GEF-6 REQUEST FOR PROJECT ENDORSEMENT/APPROVAL  
Project Type:  
Type of Trust Fund:
For more information about GEF, visit TheGEF.org
      					   	                       
part i: project information	
Project Title: Enabling transboundary cooperation and integrated water resources management in the Dniester River Basin	
Country(ies):	Republic of Moldova and Ukraine	GEF Project ID:	9359	
GEF Agency(ies):	         	GEF Agency Project ID:	5269	
Other Executing Partner(s):	Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)	Submission Date:
Resubmission Date:	
6 April 2017	
GEF Focal Area (s):	   	Project Duration (Months)	36	
Integrated Approach Pilot	IAP-Cities   IAP-Commodities   IAP-Food Security 	Corporate Program: SGP   	
Name of Parent Program	[if applicable]	Agency Fee ($)	185,250	
A.	Focal Area  Strategy Framework and Other Program Strategies
Focal Area Objectives/Programs	Focal Area Outcomes	Trust Fund	(in $)	
			GEF Project Financing	Co-financing	
  	     Catalyse Sustainable Management of Transboundary Waters 		1,950,000	19,465,000	
  	     		     	     	
  	     		     	     	
  	     		     	     	
  	     		     	     	
  	     		     	     	
  	     		     	     	
  	     		     	     	
Total project costs		1,950,000	19,465,0000	
B.	Project description summary 
Project Objective: Integrated water resources management in the Dniester river basin to strengthen sustainable development, through the update of the TDA, development and endorsement of the SAP and initiation of its implementation
	
Project Components/
Programs	Financing Type	Project Outcomes	Project Outputs	Trust Fund	(in $)	
					GEF Project Financing	Confirmed Co-financing	
 Component 1
Integrated water resources management in the Dniester river basin to strengthen sustainable development, through the update of the TDA, development and endorsement of the SAP and initiation of its implementation		Outcome 1. 
Science- based consensus among the countries and key stakeholders on major transboundary problems of the basin

Outcome 2
Understanding current and future priority environmental issues, and their transboundary implications, including potential implications, by key basin stakeholders and the public

Outcome 3
Local stakeholders ready to minimize negative consequences for economic sectors as well as the environment in the basin	Output 1.1. 
Preparing a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis for the Dniester River Basin

Output 1.2. Scenarios of Water Futures with a focus on climate variability and transboundary issues. The set of Scenarios of Water Futures will benefit from experiences of on-going and past UNECE-UNEP-OSCE activities in the domain of vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in the basin

Output 1.3. Development of a local strategy and a plan for adaptation to climate change   	GEF TF	550,000	5,500,000	
 Component 2: Development of the policy, legal and institutional set-up, mandate and capacities of the River Basin Commission for strengthened basin-level cooperation		Outcome 4. Strengthened environmental transboundary cooperation in the Dniester basin

Outcome 5. Agreed actions to address major transboundary problems of the Dniester basin (SAP) with established collaborative mechanism for multi-country cooperation framework 

Outcome 6. Involvement of stakeholders in the decision making processes of a joint management body/Commission and its institutions

Outcome 7. 
Project experiences and lessons disseminated globally and regionally

	Output 2.1. Strategic Action Programme for the basin approved at the highest level (e.g. Ministerial) level

Output 2.2. A document establishing the Statute of the Commission / joint management body including subsidiary joint expert bodies  

Output 2.3.  Functional and active Inter-ministerial committees in each recipient country to support the work of the future Dniester River Basin Commission.

Output 2.4. Framework established for the development of the transboundary  and the national river basin management plans, elements of these plans under initial implementation.

