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

  
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	5819	
Country/Region:	Mali	
Project Title:	Promoting Sustainable Electricity Generation in Malian Rural Areas through Hybrid Technologies	
GEF Agency:	UNDP	GEF Agency Project ID:	4903 (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:	$65,000	Project Grant:	$1,158,744	
Co-financing:	$24,012,393	Total Project Cost:	$25,301,137	
PIF Approval:	June 12, 2014	Council Approval/Expected:		
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Ming Yang	Agency Contact Person:	Saliou TourÃ©	

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 - May 16, 2014:
Yes, Mali ratified the UNFCCC on 28 Dec 1994.	MY 12/1/2015
Yes, as cleared in the PIF.	
	2.	Has the operational focal point endorsed the project?	FJ - May 16, 2014:
The PIF is accompanied by an endorsement letter signed by the OFP dated 12 June 2013 but the project title is not the same as the one presented in the PIF. Please ensure both documents are consistent on the project title.	MY 12/1/2015
Yes, an updated OFP endorsement letter was loaded onto the PMIS on 6/12/2014.	
Resource Availability

	3. Is the proposed Grant (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	the STAR allocation?	MY 12/1/2015
Yes. The comments were addressed and issues were cleared in June 2014, since the CEO cover memo for PIF clearance was signed on June 12, 2014.	MY 12/1/2015
Yes, as cleared in the PIF stage.	
	•	the focal area allocation?	FJ - May 16, 2014:
No. The remaining CCM allocation of Mali is $1.34 million. The project requests a total of $1.54 million. Please revise the amount requested.	MY 12/1/2015
Yes, the total budget for the project is $1,333,825 (PPG: $65,000; agency fee: $110,081; and project grant: $1,158,744).	
	•	the LDCF under the principle of equitable access		MY 12/1/2015
N/A	
	•	the SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?		MY 12/1/2015
N/A	
	•	the Nagoya Protocol Investment Fund	MY 12/1/2015
N/A	MY 12/1/2015
N/A	
	•	focal area set-aside?	MY 12/1/2015
N/A	MY 12/1/2015
N/A	
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 - May 16, 2014:
Yes.	MY 12/1/2015
Yes, as cleared in the PIF stage.	
	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 - May 16, 2014: 
a) Given that 80% of household energy needs are satisfied by biomass resources (wood and charcoal), which causes health problems among the rural population through indoor air pollution, please clarify why the project focuses on solar PV solutions instead of targeting biomass use issues.
b) Please clarify why the project focused on solar PV and not other RE options for mini-grids.	MY 12/1/2015
Yes. The project is consistent with the recipient country's national strategies and plans.	

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 - May 16, 2014:
a)	Since rural areas rely on fossil fuels to generate electricity and since fossil fuels are heavily subsidized, please clarify whether the high rural energy cost of $1.5/kWh is the actual consumer cost (benefiting from fuel subsidy) or the social cost (cumulating consumer cost and subsidy cost). Please also clarify whether the project intends to support a modification of the fuels subsidy and if yes how.
b)	Please clarify the apparent inconsistency of the figures for the cost of electricity and energy in rural areas. A rural energy cost of $1.5/kWh is mentioned. Then an off-grid generation cost of $0.47/kWh is  mentioned. Please also clarify whether off-grid electricity tariffs are regulated or not and whether they have to be aligned with on-grid electricity tariffs.
c)	With a rural energy cost of $1.5/kWh Please clarify why solar PV based system remain unattainable in rural areas without subsidy.
d)	Please clarify why the PIF indicates that there is almost no ability to pay for off-grid electricity when it is estimated that 18 USD per month per household is spent to purchase kerosene, candles and batteries.
e)	In a situation where AMADER has the monopoly for the management of any concession with an installed capacity below 250 kW, please clarify the incentive for a private investor to consider off-grid systems where he will not be able to manage it.	MY 12/1/2015
Yes, the baseline scenario that is presented on pages 16-17 of the UNDP project document is OK.	
	7.	Are the components, outcomes and outputs in the project framework (Table B) clear, sound and appropriately detailed? 	FJ - May 16, 2014:
Component 1:
a)	The description of the activities of Component 1 page 8-9 of the PIF does not seem consistent with the description of the outputs in table B. Please clarify.
b)	Please clarify the activities considered for Component 1. Which policy instrument is considered for support? Isn't the SREP project also providing policy support? 
c)	If a subsidy on investments or tariffs is considered, please clarify (i) how it would be consistent with existing regulations and policies; (ii) how it would be funded, and (iii) how the project would help ensure such support can be continued beyond project completion.
d)	Component 1 description indicates a need for a definition of contractual arrangements between MFP communities and private managers of mini-grids. Does this qualify as a policy instrument or is the policy instrument considered something else?
e)	Please clarify (i) what output-based aid scheme the project intends to support (e.g. which output payment will be based upon), (ii) how the financing amount of output 1.3 has been calibrated, and (iii) why Output 1.3 is classified as completely INV without any TA. 
f)	Considering that the output based aid will be used for all demonstrations under component 3, please clarify why most of the INV co-financing is under Component 3 and not Component 1.

