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

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	9947	
Country/Region:	Global	
Project Title:	The SEforALL Building Efficiency Accelerator (BEA): Expanding Local Action and Driving National Change	
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-1 Program 1; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:		Project Grant:	$2,000,000	
Co-financing:	$6,116,648	Total Project Cost:	$8,116,648	
PIF Approval:	February 02, 2018	Council Approval/Expected:		
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Milena Vasquez	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?	DER, November 15, 2017. Yes.		
	2.	Is the project consistent with the recipient country’s national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions?	DER, November 15, 2017. This project uses global regional set-aside to serve cities in countries that have identified the importance of building energy efficiency in their national strategies and plans, including the NDCs. Please ensure that city selection criteria reflect NDC alignment.

DER, December 14, 2017. NDC alignment included in log-frame. Comment cleared.	
	
Project Design	3.	Does the PIF sufficiently indicate the drivers of global environmental degradation, issues of sustainability, market transformation, scaling, and innovation? 	DER, November 15, 2017. Yes.		
	4.	Is the project designed with sound incremental reasoning?	DER, November 15, 2017. Please address the following comments:
a) With the rapid launch and implementation of the BEA first phase, significant results have been generated. Please ensure that these results are fully documented in the appropriate GEF M&E required reports. The implementing agency may consider a submitting a short, preliminary terminal review that reflects some of the lessons learned from first phase to ensure they are captured in phase II. This need not delay the PIF revision and re-submission, but references to the process would could helpfully be included in the revised PIF.
b) Part of the results of first phase have identified opportunities for enhanced coordination. Please expand the sections on coordination reflecting comments from partners such as ICLEI, USGBC. In particular include discussion on how BEA graduate cities may be good candidates for future GEF projects under the Sustainable Cities impact program.
c) The BEA is not expected to generate financing for investment projects. However, many cities are identifying the need for investment finance as a critical next step after a BEA deep dive. Please include more information on potential collaborations with other institutions and projects that may offer opportunities for "hand-off" or "match-making" of BEA graduates with financing opportunities.
d) SEforAll has advocated for enhanced ambition to meet the SDG goals. Although beyond the scope of this project, please include a preliminary estimate of the types of resources that might be needed to expand the BEA to additional phases that might serve 300 cities.

DER, December 14, 2017. 
a) Additional progress materials submitted. Agency documents its plans to conduce terminal evaluation and include in project design phase. Comment cleared.
b) Documented. Comment cleared.
c) Coordination section enhanced. Comment cleared.
d) Documented. Comment cleared.		
	5.	Are the components in Table B sound and sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve project objectives and the GEBs?	DER, November 15, 2017. Yes.		
	6.	Are socio-economic aspects, including relevant gender elements, indigenous people, and CSOs considered? 	DER, November 15, 2017. Yes. However, please include slightly more context on the inclusiveness with respect to the proposed GEF policy paper GEF/C.53/04.

DER, December 14, 2017. Comment cleared.		
Availability of Resources
	7.	Is the proposed Grant  (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	The STAR allocation?	DER, November 15, 2017. Not applicable		
	•	The focal area allocation?	DER, November 15, 2017. Not applicable.		
	•	The LDCF under the principle of equitable access	NA		
	•	The SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?	NA		
	•	Focal area set-aside?	DER, November 15, 2017. Yes.		
Recommendations	8.	Is the PIF being recommended for clearance and PPG (if additional amount beyond the norm) justified?	DER, November 15, 2017. Not at this time. Please address the comments in boxes: 2,4, and 6.

DER, December 14, 2017. Yes. All comments cleared. The program manager recommends technical clearance.		
Review Date
	Review	November 15, 2017		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	December 14, 2017		
	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?	MGV, May 29, 2018: There are very minor changed from PIF and they are adequately justified.		
	2.	Is the project structure/ design appropriate to achieve the expected outcomes and outputs?	MGV, May 29, 2018: Yes. The project incorporates lessons learned from the previous phase to expand the partnership, provide technical assistance and more deeply engage with 3 new cities as well as continue engagement to scale up progress in 3 of the previous phase' deep-dive cities.

There are few areas on the document that may need updating (for example, p. 15 mentions the new facility ADEME with a launch expected at COP 23). Also, it is understood that in both the previous project as in this one, the GEF resources will benefit GEF eligible developing countries, while co-financing can support the additional cities. It would be helpful to make this distinction clearer, both in the baseline scenario when work in the UEA, US, Japan, etc. is mentioned and later on in the proposed scenario when the targeted number of cities for each component is identified.

MGV, June 12, 2018: Comment cleared.		
	3.	Is the financing adequate and does the project demonstrate a cost-effective approach to meet the project objective? 	MGV, May 29, 2018: Yes, the financing and approach is adequate for this 18-month project.		
	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)	MGV, May 29, 2018: Yes, the project takes into account relevant risks and includes risk response measures. The project will use adaptive management.		
	5.	Is co-financing confirmed and evidence provided?	MGV, May 29, 2018: Co-financing letters are provided. There is one discrepancy that needs to be fixed: The amount from the Colombia Green Building Council is listed as 136,551 in Table C, but the letter lists cofinancing support of $136,500. Please either provide an updated letter or update Table C to match the submitted letter.

MGV, June 12, 2018: Comment cleared.		
	6.	Are relevant tracking tools completed?	MGV, May 29, 2018: Yes the GEF-6 CCM Tracking Tool as well as a detailed methodology is provided.		
	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?	MGV, May 29, 2018: Yes, the project is and will be coordinated with a number of existing initiatives. The project is also aligned with the NDCs and other national plans for countries with existing deep-dive cities (Mexico, Colombia, India, Serbia, Turkey, Vietnam). Once the new deep-dive cities are selected, the project will ensure coordination with relevant national and sub-national plans.		
	9.	Does the project include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?	MGV, May 29, 2018: Yes, there is a budgeted M&E plan.		
	10.	Does the project have descriptions of a knowledge management plan?	MGV, May 29, 2018: Yes, knowledge products from the previous phase are hosted on the Building Efficiency Accelerator website, as well as on the C2E2 Knowledge Management System, which includes webinar recordings. New knowledge materials will continue to be widely disseminated.		
Agency Responses 
	11.	Has the Agency adequately responded to comments at the PIF stage from:			
	•	GEFSEC 	MGV, May 29, 2018: There were no outstanding comments from the GEF Secretariat.		
	•	STAP			
	•	GEF Council			
	•	Convention Secretariat			

Recommendation 	12.	Is CEO endorsement recommended?	MGV, May 29, 2018: Please address the two minor comments on Boxes 2 and 5.

MGV, June 12, 2018: All comments have been addressed. P.M. recommends CEO Approval.		
Review Date	Review	May 29, 2018		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	June 12, 2018		
	Additional Review (as necessary)