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

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	5125	
Country/Region:	Lebanon	
Project Title:	Smart Adaptation of Forest Landscapes in Mountain Areas (SALMA)	
GEF Agency:	FAO	GEF Agency Project ID:		
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; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:		Project Grant:	$7,147,635	
Co-financing:	$26,980,000	Total Project Cost:	$34,127,635	
PIF Approval:	October 03, 2012	Council Approval/Expected:	November 15, 2012	
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Saliha Dobardzic	Agency Contact Person:	Maurice Saade	

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. Lebanon is a non-Annex I Party to the UNFCCC.	Yes.	
	2.	Has the operational focal point endorsed the project?	YES. A Letter of Endorsement, signed by the Operational Focal Point and dated September 5, 2012, has been attached to the submission.		
Agency’s Comparative Advantage	3. Is the Agency's comparative advantage for this project clearly described and supported?  	YES. The World Bank has considerable experience in sustainable land and water management for climate change adaptation.	Yes, the World Bank has transferred this project to FAO, which has a comparative advantage in implementing sustainable forest management in Lebanon.	
	4. If there is a non-grant instrument in the project, is the GEF Agency capable of managing it?	NA	NA	
	5. Does the project fit into the Agency’s program and staff capacity in the country?	YES. The proposed project contributes towards the World Bank's Country Partnership Strategy, and would build on a $20 million IBRD investment project.	Not clear. FAO is providing support to the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) for reforestation activities in Lebanon, but FAO's in country programs and staff capacity outside of the two baseline projects is unclear. 

Recommended Action:
Please provide more information on the FAO's CPF and in country presence.

UPDATE 7/25/2016
Yes. The project fits into the Agency's CPF in Lebanon and the FAO's staff capacity in Lebanon has been clarified and articulated.	

Resource Availability	6. 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)?	YES. The proposed grant ($7.86 million, including Agency fee) is available under the SCCF Adaptation Program.	Same as at PIF.	
	•	Nagoya Protocol Investment Fund		NA	
	•	focal area set-aside?		NA	
Project Consistency	7. Is the project aligned with the focal /multifocal areas/ LDCF/SCCF/NPIF results framework?	YES. The proposed project is aligned with the LDCF/SCCF results framework.	Yes, aligned with GEF-5 results focal area objectives CCA-1, CCA-2, and CCA-3.	
	8.  Are the relevant GEF 5 focal/ multifocal areas/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF objectives identified?	NOT CLEAR. The proposed project would contribute towards objectives CCA-1 and CCA-2 and, specifically, outcomes 1.3 and 2.3. Given that activities proposed for SCCF funding would be strongly geared towards reforestation and afforestation, however, the project appears to correspond well to outcome 1.2 and output 1.2.1"Vulnerable physical natural and social assets strengthened in response to climate change impacts".

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please ensure that the Focal Area Strategy Framework captures the most relevant CCA outcomes and outputs, towards which the proposed project would contribute.

09/19/2012 -- YES. The Focal Area Strategy Framework has been revised as recommended.	Not clear. Component 2, Outcome 2 - Reduced soil erosion, fragmentation and forest resources and biodiversity loss includes language relating to biodiversity loss, but this project is not requesting financing from the BD focal area. It is unclear to which SCCF objective "reduced soil erosion and fragmentation of forest resources and biodiversity loss" will be contributing. The component name implies that it is increasing adaptive capacity of fragile forest ecosystems, but the framework objectives requires that activities increase the adaptive capacity of communities to respond to climate variability - this component seems to be focusing on ecosystems instead of communities.

Recommended Action: 
Please revise the component outcomes so that they correspond to focal area strategy framework, as well as the project outputs and outcomes so that they are clear and specific.

Please clarify and/or reword how Component 2 relates to increasing the adaptive  capacity of local communities, rather than ecosystems.

UPDATE 7/25/2016
Yes, component 2 has been reformulated to emphasize the focus on building the resilience of mountain communities, and justification has been provided linking the activities to building capacity for adaptation in local mountain communities.	
	9.	Is the project consistent with the recipient country’s national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions, including NPFE,  NAPA, NCSA, or NAP? 	YES. The proposed project is aligned with Lebanon's national priorities for climate change adaptation, as articulated in the National Capacity Self-Assessment and Second National Communication.	Yes. The project is in line with national policies, such as the National Afforestation and Reforestation Programme (NARP), as well as the National Action Plan to Combat Desertification (NAP) and forestry priorities outlined in Lebanon's National Communications to the UNFCCC and the NBSAP.	
	10.	Does the proposal clearly articulate how the capacities developed, if any,  will contribute to the sustainability of project outcomes?	NOT CLEAR. While the project seeks to build the capacity of the Ministry of Agriculture, it is not clear how the project would ensure that the local beneficiaries have the knowledge and skills to adopt and to manage the water harvesting and irrigation technologies introduced, and that forest resources are utilized in a sustainable manner beyond project completion.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please clarify how (i) the project will build the capacity of smallholder farmers to adopt and to manage the water harvesting and irrigation technologies introduced; and (ii) ensure that forest resources are used in a sustainable manner beyond project completion.

