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

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	9452	
Country/Region:	Global (Afghanistan, Antigua And Barbuda, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Dominica, Eritrea, Fiji, Guinea, Haiti, Jamaica, Liberia, Myanmar, Malawi, Niger, Nauru, Suriname, Sao Tome and Principe, Chad, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda)	
Project Title:	Technology Needs Assessments-Phase III	
GEF Agency:	UNEP	GEF Agency Project ID:		
Type of Trust Fund:	GEF Trust Fund	GEF Focal Area (s):	Climate Change	
GEF-6 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s):	CCM-EA; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:		Project Grant:	$5,400,000	
Co-financing:	$750,000	Total Project Cost:	$6,150,000	
PIF Approval:		Council Approval/Expected:	June 01, 2016	
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Ogawa Masako	Agency Contact Person:	Ruth Coutto	

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?	MO March 18, 2016
Yes.
Supporting TNA is aligned with the GEF strategy.		
	2.	Is the project consistent with the recipient country’s national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions?	MO March 18, 2016
1) The project proposes to support 20 countries, but only identifies 13. There is no finalized list of countries where the project would be implemented. A successful TNA needs strong commitment from the decision makers, and the lack of an existing TNA is not sufficient justification alone to select a country for support. Please explain how the 13 countries were selected; how the remaining 7 will be selected, and document all proposed countries commitment to TNA.

MO April 1 2016
Please identify remaining two countries and submit letters of endorsement.

MO April 11, 2016
20 countries are identified. Comment cleared.	All the countries included in the PIF for TNA Phase III have requested support for TNA between 2013 and 2015. These requests were mainly expressed through informal exchanges with UNEP colleagues, UNFCCC colleagues and partner organizations involved in TNA and CTCN (e.g. email exchanges and conversations during workshops, regional NDE meetings, INDC workshops, COP events or country missions). UNEP kept a list of countries that expressed interest with a view to contact them in due time for TNA Phase III.
All the countries included in the PIF actually mention explicitly in their policy documents (iNDCs or National Communications) the need for external support to conduct technology transfer in a consistent manner. In Annex III we have collected excerpts from iNDCs and National Communications from each of these countries showing this need for a TNA.
Given the number of requests submitted to UNEP, UNEP went ahead and developed a TNA project Phase III for SIDS and LDCs that have not yet been beneficiaries of the previous rounds. 20 countries responded within 2 weeks once they learned about the opportunity to join the TNA Phase III. This is one of the fastest responses we have ever had to a project opportunity and demonstrates to us a very strong commitment and interest by countries to do their TNAs. On top of this, 13 countries managed within this timeframe to mobilize institutions to complete their internal processes and have an endorsement letter signed. As of now 18 countries have submitted to us their endorsement letters.
After the failure of the UNFCCC negotiation process to get an agreement on a third commitment period for the clean development mechanism, iNDCs have become the main vehicle for reaching the main objective of the convention which is to keep global average temperature increase below 2 degrees. All the countries included in the PIF have completed and submitted their iNDCs. It is becoming increasingly clear that the TNA process is an important exercise that helps countries to organize themselves in meeting their commitments under their iNDCs, and some of them have explicitly referenced this need in their iNDCs.
As of now, 18 countries have signed an endorsement letter and we have revised the proposal to include these 18 countries only. These countries have been selected based on three criteria:
1) - the country has not conducted a TNA process under the second generation of TNAs (Poznan Strategic Programme on Technology Transfer) (see list in Annex 2);
2) - the country has expressed interest in conducting TNA process through various channels and from various actors, and has sent letter of endorsement from the GEF operational focal point ;
3) - the country demonstrated its commitment to technology transfer and to conducting the TNA process in key national documents such as INDC and National Communications.

Endorsement letters from Fiji & Trinidad & Tobago have been included in the
proposal, listed on the cover page and in Annex 2.
	
Project Design	3.	Does the PIF sufficiently indicate the drivers of global environmental degradation, issues of sustainability, market transformation, scaling, and innovation? 	MO March 18, 2016
This project uses lessons learnt from the previous TNA projects, and will increase national capacity for technology transfer.
Please delete third paragraph of 6) in page 10. It does not discuss scaling up of impacts.