Output 2.5. Functioning expert groups under the Commission / joint management body with a clear mandate and work plan (four or more expert groups are anticipated – tentatively on water quality and drinking water, information management, implementation of the Water Framework Directive and on biodiversity)

Output 2.6. A mechani.sm for basin-wide consultations with a broad range of stakeholders as anticipated in article 21 of the bilateral Dniester Treaty established

Output 2.7. Twinning and experience sharing with another transboundary basin, strategy for replication of best practices in the Dniester basin

Output 2.8. Comprehensive public participation and communication/awareness raising and gender mainstreaming strategy with selected activities implemented

Output 2.9. A project web page (following IW : LEARN standards) created on the Commission website, international waters experience notes with best practices from the project produced, use of the GEF 6 IW tracking tool and participation at GEF IW conferences, UNECE Water Convention events and other IW : LEARN activities ensured. 1% or more of the GEF grant will be allocated towards IW Learn activities	GEF TF	650,000	6,400,000	
 Component 3: Strengthening of water resources and biodiversity monitoring and conservation, and information exchange in the Dniester River Basin		Outcome 8. 
Stronger information base and better accessibility of the relevant information in the Dniester basin for the joint management of water resources

Outcome 9. 
A coordinated institutional and legal framework for access to and exchange of information from monitoring and other sources, including the use and further development of the Dniester basin GIS involving stakeholders from the whole basin

Outcome 10. Improved capacities for monitoring in the basin, and the partial implementation of the agreed monitoring and information exchange programme	Output 3.1. Institutional and legal framework defined for a programme for basin-level/transboundary monitoring, early warning and data exchange including chemical, biological and health-related parameters 

Output 3.2. An agreed programme for joint monitoring activities and information exchange between the two countries

Output 3.3. Training programme, field and laboratory inter-calibration exercises organized for staff of institutions involved in joint monitoring and exchange of information

Output 3.4. Demonstration projects

Output 3.5. Distribution of available basin-wide information to the public via diverse sources of mass media	GEF TF	580,000	5,500,000	
Subtotal		1,780,000	17,400,000	
Project Management Cost (PMC)		170,000	2,065,000	
Total project costs		1,950,000	19,465,000	
C.	confirmed sources of Co-financing for the project by name and by type
Please include evidence for co-financing for the project with this form.
Sources of Co-financing 	Name of Co-financier 	Type of Cofinancing	Amount ($) 	
Recipient Government	Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine	In-kind	2,000,000	
Recipient Government 	Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Moldova 	In-kind	1,000,000	
Donor Agency	United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 	In-kind	1,100,000	
Donor Agency	Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe	In-kind	1,515,000	
Donor Agency	Swiss Cooperation Office 	In-kind	13,500,000	
Other	Regional Water Management Authority in Krakow (Poland)	In-kind	50,000	
GEF Agency	UNDP	In-kind	300,000	
	     		     	
	     		     	
Total Co-financing			19,465,000	
D.	Trust Fund  Resources Requested by Agency(ies),  Country(ies), Focal Area and the Programming of Funds
GEF Agency	Trust Fund	Country 
Name/Global	Focal Area	Programming of Funds	(in $)	
					GEF Project Financing (a)	Agency Fee a)  (b)2	Total
(c)=a+b	
UNDP	GEFTF	Regional	International Waters	NA	1,950,000	185,250	2,135,250	
		        	  		     	     	0	
		        	  		     	     	0	
		        	  		     	     	0	
		        	  		     	     	0	
		        	  		     	     	0	
		        	  		     	     	0	
		        	  		     	     	0	
		        	  		     	     	0	
		        	  		     	     	0	
Total Grant Resources	0	0	0	
                       
                          a ) Refer to the Fee Policy for GEF Partner Agencies

E.	Project’s Target Contributions to Global Environmental Benefits
          Provide the expected project targets as appropriate. 
Corporate Results	Replenishment Targets	Project Targets	
1.	Maintain globally significant biodiversity and the ecosystem goods and services that it provides to society	Improved management of landscapes and seascapes covering 300 million hectares 	      hectares	
2.	Sustainable land management in production systems (agriculture, rangelands, and forest landscapes)	120 million hectares under sustainable land management	      hectares   	
3.	Promotion of collective management of transboundary water systems and implementation of the full range of policy, legal, and institutional reforms and investments contributing to sustainable use and maintenance of ecosystem services	Water-food-ecosystems security and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater in at least 10 freshwater basins; 	1 Number of freshwater basins 	
	20% of globally over-exploited fisheries (by volume) moved to more sustainable levels	      Percent of fisheries, by volume 	
4.	4. Support to transformational shifts towards a low-emission and resilient development path	750 million tons of CO2e  mitigated (include both direct and indirect)	      metric tons	
5.	Increase in phase-out, disposal and reduction of releases of POPs, ODS, mercury and other chemicals of global concern	Disposal of 80,000 tons of POPs (PCB, obsolete pesticides) 	      metric tons	
1.		Reduction of 1000 tons of Mercury	      metric tons	
1.		Phase-out of 303.44 tons of ODP (HCFC)	      ODP tons	
6.	Enhance capacity of countries to implement MEAs (multilateral environmental agreements) and mainstream into national and sub-national policy, planning financial and legal frameworks 	Development and sectoral planning frameworks integrate measurable targets drawn from the MEAs in at least 10 countries	Number of Countries:      	
6.		Functional environmental information systems are established to support decision-making in at least 10 countries	Number of Countries:      	