09/19/2012 -- YES. Component 3 has been revised as recommended to include capacity building to ensure that local beneficiaries have the knowledge and skills to adopt and to manage the water harvesting and irrigation technologies introduced, and that forest resources are utilized in a sustainable manner beyond project completion.	No. Component 3 does include training for staff at the MOA and local level on SFM, however, there is no language articulating how sustainability will be incorporated into the other two components.

Recommended Action
Please provide clarifications on how the capacities developed under Component 1 and 2 will contribute to the sustainability of project outcomes.

UPDATE 7/25/2016
Yes. The agency has clarified its approach to capacity development and how, in FAOs view, building capacity at the individual and institutional levels will contribute to project sustainability.	

Project Design	11.	 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?	NOT CLEAR. The proposed project would build on the IBRD-financed SALMA project, and the IFAD Hilly Areas Sustainable Agricultural Development (HASAD) project. It is not entirely clear how the two projects are vulnerable to the effects of climate change, or unable to fully address such effects on their beneficiaries.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please elaborate how the two baseline projects are vulnerable to the effects of climate change, or unable to fully address such effects.

09/19/2012 -- YES. The re-submission clarifies that the two baseline projects may become vulnerable to more frequent and more intense flooding, and that the projects are unable to reach all vulnerable communities and ecosystems in the targeted regions.	Not clear. There is a paragraph on SALMAs additionality describing general benefits of the project related to ecosystems and landscapes and clearer and more concise description of SALMAs additionality related to the SCCF framework objectives. 

Recommended Action:
Please elaborate more clearly the additional cost reasoning to the NRP, HASAD, Restoration of Terraces, and FLRM and NARP investments in relation to focal area objectives. Additionally, the FLRM project  includes some climate change activities - how is the SALMA project additional to these?

UPDATE 7/25/2016
Yes. The agency has clarified how the proposed intervention will be additional to the aforementioned baseline investments, and particularly, in the case of the FLRM project, how GEF financing will be additional to those climate change activities financed by the FLRM.	
	12.	Has the cost-effectiveness been sufficiently demonstrated, including the cost-effectiveness of the project design approach as compared to alternative approaches to achieve similar benefits?		Not clear.

Recommended Action:
Please provide a basis for cost effectiveness. How is this approach more cost effective than alternatives?

UPDATE 7/25/2016
Yes. The agency has provided reasoning and a basis for cost effectiveness.	
	13.	Are the activities that will be financed using GEF/LDCF/SCCF funding based on incremental/ additional reasoning?	NOT CLEAR. Please refer to Section 11 above. In the absence of a description of the vulnerabilities and gaps found in the baseline projects, the additional cost reasoning cannot be adequately assessed at this stage.

The PIF suggests that the SCCF grant would be necessary to respond to national priorities to expand forest areas. The hill lakes established through SCCF financing would enable planted seedlings to be irrigated. Finally, the SCCF grant would build the capacity of the Ministry of Agriculture to measure and monitor carbon sequestration.

While reforestation and afforestation may enhance the resilience of ecosystems and communities in the face of climate change, it is not clear whether the activities proposed for SCCF financing have adaptation as their primary objective. In particular, the PIF does not demonstrate that the project would target the human and natural systems most at risk from climate change. As for monitoring and measuring carbon sequestration, this does not appear to be directly relevant for adaptation.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Upon addressing the recommendations under Section 11, please (i) adjust the additional cost reasoning accordingly, if necessary. Moreover, kindly (ii) demonstrate that the activities proposed for SCCF funding take adaptation as their primary objective, or propose alternative adaptation measures; and (iii) consider seeking more appropriate sources of financing for the carbon monitoring activities proposed.

09/19/2012 -- YES. The additional cost reasoning, along with the activities proposed for SCCF financing, have been revised and clarified as recommended.

