For example, redesigning the project to align with the proposed EU mini-grid effort could be less risky and more compelling while helping support the Energy Action Plan. 

There a number of other islands which are pursuing geothermal as an energy option.  Please indicate how experiences and knowledge will be shared with other islands eg. St. Lucia, St Vincent, Dominica, and Vanuatu.  Can this project provide an example of best practice in the area of geothermal for islands?

Update April 21st, 2015

It is recommended that the project package be resubmitted to the GEF for consideration for a future work program, only after the completion of the surface exploration, given that the surface exploration is to be completed in a few months. Once the results from the surface exploration are available then a better determination can be made on how to move forward with this project concept or a major revision.  While it is accepted the geothermal could potentially address the long term energy security planning in Comoros and be transformational, the results of further exploration should be presented to the GEF before proceeding. A phone call discussion with the Agency and the Secretariat is recommended.

Update April 18th 2016

Cleared.  The relevant changes have been made to the PIF.  The project is recommended for clearance.		
Review Date
	Review	March 18, 2015		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	April 21, 2015		
	Additional Review (as necessary)			

CEO endorsement Review	
Review Criteria 	Questions	Secretariat Comment at CEO Endorsement	
Response to Secretariat comments  	
Project Design and Financing	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?			
	10.	Does the project have descriptions of a knowledge management plan?			
Agency Responses 
	11.	Has the Agency adequately responded to comments at the PIF stage from:			
	•	GEFSEC 			
	•	STAP			
	•	GEF Council			
	•	Convention Secretariat			

Recommendation 	12.	Is CEO endorsement recommended?			
Review Date	Review			
	Additional Review (as necessary)			
	Additional Review (as necessary)