B.	f.  Does the project include a “non-grant” instrument?                      
(If non-grant instruments are used, provide an indicative calendar of expected reflows to your Agency and to the GEF/LDCF/SCCF/CBIT Trust Fund) in Annex D.

part ii:  project justification

A. describe any changes in alignment with the project design with the original pif 
A.1. Project Description. Elaborate on: 1) the global environmental and/or adaptation problems, root causes and barriers that need to be addressed; 2) the baseline scenario or any associated baseline projects, 3) the proposed alternative scenario, GEF focal area strategies, with a brief description of expected outcomes and components of the project, 4) incremental/additional cost reasoning and expected contributions from the baseline, the GEFTF, LDCF, SCCF,  CBIT and co-financing; 5) global environmental benefits (GEFTF) and/or adaptation benefits (LDCF/SCCF); and 6) innovativeness, sustainability and potential for scaling up.  
1) Global Environmental Problems

NA

2) Baseline Scenarios

NA

3) Proposed Alternative Scenario

Since the PIF approval the sources of co-financing have evolved. At PIF approval 3 M USD was anticipated from the European Union (EU) through activities expected in the region. This has been replaced with co-financing from the Swiss Development Corporation (SDC) of 13.5 M USD.

4) Incremental/additional cost reasoning

NA

5) Global Environment Benfits

NA

6) Innovativeness, sustainability and potential for scaling-up 

NA

A.2. Child Project?  If this is a child project under a program, describe how the components contribute to the overall program impact.  

NA

A.3.  Stakeholders. Elaborate on how the key stakeholders engagement, particularly with regard to civil society organizations and indigenous peoples, is incorporated in the preparation and implementation of the project. 

NA

A.4. Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment. Elaborate on how gender equality and women’s empowerment issues are mainstreamed into the project implementation and monitoring, taking into account the differences, needs, roles and priorities of women and men.

NA

A.5 Risk. Elaborate on indicated risks, including climate change, potential social and environmental risks that might prevent the project objectives from being achieved, and, if possible, the proposed measures that address these risks at the time of project implementation.(table format acceptable): 

Risk	Level	Mitigation	
Political instability could affect the implementation of actions at country and bilateral levels 	Medium	The project will promote coordination among various actors through the stakeholder involvement plan and apply best principles of adaptive management if political instability causes challenges in selected areas of either country. Cooperation and coordination of the PCU with diplomatic entities in both countries will be capitalized on to identify, anticipate and appropriately respond to political developments with implications for potential instability.  The project bears an idea of confidence-building through a dialogue and joint actions which ultimately are to overcome misunderstandings in disputable issues and to find best sustainable and win-win solutions.	
Lack of appropriate participation in the project of Transdniester 	Medium	Contacts in this region have been developed during the baseline projects. Representatives of relevant organizations from the Transdniester took part in the activities of the bilateral health and water working group (WG), fisheries WG, monitoring WG and contributed to development of the Dniester basin atlas, GIS, activities on adaptation to climate change. Cooperation with the working group between Chisinau and Tiraspol on environmental issues as a platform will be used by the project. The project will also work closely with the civil society and its Transdniester representatives that are involved into local, national and international actions on the Dniester. 	
Limited scientific data and information and limited willingness of responsible authorities to share	Medium	It is an established fact that there is lack of data in the riparians. To address this the project will be seeking advice from other similar projects and basins e.g. the GEF IW:LEARN, EPIRB, Polish authorities who manage a small share of the Dniester basin, ICPDR, MCC. A list of holders of information already exists and it will be updated during the TDA and SAP.  The fact that EU environment- and water-related directives prescribe data and information sharing within the countries is a positive factor. The principles of particularly UNECE Water Convention and WFD (on the transboundary waters) will be strong arguments to push for information sharing. 	
Climate change	Medium	The project is supporting work to better understand and enable stakeholders to adapt to potential climate change events – including flood and droughts.	

