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

  
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	5723	
Country/Region:	Regional (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia)	
Project Title:	West Balkans Drina River Basin Management Project	
GEF Agency:	World Bank	GEF Agency Project ID:	145048 (World Bank)	
Type of Trust Fund:	Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF)	GEF Focal Area (s):	Climate Change	
GEF-5 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s):	CCA-1; CCA-2; CCA-3; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:	$200,000	Project Grant:	$4,366,210	
Co-financing:	$99,700,000	Total Project Cost:	$104,266,210	
PIF Approval:	April 01, 2014	Council Approval/Expected:	May 01, 2014	
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Rawleston Moore	Agency Contact Person:	Guy Alaerts	

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. Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia are developing country Parties to the UNFCCC.		
	2.	Has the operational focal point endorsed the project?			
Resource Availability

	3. 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)?			
	•	the Nagoya Protocol Investment Fund			
	•	focal area set-aside?			
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).			
	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?			

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?	COMMENTS PROVIDED BY GEFSEC AT PCN REVIEW, 03/18/2014: According to the GEF Data Sheet, indicative co-financing associated with the proposed project would amount to some $99.7 million. It seems the co-financing sources and amounts are associated with the Drina management program, which in turn comprises the initiatives described in paragraphs 17-21, as well as in Annex I, but the PCN could be clearer in this regard. Please clarify how the indicative sources and amounts of co-financing relate to the baseline initiatives on which the proposed project would build. Each amount and source cited in Table C of the GEF Data Sheet should be clearly associated with an activity described in a relevant section of the PCN.		
	7.	Are the components, outcomes and outputs in the project framework (Table B) clear, sound and appropriately detailed? 			
	8.	(a) Are global environmental/ adaptation benefits identified? (b) Is the description of the incremental/additional reasoning sound and appropriate?	COMMENTS PROVIDED BY GEFSEC AT PCN REVIEW 03/18/2014: Further to the above, the PCN could be clearer in describing how the SCCF grant will address additional costs of climate change adaptation, given the investments that are underway or that will take place as part of the Drina management program, and the baseline scenario more broadly. Paragraph 33 of the PCN provides a useful summary of the criteria based on which SCCF investments were identified, but it would seem important that one of these criteria is the need to address additional costs of adaptation. Please confirm that the investments proposed for SCCF funding are identified with a view to addressing additional costs of adaptation.		
	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?			
	10.	Is the role of public participation, including CSOs, and indigenous peoples where relevant, identified and explicit means for their engagement explained?			
	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)			
	12.	Is the project consistent and properly coordinated with other related initiatives in the country or in the region? 			
	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.			
	14.	Is the project structure/design sufficiently close to what was presented at PIF, with clear justifications for changes?			
	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?			

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?			
	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?			
	18.	Is the funding level for project management cost appropriate?			
	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?	COMMENTS PROVIDED BY GEFSEC AT PCN REVIEW, 03/18/2014: We note that a Project Preparation Grant of $200,000 is sought, which exceeds the norm for projects up to and including $6 million. Accordingly, some justification is needed.		
	20.	If there is a non-grant instrument in the project, is there a reasonable calendar of reflows included?			
Project Monitoring and Evaluation	21.	Have the appropriate Tracking Tools been included with information for all relevant indicators, as applicable?			
	22.	Does the proposal include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?			
Agency Responses	23.	Has the Agency adequately responded to comments from:			
	•	STAP?			
	•	Convention Secretariat?			
	•	The Council?			
	•	Other GEF Agencies?			
Secretariat Recommendation	

Recommendation at PIF Stage	24.	 Is PIF clearance/approval being recommended?	YES. Please see GEFSEC comments and World Bank responses in the PCN Decision Note, dated March 20, 2014.		
	25.	Items to consider at CEO endorsement/approval.			
Recommendation at CEO Endorsement/ Approval	26.	 Is CEO endorsement/approval being recommended?			
	First review*	March 24, 2014		
Review Date (s)	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.