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

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	9592	
Country/Region:	Regional (Chile, Peru)	
Project Title:	Catalysing Implementation of a Strategic Action Programme for the Sustainable Management of shared Living Marine Resources in the Humboldt Current System (HCS)	
GEF Agency:	UNDP	GEF Agency Project ID:	5697 (UNDP)	
Type of Trust Fund:	GEF Trust Fund	GEF Focal Area (s):	International Waters	
GEF-6 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s):	IW-3 Program 6; IW-3 Program 7; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:	$200,000	Project Grant:	$8,000,000	
Co-financing:	$79,500,000	Total Project Cost:	$87,500,000	
PIF Approval:		Council Approval/Expected:	October 03, 2016	
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Christian Severin	Agency Contact Person:	Jose Vicente Troya,	

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?	8th of August 2016 (cseverin):Yes, the proposal is fully aligned with the IW focal area.		
	2.	Is the project consistent with the recipient country’s national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions?	8th of August 2016 (cseverin): It seems so. When we have received the endorsement letters and the SAP signed by both countries it will be easier to identify the consistency.

29th of august 2016(cseverin): Yes, the project is fully aligned with the countries national strategies. This is among others evident from the buy-inn and support across multiple ministries to the SAP.	
	
Project Design	3.	Does the PIF sufficiently indicate the drivers of global environmental degradation, issues of sustainability, market transformation, scaling, and innovation? 	8th of August 2016 (cseverin): Partly. Please make sure to include more detailed information on the Strategic Action Program that is to be implemented. The document presented have a strong focus on the TDA and its findings, but less so on the SAP and its priorities.

29th of august 2016(cseverin): Addressed.		
	4.	Is the project designed with sound incremental reasoning?			
	5.	Are the components in Table B sound and sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve project objectives and the GEBs?	8th of August 2016 (cseverin): No, please address below comments

- One of the starting points for the HCLME TDA/SAP process and this potential SAP implementation project has been the shared stock of Anchovies. Please ensure that this SAP implementation project will be dealing with the shared stock of Anchovies. in the component description this key shared stock is not specifically mentioned. Please include, as the shared anchovy stock is essential to develop a transboundary management framework for, and further may provide a segway for addressing some of the other transboundary issues identified in the TDA/SAP. 

- The budget to the proposed activities seems to have been distributed based on some kind of equal share arrangement. Please adjust, so that the cost of the proposed activities inform the distribution of funding.

- The PIF includes substantial information on the TDA findings. However, the PIF misses relevant information on the transboundary agreed SAP. Please include information on the SAP and its priorities to the same level of detail as what has been done for the TDA. (some of those main deliveries listed in the Terminal Evaluation would be great to see reflected upon in the PIF too). Further, it would strengthen the proposition if it becomes more evident how the suggested activities are linked to the SAP priorities, supported by the TDA findings. 

- Please include, as an annex, in the submission the transboundary agreed SAP. Please note that the official language of GEF is English.

- Component 2.3 mentions Waste treatment, please confirm that it is wastewater treatment and non point sources of land based pollution that is referred to. 

- Please ensure that the section on GENDER considerations reflects upon the fact that the project will be reporting on the GEF 6 GENDER indicators. 

- Please explain why the co-financing only consists of national cofinancing (the private sector is unfortunately absent), and further, what the thinking is behind the planned equally sized national co-financing. 

The major share of the shared fisheries is being harvested by private operators and larger commercial fleets, for long term sustainability of the shared stocks, a strong cooperation with the private sector will be essential.

29th of august 2016(cseverin):Addressed		
	6.	Are socio-economic aspects, including relevant gender elements, indigenous people, and CSOs considered? 	8th of August 2016 (cseverin):Yes, however, please make sure to specifically insert, in the relevant section, mentioning that the project will be delivering on the GEF6 gender indicators.

29th of august 2016(cseverin):Addressed		
Availability of Resources
	7.	Is the proposed Grant  (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	The STAR allocation?			
	•	The focal area allocation?	8th of August 2016 (cseverin):Yes, the suggested funding envelope is available under the GEF IW FA.		
	•	The LDCF under the principle of equitable access			
	•	The SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?			
	•	Focal area set-aside?			
Recommendations	8.	Is the PIF being recommended for clearance and PPG (if additional amount beyond the norm) justified?	8th of August 2016 (cseverin):No, please address above comments.

29th of august 2016(cseverin):Yes, the project is recommended for technical clearance.		
Review Date
	Review			
	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)