A.6. Institutional Arrangement and Coordination. Describe the institutional arrangement for project implementation. Elaborate on the planned coordination with other relevant GEF-financed projects and other initiatives.

The project will be executed through OSCE’s offices in Moldova and Ukraine with support from the relevant UNDP COs. OSCE has significant experience working in both countries. The Office of the co-ordinator of the OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities (OCEEA) is planned to have the overall responsibility for the project within the OSCE and will co-ordinate all necessary substantive, administrative, financial and managerial arrangements with the involved OSCE Field Operations in Moldova and Ukraine and other relevant structures within the OSCE, in particular, the Department of Management and Finance at the OSCE Secretariat. The Head of the Environmental Co-operation Unit of the OCEEA will be the OCEEA contact person for the GEF project on the Dniester.
The OCEEA will also mobilize and consolidate political support to promote the outcomes of the GEF project through its constituencies and platforms in Vienna (such as the Permanent Council, Economic and Environmental Committee, etc.) as well as through its processes, including the Annual OSCE Economic and Environmental Fora.
The OSCE is considering the following execution for this GEF project:
•	The Office of the Co-ordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities (OCEEA) based in the OSCE Secretariat in Vienna, Austria will have the overall responsibility for the project within the OSCE and will put in place, and co-ordinate all necessary substantive, administrative, financial and managerial arrangements with the involved OSCE Field Operations in Moldova and Ukraine and other relevant structures within the OSCE, in particular, the Department of Management and Finance at the OSCE Secretariat. 
•	The OSCE Field Operation in Moldova based in Chisinau, Moldova will support work of a National Project Co-ordinator based in Chisinau, Moldova.
•	The OSCE Field Operation in Ukraine based in Kiev, Ukraine will provide necessary logistical and administrative support to host the Project Coordination Unit of the GEF project on its premises and facilitate project activities on the ground in Ukraine as required in terms of human resources, procurement, administrative and political support. 

The project will work closely with EU (and others) funded initiatives within the region. The development of agreed transboundary priority actions delivered through the TDA/SAP process will assist both countries meet their EU Association Agreements linked with the EU Water Framework Directive. The approach of linking TDA/SAP methodology to assist countries with the WFD has been clearly demonstrated through the UNDP/GEF Danube and Tisza projects. Both countries are actively engaged in the ICPDR and will benefit from lessons from these previous GEF projects and on-going actions by the ICPDR on hydropower management, IWRM and compliance with the WFD. 

The project will also work closely with the recently endorsed pilot project with the UNEP/GEF INMS project which is planned to test methodologies to enhance nitrogen management, leading to a reactive nitrogen management system and the regional and global levels. Data collected through the TDA by the Dniester Project and data from the pilots under the INMS project will be complementary and shared between the projects.

Additional Information not well elaborated at PIF Stage:

A.7 Benefits. Describe the socioeconomic benefits to be delivered by the project at the national and local levels. How do these benefits translate in supporting the achievement of global environment benefits (GEF Trust Fund) or adaptation benefits (LDCF/SCCF)?

The key benefits (environmental and socio-economic) at the national level will be to facilitate the countries progression to meeting the EU Association Agreements and the expectations of the UNECE Transboundary Waters Convention. In guiding the countries to meet these regional MEAs the project will facilitate the demonstration of improved practices and provide training on IWRM and environmental management. The project will engage with a wide range of national and local stakeholders (from community to cabinet level) and ensure that gender mainstreaming objectives are adhered to. 

The agreement and subsequent implementation of the agreed SAP will result in reduced ecosystem stress in the Dniester Basin and, in particular, contribute to the reduction of nutrient pollutants entering the Black Sea. This will have the GEB of reduced eutrophication potential in the North West shelf of the Black Sea, a global ‘dead zone’ hotspot.

