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

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	9420	
Country/Region:	Regional (Malawi, Tanzania)	
Project Title:	Strengthening Trans-boundary Cooperation and Integrated Natural Resources Management in the Songwe River Basin	
GEF Agency:	AfDB	GEF Agency Project ID:		
Type of Trust Fund:	GEF Trust Fund	GEF Focal Area (s):	International Waters	
GEF-6 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s):	IW-1 Program 1; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:	$200,000	Project Grant:	$6,392,694	
Co-financing:	$11,000,000	Total Project Cost:	$17,392,694	
PIF Approval:		Council Approval/Expected:	October 03, 2016	
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Astrid Hillers	Agency Contact Person:	Daniel Verdeil	

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?	This will need some adjustment. The project needs to still address foundational elements in more comprehensive manner before applying for funding from GEF IW objectives 2.  PIF component 3 elements in majority aim at strengthening the enabling environment for the cooperation and are eligible under IW-1.1.

(7/24/2016):

The PIF has been fundamentally revised and comments and informal comments taken on board. The anticipated timing of operationalizing the Joint Commission, drafting a transboundary agreement (beyond the existing based of the joint commission), and joint assessments of impacts on interaction of river and the lake ecosystems provide provide a base for IW funding and is aligned with the GEF IW objective 1 - 1.		
	2.	Is the project consistent with the recipient country’s national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions?	Consistency and anchoring in the country strategies and development plans need to be outlined, including those related to natural resources ( e.g. fisheries are major source of income alignment with the impacts of infrastructure on fish resources both in the river and potentially in the lake due to impacts on fish migration and impacts on spawning areas).

(7/24/2016):

The alignment with regional and national planes has been much improved. Additional detail especially with relation to the demonstration activities should be included during project design (i.e. included at endorsement ).	
	
Project Design	3.	Does the PIF sufficiently indicate the drivers of global environmental degradation, issues of sustainability, market transformation, scaling, and innovation? 	The project addresses some of the key drivers including, e.g. such as watershed degradation from land conversion. Other looming drivers of serious impacts are from planned infrastructure (as mentioned in the PIF).

The project suggest to update the TDA (dating back to 2004) including incorporating the impacts of climate change. An updated, participatory TDA would provide an updated analysis on root causes of resource degradation. The feasibility in 2004 falls short on assessing some key issues. The GEF guidance on TDA processes may be helpful to inform the TDA update (available on www. iwlearn.net).

(7/24/2016):

The revised PIS has taken effort to openly address the opportunities and the real risks of the implementation of the SRBDP. Besides describing a wider set of drivers and addressing these, the timely GEF support - if included in work program - will support building a foundation for collaborative governance and management, enhanced participatory processes and assessing the impacts and addressing/preventing possible adverse effects of future planned infrastructure on Lake Malawi.		
	4.	Is the project designed with sound incremental reasoning?	Two points on this:
- the project incremental reasoning on strengthening transboundary cooperation and strengthening the operationalization of a permanent cooperative institution is well in line with the GEF incremental reasoning and creation of IW related GEBs.

- Including the HP dam and irrigation investments in the increment/co-finance is not in line with GEF GEB and reasoning. The PIF states that are risking 'important adverse hydro-ecological impacts" and with specific concern on fish spawning areas.

(7/24/2016):

The project design has been vastly revised and now aims at contributing to a much improved enabling environment on regional and national levels for the sustainable management of the Songwe river catchment and more comprehensive assessment and integration with the management of Lake Malawi.  

The project now includes a comprehensive formulation of the incremental reasoning and GEBs and rational for GEF IW investments.		
	5.	Are the components in Table B sound and sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve project objectives and the GEBs?	As outlined in and #1 and # 4 above, the international waters strategy is based on a sequence and foundational interactions. The feasibility analysis is not the same scope as a comprehensive, cross-sectoral TDA and also is in need of updating -as requested by the project. The SAP update will need to build on the TDA. 

GEF support would be well suited to support the operationalization of the Songwe Basin Commission and aiding it to be created as a well functioning and sustainable institution. Based on the specifics of the underlying agreement - which we could not find (please send) - it would be essential to also build in support to specific protocols and the translation of the regional agreement into e.g. national reforms. 