By CEO Endorsement, please demonstrate that the reforestation activities and the establishment of additional hill lakes, proposed for SCCF financing, target the communities and ecosystems that are most vulnerable to climate change based on relevant scientific and technical assessments.	Not clear. Please see Item 11.
Two key vulnerabilities of the baseline activities were described - a lack of a cohesive strategy to address forest fragmentation at the landscape level and lack of awareness at community and decision making levels of the ecosystem services provided by the forests and climate change induced impacts in order to fully harness benefits accruing to communities and the environment. Additionality is described in relation to the two gaps, but more specificity of these gaps in relation to the baseline investments as well as the focal area objectives and SALMAs contribution to reducing these vulnerabilities would be appreciated.

Additionally, the Endorsement request does not respond to the comment at PIF requesting information regarding how this project targets the most vulnerable communities/ecosystems? Please synthesize any info, if available, from the Project Document to provide a basis for this.

UPDATE 7/25/2016
Yes. The basis for additional reasoning is well articulated in relation to each baseline intervention, and the Agency has clarified how the target communities have been identified on page 27 of the Project Document. The SCCF funds will cover the additional costs of promoting and implementing climate resilient and participative sustainable forest management approaches aimed at diversifying and vulnerable forest stands, while increasing knowledge of climate variability and climate induced threats and ownership of adaptation processes at country and local level, while maintaining and restoring connectivity within ecological corridors to achieve by transferring adaptation technology.	
	14.	Is the project framework sound and sufficiently clear?	NOT CLEAR. Please refer to sections 11 and 13 above.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Upon addressing the recommendations under sections 11 and 13, please adjust the project framework accordingly, if necessary.

09/19/2012 -- YES. The project framework has been revised as recommended.	Not clear.
Please address 8, 10, and 11.

UPDATE 7/26/2016
Yes. The agency has clarified the project framework sufficiently.	
	15.	 Are the applied methodology and assumptions for the description of the incremental/additional benefits sound and appropriate?	NOT CLEAR. Please refer to Section 13 above.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Upon addressing the recommendations under Section 13, please describe the adaptation benefits associated with the activities proposed for SCCF financing.

09/19/2012 -- YES. The adaptation benefits have been adequately described in the re-submission.	Not clear - please refer to Section 13 and describe the specific adaptation benefits related to each baseline project.

UPDATE 7/26/2016 
Yes. The assumptions and methodologies are sound and have been sufficiently elaborated.	
	16.	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?	YES. The socio-economic benefits and gender dimensions are adequately described for this stage of project development.	Not clear. Are there disaggregated indicators for gender? Additionally, while women have been accounted for during stakeholder engagement and an extra effort has been made to accommodate the different levels of women representation in different communities, some quantifiable socio-economic benefits that SALMA would provide, particularly to women, would be useful.

UPDATE 7/26/2016
Yes. Gender disaggregated indicators are included in the tracking tool and concrete measures to ensure gender mainstreaming have been described in paragraph 75 of the Project Document.	
	17.	Is public participation, including CSOs and indigeneous people, taken into consideration, their role identified and addressed properly?	YES. Public participation is adequately described for this stage of project development.	No. Please describe briefly public participation in the section for Stakeholder Engagement.

UPDATE 7/26/2016
Yes. The Agency has articulated how local communities, CSOs, and other groups will engaged throughout the project process, mainly through participatory approaches to planning and management of reforestation activities, which will ensure that the needs of local communities will be taken into account.	
	18.	Does the project take into account potential major risks, including the consequences of climate change and provides sufficient risk mitigation measures? (i.e., climate resilience)	NOT CLEAR. The proposed project would target areas in North Lebanon, which may face insecurity and political risks.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please provide further information about the security situation in the targeted regions.

09/19/2012 -- YES. As recommended, the PIF provides additional information about the political and security situation in North Lebanon. The selection of project sites will be guided by more detailed risk assessments.	Not clear. Please take into consideration the risk of increased climate variability and how this could impact project implementation.

UPDATE 7/26/2016
Yes. Climate risk has been sufficiently accounted for in the risk matrix, accompanied by an appropriate risk mitigation measure.	
	19.	Is the project consistent and properly coordinated with other related initiatives in the country or in the region? 	NOT CLEAR. The PIF cites only the two baseline initiatives. It is not clear, however, how the project will be coordinated with the IFAD-Adaptation Fund project, Climate Smart Agriculture: Enhancing Adaptive Capacity of the Rural Communities in Lebanon (AgriCAL). The PIF should also include any other relevant initiatives in the areas of forest management, agriculture and rural development, with which coordination will be sought.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please (i) provide a complete list of other relevant initiatives, with which coordination will be sought; and (ii) demonstrate that the proposed project will not duplicate efforts carried out under AgriCAL.