A.8 Knowledge Management. Elaborate on the knowledge management approach for the project, including, if any, plans for the project to learn from other relevant projects and initiatives (e.g. participate in trainings, conferences, stakeholder exchanges, virtual networks, project twinning) and  plans for the project to assess and document in a user-friendly form (e.g. lessons learned briefs, engaging websites, guidebooks based on experience) and share these experiences and expertise (e.g. participate in community of practices, organize seminars, trainings and conferences) with relevant stakeholders. 

A significant part of the Dniester project is directed at the generation, collation, interpretation and dissemination of knowledge through the generation of data and information on procedures and practices. In particular, the activities undertaken through Component 1 (developing a TDA) and Component 2 (pilots) will contribute to the new knowledge that will be assembled in Component 2 (SAP) and other activities. The project will utilise and link to the GEF IW:LEARN portal to share information more widely. Specifically, the project’s outcomes 6 and 7 are linked with operational use and dissemination of knowledge.

•	Outcome 6. Involvement of stakeholders in the decision-making processes of a joint management body and its institutions, and;
•	Outcome 7. Project experiences and lessons disseminated globally and regionally

Within these outcomes the following outputs will be making specific contributions on KM:
•	Output 2.3. Functional and active Inter-ministerial committees in each recipient country to support the work of the future Dniester River Basin Commission. The project will support proper intersectoral cooperation as a model for effective river basin planning and management. 
•	Output 2.5. Functioning expert groups under the Commission / joint body with a clear mandate and work plan 
•	At least four expert groups are anticipated depending on the scenario for bilateral cooperation is selected for the project.
•	Output 2.6. Establishing a stakeholder consultation mechanism consistent with the Dniester Treaty
•	Article 21 of the bilateral Dniester Treaty (2012) specified expectations for stakeholder consultation as an essential activity of the Dniester Commission.
•	Output 2.7. Twinning and experience sharing exchanges with other transboundary basins and replication within Dniester Basin. Twinning to learn from experiences of other river basin commission and their possible application in the Dniester Basin will be initiated by the project. The project will develop plans (linked to the GEF IW:LEARN activities and participating where appropriate) to facilitate the gathering and dissemination of approaches to enable replication within the Dniester River Basin.
•	Output 2.8. Public participation, communication/awareness raising and gender mainstreaming strategy with selected activities implemented. To sustain the project aims and results, the project will support communication / awareness raising activities. Some of them will be new (such as start-up competitions) for the basin, some will build on activities which already have some history (summer school and expeditions, information boards etc.). The communication strategy will guide the stakeholders during the course of the project. 
•	Output 2.9. A project web page (following IW LEARN standards) created on the Commission / joint body website.  The project will also develop KM products related to IW interests, including:  experience notes with best practices from the project produced, participation at GEF IW conferences, UNECE Water Convention events and other IW LEARN activities. At least 1% of the GEF grant will be allocated towards GEF IW:LEARN related activities.

B. Description of the consistency of the project with:
B.1 Consistency with National Priorities. Describe the consistency of the project with national strategies and plans or reports and assessements under relevant conventions such as NAPAs, NAPs, ASGM NAPs, MIAs, NBSAPs, NCs, TNAs, NCSAs, NIPs, PRSPs, NPFE, BURs, INDCs, etc.:

Moldova and Ukraine have also acceded to a number of international agreements and conventions directed towards joint international action to address natural resource issues. This project is also very closely aligned to the national ambitions of the two countries to align further with the EU as expressed through their respective Association Agreements. In particular the project will help, through the GEF TDA/SAP process, the countries develop a River Basin Characterisation Report (WFD Article V) and a River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) for the Dniester River Basin.
In addition the project will assist Moldova and Ukraine to meet some of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This project is aligned with goals and targets associated with SDG 6 (in particular target 6.5 on IWRM and 6.6 to protect and restore water-related ecosystems), it  also contributes to the implementation of the SDG 2 (food security), 5 (gender), 13 (combating climate change and its impacts), 14 (life below water) and 15 (life on land), and will assist the two countries in meeting these targets.
By aligning the development of the SAP to the countries’ objective of developing WFD compliant river basin management plans will assist to ensure the long-term sustainability of the SAP to facilitate the future implementation of any remedial actions identified through wide stakeholder involvement and detailed training/capacity-building actions. 
Finally, this project has been developed in close cooperation with representatives of the Moldovan and Ukrainian governments, the private sector (in particular the hydropower sector) and civil society. 