The project should reflect somewhere the NR related basin Vision 2050:  "Basin societies have a broad and sustained diversity of natural resources (soils, vegetation, water, wildlife, etc.) constituting the basin's natural capital assets that are properly harnessed to enhance social, human and financial capital to alleviate property. "

Component 3 includes many elements and most fit into GEF foundational and eligible activities. A GEF foundational support to the Songwe basin should focus on these issues with a funding envelope more in line with foundational projects (around USD 5 million). Interventions under foundational phase could include (citing from the PIF component 3 below): 
- supporting the basin organization to be made functional (to guide SAP implementation in a later stage) and building its capacity; 
- a Transboundary Diagnostic (which for some features, such as fisheries, needs to also include the interaction between the fish resources in the lake and the river spawning grounds some of which are likely to be found in the river and river mouth);  
- SAP update (to include climate change) and adoption in ministerial levels; 
- capacity building on regional and national levels; 
- assessments of soil, groundwater, biodiversity, and eco-systems (and aiding to develop policies and strategies on regional and national levels to enhance their sustainable management); 
- a knowledge management and outreach strategy;
- In addition, as an early investment/low hanging fruit investment which is not unusual in GEF foundational project, the flood early warning and response system could also be eligible and is also mentioned under component 3 in the PIF. 

Please also note in the PIF that 1 % of the project grant is to be allocated to IW-Learn activities.

On the hydro-metereological monitoring system (also component 3),  please note that GEF does NOT fund national hydromet stations but GEF can fund regional data management and information systems.  For national hydromet stations LDCF/SSCF funds can be used in principal, but are currently limited.

As for the other two components (SAP implementation) these are not clearly fitting under the GEF IW window in a foundational phase. This project needs to first conduct a full TDA (in your view a TDA update) and SAP update. To create or maintain momentum as highlighted in the PIF and to show some visible investments in foundational projects, proponents could consider a partnership with the Small Grants Program (as a local SGP).

(7/24/2016):

The components have been revised and are focusing on providing for a permanent regional institution, enhanced environmental information, explicitly addressing the importance of and risk to river and lake fish stocks, and including of initial information on groundwater and mapping recharge areas. 

Comments raised previously have been addressed, including being explicit in not financing hydromet stations from GEF resources. 

Emphasis on participatory processes and gender dimensions, addressing and enhancing country based institutional and regulatory systems within demonstration sites and assessing lessons for scale should all be mentioned among the actions supported in the revised PIF.		
	6.	Are socio-economic aspects, including relevant gender elements, indigenous people, and CSOs considered? 	The background documents (feasibility study, 2004, and the Songwe Vision 2050) clearly highlight the need for action on gender equality. The intention to address gender aspects during project design needs to be addressed in the project framework. 

In addition the TDA (to be undertaken) will aid in analyzing use values that are currently not clearly addressed such as the ecosystems and livelihoods values of floodplains, river and lake fisheries and their interaction, and other. 

Please confirm that there are no indigenous people 's in the project area.

(7/24/2016):

The revised PIF is explicit and specific in considering involvement of communities and CSOs, and on consideration of gender dimensions. The gender section is well thought out for a PIF stage.		
Availability of Resources
	7.	Is the proposed Grant  (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	The STAR allocation?	N/A		
	•	The focal area allocation?	Yes, funds are available but eligibility needs to be addressed as outlined above.

(7/24/2016): Comment addressed.		
	•	The LDCF under the principle of equitable access	N/A		
	•	The SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?	N/A		
	•	Focal area set-aside?	N/A		
Recommendations	8.	Is the PIF being recommended for clearance and PPG (if additional amount beyond the norm) justified?	No, not recommended at this stage. Substantive revisions will be needed in the project scope and funding envelope.

Please address differences across GEF datasheet tables to assure consistency (e.g. agency is not part of project grant). Please do not hesitate to ask GEFSEC advise if needed. 

Please also note that the existing co-finance cannot be counted towards/ be part of the GEF alternative (see #4).

(7/24/2016): 

The team can be commended for the extensive work to revise the proposal and for the cooperative and constructive process of addressing very substantial set of previous comments and concerns.

(7/24/2016):The PIF is recommended for technical clearance. 

Please - among other - address the following by endorsement:

- Please include in the final documents a clear statement that the updated SAP (or its equivalent) will be signed at the level of respective ministers of both countries (at least one ministers from each country). Also, we would strongly suggest that the intended formation of National Intersectoral Committees be included as an activity/indicator in the project results framework.

- explicitly list 1 % of funds for participation in IW - Learn in the project budget and include mentioning of IWC participation, drafting of at least 2 experience notes and sharing these with IW-Learn, and a project website that includes features to allow feeds to the IW learn website.

- expand reach to development partners - such a IUCN - to increase co-financing by endorsement. in addition explore to what extend national programs would also be able to be aligned with the project objectives and that way leverage additional co-finance commitments. Innovative and relatively cost effective methods of isotope fingerprinting to determine the origins of sediment sources and hence guiding future SDRP interventions may be another aspect to consider in case of interest and available support/co-finance is possibility through appropriate development partners.

- please provide updated figures and based of calculation of number in table F.		
Review Date
	Review	March 17, 2016	July 24, 2016	
	Additional Review (as necessary)			
	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?			
	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)