Component 2:
g)	The description of the activities of Component 2 page 9 of the PIF does not seem consistent with the description of the outputs in table B. Please clarify.
h)	Please clarify why Component 2 seems to focus mainly on technical assistance to SMEs that will provide the solar equipment and not to the SMEs that would be selected to manage and operate the mini-grids.
i)	Please clarify what capacity building support exists or is planned in the other baseline projects and how the proposed PIF project activities will avoid overlapping with baseline projects on capacity building.
j)	The PIF indicates that "the size of the OBA scheme is an initial estimate that needs further definition". Please clarify what is the size of the OBA scheme and how it has been estimated.
k)	Please clarify how the project will manage to secure financial support to enable the OBA scheme to continue and be scaled up beyond project completion. Please also clarify whether the OBA scheme will be fixed or gradually decreasing over time to increase its financial sustainability.
l)	Please clarify whether pre-paid meters have been considered to overcome potential tariff recovery issues.

Further comments may follow depending on the responses provided.

MY 12/1/2015
Yes. The comments were addressed and issues were cleared in June 2014, since the CEO cover memo for PIF clearance was signed on June 12, 2014.	MY 12/1/2015
Yes, the components, outcomes and outputs in the project framework (Table B) are clear. However, the in-kind co-financing can hardly help achieve the expected outputs of INVs in Components 1 and 3. Please consider putting cash or loan co-financing as planned in the PIF stage.	
	8.	(a) Are global environmental/ adaptation benefits identified? (b) Is the description of the incremental/additional reasoning sound and appropriate?	FJ - May 16, 2014:
a)	Please document the SREP target on bigger rural cities and clarify why the SREP could not also support mini-grids in small villages (between 500 and 3,000 inhabitants) that the PIF proposes to target. 
b)	Please clarify why the ADFD 9 million USD financing would not be sufficient to launch activities similar to those proposed by the project.
c)	Given that ADFD has approved funding of 9 million USD as concessional loan to the project under the condition that this would only cover 50% of the project cost, and given that the proposed PIF does not include 9 million USD on top of the ADFD financing, please clarify how Mali intends to find the additional funding necessary to mobilize all the ADFD financing.
d)	Given that ADFD has already committed to funding 30 villages with diesel/hybrid solar PV systems and that the PENRAF project has already committed to funding 8 solar villages, please clarify why additional GEF money and investments is necessary to demonstrate viable business model for hybrid mini-grids and why existing initiative cannot do this without GEF support. Moreover, it seems that 20% of off-grid connections through the AMADER MFPs are with PV solutions.

MY 12/1/2015
Yes. The comments were addressed and issues were cleared in June 2014, since the CEO cover memo for PIF clearance was signed on June 12, 2014.	MY 12/1/2015
Yes, it is presented on pages 7 and 8.	
	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?		MY 12/1/2015
Yes, the issues were addressed on page 10.	
	10.	Is the role of public participation, including CSOs, and indigenous peoples where relevant, identified and explicit means for their engagement explained?	FJ - May 16, 2014:
Yes.	MY 12/1/2015
Yes, as addressed in the PIF and on page 5 of the CEO ER document.	
	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 - May 16, 2014:
To be reviewed once the other comments have been addressed.

MY 12/1/2015
Yes. The comments were addressed and issues were cleared in June 2014, since the CEO cover memo for PIF clearance was signed on June 12, 2014.	MY 12/1/2015
Yes, it is addressed on page 9 of the CEO ER.	
	12.	Is the project consistent and properly coordinated with other related initiatives in the country or in the region? 	FJ - May 16, 2014:
To be reviewed once the other comments have been addressed.

MY 12/1/2015
Yes. The comments were addressed and issues were cleared in June 2014, since the CEO cover memo for PIF clearance was signed on June 12, 2014.	MY 12/1/2015
Yes. it is stated on pages of 40-41 of the UNDP project document.	
	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 - May 16, 2014:
Please clarify the proposed project potential for scaling up considering its focus on small villages and the already existing SREP project for bigger rural communities.

Further comments may follow depending on the responses provided.	MY 12/1/2015
Not completed at this time. 

Please write on paragraph for each of the following topics:
1. Drivers of global environmental degradation. What are the root causes or drivers to the current non-sustainable power generation in the country? How to deal with these drivers and root causes?
2. Innovation. Why is this project innovative to the country? When compared with other existing or historical projects for urban development, what is special in this proposed project?
3.  Sustainability. How will the results of this project continually be applied or used or in operation after the project implementation period is over?
4.  Market transformation. How will this project bring transformational changes to Mali in terms of sustainable power generation?
5. Scaling-up.  How will the project results be applied to other part of the country?