09/19/2012 -- YES. Section B.6 of the PIF has been revised as recommended.	Yes.	
	20.	Is the project implementation/ execution arrangement adequate?	YES.	Yes. The MOA will oversee the project, with support from the Inter-Ministerial National Reforestation Committee. A Project Steering Committee will be established and LoAs  with oversight from FAO Lebanon.	
	21.	Is the project structure sufficiently close to what was presented at PIF, with clear justifications for changes?		Not clear. The project has been transferred by the World Bank to FAO, and changes are described in Section A.

Recommended Action
While some changes, such as the Project Title and implementation areas are described in Section A, this project seems to focus on biodiversity and other ecosystems based adaptation concerns. Please justify in clearer detail the connection between this project and SCCF specific adaptation objectives, as they are presented in the focal area framework objectives, or revise as appropriate.

UPDATE 7/26/2016
Yes. The connection between SCCF adaptation objectives and the reduction of biodiversity and ecosystem losses has been clarified, with the focus on increasing the resiliency of forest communities, who rely on ecosystem services provided by local forests, which are sensitive to climate change.	
	22.	If there is a non-grant instrument in the project, is there a reasonable calendar of reflows included?		n/a	

Project Financing	23.	Is funding level for project management cost appropriate?	YES. The funding level for project management is appropriate at $340,363 or less than five per cent of the sub-total for components 1 through 3.	Yes. As at PIF.	
	24.	Is the funding and co-financing per objective appropriate and adequate to achieve the expected outcomes and outputs?	NOT CLEAR. Please refer to sections 11 and 13 above.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Upon addressing the recommendations under sections 11 and 13, please adjust the grant and co-financing amounts per component, if necessary.

09/19/2012 -- YES. The grant amounts per component have been adjusted as recommended.	Please refer to Items 11 and 13.

UPDATE 7/26/2016
Yes.	
	25.	At PIF: comment on the indicated cofinancing;
At CEO endorsement: indicate if confirmed co-financing is provided.	At $26.1 million, the indicative co-financing is appropriate.	Yes. As at PIF.	
	26.	Is the co-financing amount that the Agency is bringing to the project in line with its role?	YES. In line with its role, the World Bank is bringing $20 million in the form of a loan to the Government of Lebanon.	Yes, the FAO is coordinating with several parallel initiatives to provide co-financing of $26.9 million with partners, including fourth phase of the National Reforestation Plan (Ministry of Environment), HASAD and Restoration of Terraces (Ministry of Agriculture), grant/in kind (FAO), Lebanon Reforestation Initiative (USAID).	
Project Monitoring and Evaluation	27.	Have the appropriate Tracking Tools been included with information for all relevant indicators, as applicable?		Not clear. Please provide the LDCF/SCCF Tracking Tool template (in Excel format) with the revised submission.

UPDATE 7/26/2016
Yes. Tracking tools are attached.	
	28.	Does the proposal include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?		Yes, included in Section C.	
Agency Responses	29.	Has the Agency responded adequately to comments from:			
	•	STAP?	NA	Yes	
	•	Convention Secretariat?	NA	NA	
	•	Council comments?		NOT CLEAR. Please provide clear responses to comments made by Council Member(s).

Update 8/26/2016:
This has been done.	
	•	Other GEF Agencies?	NA	NA	
Secretariat Recommendation	

Recommendation at PIF Stage	30.	 Is PIF clearance/approval being recommended?	NOT YET. Please refer to sections 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 24.

09/19/2012 -- YES.		
	31.	Items to consider at CEO endorsement/approval.			
Recommendation at CEO Endorsement/ Approval	32.	 At endorsement/approval, did Agency include the progress of PPG with clear information of commitment status of the PPG?		The agency has clarified that no PPG funds have been requested, and preparation activities carried out have been fully covered by FAO core funding.	
	33.	 Is CEO endorsement/approval being recommended?		No. Please refer to comments to items 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16,17, 18, 21, 24,
27, and 32.

Update 7/25/2016:
Not yet. Please ensure that adequate responses are provided to the comments made by the Council at PIF Work Program approval (item 29).

Update 8/26/2016:
The project is recommended for CEO Endorsement.	
Review Date (s)	First review*	September 06, 2012	June 06, 2016	
	Additional review (as necessary)	September 19, 2012	July 25, 2016	
	Additional review (as necessary)		August 26, 2016	
	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. 

Request for PPG Approval
Review Criteria	Decision Points	Program Manager Comments	
PPG Budget	1.	 Are the proposed activities for project preparation appropriate?		
	2.	Is itemized budget justified?		
Secretariat
Recommendation	3.	Is PPG approval being recommended?		
	4. Other comments		
Review Date (s)	First review*		
	 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.