C.  Describe the budgeted m &e plan:  
The project results as outlined in the project results framework will be monitored annually and evaluated periodically during project implementation to ensure the project effectively achieves these results.  

Project-level monitoring and evaluation will be undertaken in compliance with UNDP requirements as outlined in the UNDP POPP and UNDP Evaluation Policy. While these UNDP requirements are not outlined in this project document, the UNDP Country Office will work with the relevant project stakeholders to ensure UNDP M&E requirements are met in a timely fashion and to high quality standards. Additional mandatory GEF-specific M&E requirements (as outlined below) will be undertaken in accordance with the GEF M&E policy and other relevant GEF policies.  

In addition to these mandatory UNDP and GEF M&E requirements, other M&E activities deemed necessary to support project-level adaptive management will be agreed during the Project Inception Workshop and will be detailed in the Inception Report. This will include the exact role of project target groups and other stakeholders in project M&E activities including the GEF Operational Focal Point and national/regional institutes assigned to undertake project monitoring. The GEF Operational Focal Point will strive to ensure consistency in the approach taken to the GEF-specific M&E requirements (notably the GEF Tracking Tools) across all GEF-financed projects in the country. This could be achieved for example by using one national institute to complete the GEF Tracking Tools for all GEF-financed projects in the country, including projects supported by other GEF Agencies.    

M&E Oversight and monitoring responsibilities:
Project Manager:  The Project Manager is responsible for day-to-day project management and regular monitoring of project results and risks, including social and environmental risks. The Project Manager will ensure that all project staff maintain a high level of transparency, responsibility and accountability in M&E and reporting of project results. The Project Manager will inform the Project Board, the UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF RTA of any delays or difficulties as they arise during implementation so that appropriate support and corrective measures can be adopted. 

The Project Manager will develop annual work plans based on the multi-year work plan included in Annex A, including annual output targets to support the efficient implementation of the project. The Project Manager will ensure that the standard UNDP and GEF M&E requirements are fulfilled to the highest quality. This includes, but is not limited to, ensuring the results framework indicators are monitored annually in time for evidence-based reporting in the GEF PIR, and that the monitoring of risks and the various plans/strategies developed to support project implementation (e.g. gender strategy, KM strategy etc..) occur on a regular basis.  

Project Steering Committee (PSC):  The PSC will take corrective action as needed to ensure the project achieves the desired results. The PSC will hold project reviews to assess the performance of the project and appraise the Annual Work Plan for the following year. In the project’s final year, the PSC will hold an end-of-project review to capture lessons learned and discuss opportunities for scaling up and to highlight project results and lessons learned with relevant audiences. This final review meeting will also discuss the findings outlined in the project terminal evaluation report and the management response.

Inception Workshop and Report:  A project inception workshop will be held within two months after the project document has been signed by all relevant parties to, amongst others:  
a) Re-orient project stakeholders to the project strategy and discuss any changes in the overall context that influence project implementation; 
b) Discuss the roles and responsibilities of the project team, including reporting and communication lines and conflict resolution mechanisms; 
c) Review the results framework and finalize the indicators, means of verification and monitoring plan; 
d) Discuss reporting, monitoring and evaluation roles and responsibilities and finalize the M&E budget; identify national/regional institutes to be involved in project-level M&E; discuss the role of the GEF OFP in M&E;
e) Update and review responsibilities for monitoring the various project plans and strategies, including the risk log; Environmental and Social Management Plan and other safeguard requirements; the gender strategy; the knowledge management strategy, and other relevant strategies; 
f) Review financial reporting procedures and mandatory requirements, and agree on the arrangements for the annual audit; and
g) Plan and schedule Project Board meetings and finalize the first year annual work plan.  

The Project Manager will prepare the inception report in two weeks but not later than one month after the inception workshop. The inception report will be cleared by the UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Adviser, and will be approved by the Project Board.   