MY 2/4/2016
Yes. Comments were cleared.	
	14.	Is the project structure/design sufficiently close to what was presented at PIF, with clear justifications for changes?		MY 12/1/2015
Yes, the project structure/design is close to what was presented at PIF. However, the project co-financing has been significantly changed from loan/cash to in-kind. Without loan/cash financing, it would be very difficult or impossible to achieve the investment outcomes of the project.	
	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?		MY 12/1/2015
Yes, it is stated on pages 10-11 of the CEO ER document.	

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 - May 16, 2014:
a) UNDP multifunctional platforms activities have been presented as co-financing for several existing projects including project #3699 in Mali. Please clarify the existing resource of the MFP initiative and demonstrate that the same MFP resources will not be presented twice as co-financing of a GEF project.
b) The PIF indicates that ADFD has approved funding of 9 million USD as concessional loan to the project. However, the co-financing table C only mentions $2 million co-financing from ADFD. Please clarify. Please also clarify who will take and repay the loans proposed by the ADFD.

MY 12/1/2015
Yes. The comments were addressed and issues were cleared in June 2014, since the CEO cover memo for PIF clearance was signed on June 12, 2014.	MY 12/1/2015
Not at all.
The project co-financing has been significantly changed from loan/cash to in-kind. Please consider bringing cash and/or loan to this project as planned at the PIF stage.

MY 2/4/2016
Not at this time. 
Please see comments in Box 17.	
	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 - May 16, 2014:
To be reviewed once the other comments have been addressed

MY 12/1/2015
Yes. The comments were addressed and issues were cleared in June 2014, since the CEO cover memo for PIF clearance was signed on June 12, 2014.	MY 12/1/2015
Not at this time. From the PIF to CEO ER, all cash or loan co-financing has been replaced with in-kind co-financing. Please consider bringing cash or loan co-financing at the level of PIF stage. Please translate the co-financing letters into English.

MY 2/4/2016
Not at this time. 
Please translate the co-financing letters from French to English, and have the translation verified.	
	18.	Is the funding level for project management cost appropriate?	FJ - May 16, 2014:
The project management cost represents 8.5% of GEF project grant. 
The co-financing of the project management cost (1:2.8) is smaller than the project co-financing (1:5.2). Please increase the project management cost co-financing.

MY 12/1/2015
Yes. The comments were addressed and issues were cleared in June 2014, since the CEO cover memo for PIF clearance was signed on June 12, 2014.	MY 12/1/2015
Yes, but more cash is needed from co-financing for project management.  Please see comments in Box 14.	
	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 - May 16, 2014:
The PPG request is in the norm.

MY 12/1/2015
Yes. The comments were addressed and issues were cleared in June 2014, since the CEO cover memo for PIF clearance was signed on June 12, 2014.	MY 12/1/2015
Yes, on page 14 of the CEO ER document.	
	20.	If there is a non-grant instrument in the project, is there a reasonable calendar of reflows included?	FJ - May 16, 2014:
The project is a grant.	MY 12/1/2015
Not applicable.	
Project Monitoring and Evaluation	21.	Have the appropriate Tracking Tools been included with information for all relevant indicators, as applicable?		MY 12/1/2015
Yes.	
	22.	Does the proposal include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?		MY 12/1/2015
Yes, it is stated on pages 11 and 12 of the CEO ER document.	
Agency Responses	23.	Has the Agency adequately responded to comments from:			
	•	STAP?		MY 12/1/2015
N/A, because it is an MSP.	
	•	Convention Secretariat?		MY 12/1/2015
N/A	
	•	The Council?		MY 12/1/2015
N/A	
	•	Other GEF Agencies?		MY 12/1/2015
N/A	
Secretariat Recommendation	

Recommendation at PIF Stage	24.	 Is PIF clearance/approval being recommended?	FJ - May 16, 2014:
No, Please address the above comments. Please contact the GEF secretariat prior to re-submission.

MY 12/1/2015
Yes. The comments were addressed and issues were cleared in June 2014, since the CEO cover memo for PIF clearance was signed on June 12, 2014.		
	25.	Items to consider at CEO endorsement/approval.			
Recommendation at CEO Endorsement/ Approval	26.	 Is CEO endorsement/approval being recommended?		MY 12/1/2015
Not at this time. 

Please address issues in Boxes: 13, 16 and 17.

MY 2/4/2016
Not at this time. 

Please address comments in Box 17.

MY 5/10/2016
Yes, all comments were cleared. The PM recommends the CEO to approve this MSP.	
	First review*	May 16, 2014	December 01, 2015	
Review Date (s)	Additional review (as necessary)		February 04, 2016	
	Additional review (as necessary)		May 10, 2016	
				
*  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.