MO April 1, 2016
Comment cleared.	The paragraph has been deleted.	
	4.	Is the project designed with sound incremental reasoning?	MO March 18, 2016
Yes.
COP17 invited the GEF to continue to provide financial support to developing countries to conduct or update their TNAs.		
	5.	Are the components in Table B sound and sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve project objectives and the GEBs?	MO March 18, 2016
Requests of funding from the global set-aside cannot go beyond strict TNA preparation activities since the resource of the set aside are limited. Therefore the following adjustments should be made:
(1) Development of "tools to facilitate the monitoring of the uptake of TNA/TAP follow-up actions and their impact" is not relevant activity of TNA development. Please delete. 
(2) Development of project proposals is also beyond TNA development, and would be considered a post-project activity for co-financing, not GEF set-aside. Please delete.
(3) Please explain why additional dissemination plan is needed. Stakeholders will participate in the development of TNA/TAP, so this plan is redundant and reduces the cost-effectiveness of the project.

MO April 1 2016
(1) - (3) comment cleared.
(4) TNA leadership at national level should be decided by the national government. Please revise the second paragraph of page 12 as follows;
"The project will also seek linkages with the Climate Technology Center and Network (CTCN), to increase opportunities related to technical assistance, knowledge sharing and networking activities. The linkage will generate requests that support the implementation of priority actions and project ideas identified in TNA/TAP; and by using the TNA/TAP process as a tool to mainstream climate technology issues into national and sectoral development plans, government commitment will increase as well as the likelihood to access public funding (including donor funding) for implementation of activities identified as priorities during the TNA/TAP, and possibly as follow up actions to CTCN Technical Assistance. With such arrangements, the TNA project would also benefit from the CTCN expertise through engagement of Consortium Partners (notably those already supporting TNA) and Network members for supporting TNA activities."

MO April 11, 2016
Document is revised. Comment cleared.	The following adjustments have been made:
(1) The activities related to the "tools to facilitate the monitoring of the uptake of TNA/TAP follow-up actions and their impact" have been removed
(2) The activities related to project proposals have been reduced to support to develop project ideas and concepts, as per regular TNA process
(3) As requested, the dissemination plans have been removed. We have enhanced activities related to consultations during the TNA/TAP development process, which is a standard activity for the TNA preparation.
ï‚·
In addition, and to reflect these changes, the overall proposed budget has been reduced by 100,000USD.

UNEP realizes that reducing the budget by USD 100,000, means the proposal is
no longer consistent with the USD values in the attached endorsement
letters. Therefore the budget has been corrected to address this issue. The
amount has been added (USD 5,000 per country) to the output â€˜TNAs and TAPs
completed by countries with project support'. This will allow countries to
undertake more comprehensive consultation in preparation of their
TNAs and TAPs. 
4. This text has now been added to the proposal as requested.	
	6.	Are socio-economic aspects, including relevant gender elements, indigenous people, and CSOs considered? 	MO March 18, 2016
Yes.		
Availability of Resources
	7.	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			
	•	The SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?			
	•	Focal area set-aside?	MO March 18, 2016
Support for TNAs will be eligible for SIDS and LDCs.
Activities that are not strict TNA preparation activities can not be funded by the global set aside.

PMC is above 5% of subtotal (9.5%). The following reasons are provided from UNEP, and they are appropriate for this project. 
To support these 20 project countries in conducting their TNA/TAP process, the following management activities have to be undertaken: 
• Conducting inception missions to 20 countries. 
• Drafting of agreements with 20 countries. 
• Developing terms of reference for experts (national and international). 
•  Supporting the development of 20 national work plans for the implementation of the TNA/TAP process. 
•  Coordinating the organization of training workshops and other TNA related events. 
• Coordinating communication of progress, results, success stories and best practices. 
• Day to day coordination and follow-up with 20 national TNA teams (TNA country coordinators and other local stakeholders such as national consultants, representatives from ministries and the local funding community). 
• Day to day coordination of  TNA experts. 
• Reporting on project activities to UNEP and the PSC (this includes financial reporting and preparing the annual Project Implementation Review (PIR) report for GEF in collaboration with the UNEP Task Manager). 

MO April 1, 2016
Comment cleared.	Noted. Changes have been done as per comment in box 5.	
Recommendations	8.	Is the PIF being recommended for clearance and PPG (if additional amount beyond the norm) justified?	MO March 18, 2016
Not at this time. Please address comments in boxes: 2,3,5 and 7.

MO April 1, 2016
Not at this time. Please address comments in box 2 and 5.

MO April 11, 2016
All comment cleared. Program Manager recommend PIF clearance.	Comments of boxes 2, 3, 5 and 7 have been addressed and explained.	
Review Date
	Review	March 21, 2016		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	April 01, 2016		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	April 11, 2016		

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)