GEF Project Implementation Report (PIR):  The Project Manager, the Executing Agency (OSCE), the UNDP Country Office, and the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor will provide objective input to the annual GEF PIR covering the reporting period July (previous year) to June (current year) for each year of project implementation. The Project Manager will ensure that the indicators included in the project results framework are monitored annually in advance of the PIR submission deadline so that progress can be reported in the PIR. Any environmental and social risks and related management plans will be monitored regularly, and progress will be reported in the PIR. 

The PIR submitted to the GEF will be shared with the PSC. The UNDP Country Office will coordinate the input of the GEF Operational Focal Point and other stakeholders to the PIR as appropriate. The quality rating of the previous year’s PIR will be used to inform the preparation of the subsequent PIR.  

Lessons learned and knowledge generation:  Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention area through existing information sharing networks and forums. The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to the project. The project will identify, analyse and share lessons learned that might be beneficial to the design and implementation of similar projects and disseminate these lessons widely. There will be continuous information exchange between this project and other projects of similar focus in the same country, region and globally.

GEF Focal Area Tracking Tools:  The following GEF Tracking Tool(s) will be used to monitor global environmental benefit results:
The baseline/CEO Endorsement GEF Focal Area Tracking Tool(s) – submitted in Annex D to this project document – will be updated by the Project Manager/Team and shared with the mid-term review consultants and terminal evaluation consultants before the required review/evaluation missions take place. The updated GEF Tracking Tool(s) will be submitted to the GEF along with the completed Mid-term Review report and Terminal Evaluation report.

Independent Mid-term Review (MTR):  An independent mid-term review process will begin after the second PIR has been submitted to the GEF, and the MTR report will be submitted to the GEF in the same year as the 3rd PIR. The MTR findings and responses outlined in the management response will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s duration. The terms of reference, the review process and the MTR report will follow the standard templates and guidance prepared by the UNDP IEO for GEF-financed projects available on the UNDP Evaluation Resource Center (ERC). As noted in this guidance, the evaluation will be ‘independent, impartial and rigorous’. The consultants that will be hired to undertake the assignment will be independent from organizations that were involved in designing, executing or advising on the project to be evaluated. The GEF Operational Focal Point and other stakeholders will be involved and consulted during the terminal evaluation process. Additional quality assurance support is available from the UNDP-GEF Directorate. The final MTR report will be available in English and will be cleared by the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Adviser, and approved by the Project Board.   

Terminal Evaluation (TE):  An independent terminal evaluation (TE) will take place upon completion of all major project outputs and activities. The terminal evaluation process will begin three months before operational closure of the project allowing the evaluation mission to proceed while the project team is still in place, yet ensuring the project is close enough to completion for the evaluation team to reach conclusions on key aspects such as project sustainability. The Project Manager will remain on contract until the TE report and management response have been finalized. The terms of reference, the evaluation process and the final TE report will follow the standard templates and guidance prepared by the UNDP IEO for GEF-financed projects available on the UNDP Evaluation Resource Center. As noted in this guidance, the evaluation will be ‘independent, impartial and rigorous’. The consultants that will be hired to undertake the assignment will be independent from organizations that were involved in designing, executing or advising on the project to be evaluated. The GEF Operational Focal Point and other stakeholders will be involved and consulted during the terminal evaluation process. Additional quality assurance support is available from the UNDP-GEF Directorate. The final TE report will be cleared the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Adviser, and will be approved by the Project Board.  The TE report will be publicly available in English on the UNDP ERC.  

UNDP IEO will undertake a quality assessment and validate the findings and ratings in the TE report, and rate the quality of the TE report.  The UNDP IEO assessment report will be sent to the GEF IEO along with the project terminal evaluation report.

Final Report: The project’s terminal PIR along with the terminal evaluation (TE) report and corresponding management response will serve as the final project report package. The final project report package shall be discussed with the PSC during an end-of-project review meeting to discuss lesson learned and opportunities for scaling up.    

Mandatory GEF M&E Requirements and M&E Budget:  
GEF M&E requirements
	Primary responsibility	Indicative costs to be charged to the Project Budget  (US$)	Time frame	
		GEF grant	Co-financing		
Inception Workshop 	UNECE
PCU
	15,000	3,000	Within three months of project document signature 	
Inception Report	PCU	None	None	Within two weeks of inception workshop	
Standard UNDP monitoring and reporting 	PCU
	None	None	Quarterly, annually	
Monitoring of indicators in project results framework	PCU
UNECE	2,000  	4,000	Annually 	
GEF Project Implementation Report (PIR) 	PCU	None	None	Annually 	
Lessons learned and knowledge generation	PCU	None	None	Annually	
Monitoring of environmental and social risks, and corresponding management plans as relevant	PCU
	None	None	On-going	
Project Steering Committee meetings	PCU
UNECE
	14,000	28,000	
Annually	
Knowledge management 	PCU	1% of GEF grant = 20,000 USD		On-going	
Independent Mid-term Review (MTR) and management response  	PCU
Consultant	20,000	40,000	Between 2nd and 3rd PIR.  	
Independent Terminal Evaluation (TE) 	PCU
Consultant	22,000 	44,000	At least three months before operational closure	
TOTAL indicative COST 
Excluding project team staff time, and UNDP staff and travel expenses 	93,000	119,000		

PART iII:  certification by gef partner agency(ies)
A.	GEF Agency(ies) certification
This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for CEO endorsement under GEF-6.	

Agency Coordinator, Agency Name	Signature	Date
(MM/dd/yyyy) 	Project Contact Person	Telephone	Email Address	
Ms. Adriana Dinu,
Executive Coordinator
UNDP-GEF		6 April 2017	Vladimir Mamaev,Regional Technical Advisor	     	vladimir.mamaev@undp.org

ANNEX A:  PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK (either copy and paste here the framework from the Agency document, or provide reference to the page in the project document where the framework could be found).

See Section  3 of the Project Document

ANNEX B:  RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS (from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and Responses to Comments from Council at work program inclusion and the Convention Secretariat and STAP at PIF).

GEF Secretariat Comments from Review Sheet

Question	GEFSec Comment	UNDP Response	
3. Does the PIF sufficiently indicate the drivers2 of global environmental degradation, issues of sustainability, market transformation, scaling, and innovation? 

	Please by CEO endorsement further describe how project executive arrangements will contribute towards enhanced country capacity/long term sustainability of project outcomes (i.e. how will involvement of government counterparts be secured)? 
	The Execution arrangements are explained in section 4 (Management Arrangements) of the Project Document. Section 1.7 (Baseline) provides details of the experiences of the EA (OSCE) in the region and their management of technical programmes. Execution will be facilitated through OSCE's offices in Modova and Ukraine (working in partnership with the UNDP COs) and their long experience of working with the governments. This close working with the governments (and the long-term presence of OSCE, pre- and post-project) will aid the sustainability of the project's actions. 
In addition, the close alignment of the project's objectives with the national interests expressed within the EU's Association Agreement and the bilateral arrangements on the management of the Dniester, further increases the likelihood of the sustainability of the project's actions.
	
4. Is the project designed with sound incremental reasoning? 
	Please by CEO endorsement further explain how the project will engage the private sector, making sure that all relevant private sector actors will engage in the TDA TDA/SAP formulation, as well as pilots and the activities related to SAPs implementation. 
	The project will work closely with a wide range of private sector organisations (agriculture including farmers, fertiliser and pesticide manufacturers, etc.) in the development of both the TDA and SAP. Local and regional workshops will be organised to engage private sector (and other stakeholders). Whilst the HPP sector is mostly set-owned there is some private involvement and  as a key sector in water/environment management they will continue to be actively engaged in the TDA/SAP formulation and involved in the capacity development and communications activities.	

 Annex C:  status of implementation of project preparation activities and the use of funds

A.  Provide detailed funding amount of the PPG activities financing status in the table below:
        
PPG Grant Approved at PIF:  50 000	
Project Preparation Activities Implemented	GETF/LDCF/SCCF/CBIT Amount ($)	
	Budgeted Amount	Amount Spent Todate	Amount Committed	
Project preparation grant to finalize the UNDP-GEF project document for project “Enabling transboundary cooperation and integrated water resources management in the Dniester River Basin”	50 000	49 209	791	
Total	50 000	49 209	791	

annex D:  calendar  of expected reflows (if non-grant instrument is used)

Provide a calendar of expected reflows to the GEF/LDCF/SCCF/CBIT Trust Funds or to your Agency (and/or revolving fund that will be set up)

NA