request for

Project Type:

Type of Trust Fund:

For more information about GEF, visit TheGEF.org

part i: project information

Project Title: Capacity-building for the strategic planning and management of natural resources in Belize
Country(ies):	Belize	GEF Project ID:	5048
GEF Agency(ies):	GEF Agency Project ID:	4917
Other Executing Partner(s):	Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries, and Sustainable Development	Submission Date:	2014-08-22
GEF Focal Area (s):	Project Duration(Months)	36 months
Name of Parent Program (if applicable): For SFM/REDD+ For SGP For PPP	Cross-Cutting Capacity Development	Project Agency Fee ($):	72,105

Focal Area Strategy framework

Focal Area Objectives	Expected FA Outcomes	Expected FA Outputs	Trust Fund	Grant Amount ($)	Cofinancing ($)
2.1 Increased capacity of stakeholders to collect data and transform information into knowledge	1.) Institutions and stakeholders trained how to use different tools available to institute natural resource valuation 2.) Stakeholders are better informed via workshops and trainings about the application of natural resource valuation	254,000	171,000
4.1 Enhanced institutional capacities to manage environmental issues and implement global conventions	1.) Institutional capacities for management of environment strengthened 2.) Standards developed and adopted 3.) Capacities of CSOs and CBOs as SGP partners, strengthened	313,000	275,000
4.3 Sustainable financing mechanisms in place at national level	Sustainable financing mechanisms developed	123,000	73,000
Project Management	69,000	124,000
Total project costs	759,000	643,000

Project Framework

Project Objective: To strengthen institutional and technical capacities for improved monitoring and assessment, natural resource valuation and impact assessment, and resource mobilization
Project Component	Grant Type	Expected Outcomes	Expected Outputs	Trust Fund	Grant Amount ($)	Confirmed Cofinancing ($)
I. Monitoring and assessment of environmental impacts and trends	Outcome 1. Planners, policy-makers, and decision-makers are more effectively achieving national and global environmental priorities	1.1 Improved indicators for environmental monitoring and natural resource management 1.2 Uniform data collection methods 1.3 Strengthened real-time monitoring of environmental trends 1.4 Rio Convention criteria and indicators are integrated into sustainable development planning frameworks 1.5 Web-based environmental project database	254,000	171,000
II. Piloting natural resource valuation into EIAs and SEAs	Outcome 2. Holistic planning and decision-making incorporates global environmental values into the development	2.1 Natural resource valuation tools 2.2 Training programme on natural resource valuation 2.3 SEA implementation guidelines 2.4 Targeted institutional and legislative reforms for EIA and SEA compliance	313,000	275,000
III. Institutionalization of sustainable resource mobilization	Outcome 3. Institutional reforms and mobilized financial resources ensure long-term term achievement of Rio Convention obligations, and other MEAs	3.1 Improved monitoring of resource mobilization 3.2 Resource mobilization strategy for financial sustainability of global environment outcomes 3.3 Capacity building for low carbon development strategies	123,000	73,000
Subtotal	690,000	519,000
Project management Cost (PMC) (including Direct Project Services cost US$ 10,000)	69,000	124,000
Total project costs	759,000	643,000

sources of confirmed Cofinancing for the project by source and by name ($)

Please include letters confirming cofinancing for the projeSct with this form

Sources of Co-financing	Name of Co-financier (source)	Type of Cofinancing	Cofinancing Amount ($)
Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries, and Sustainable Development	440,000
Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries, and Sustainable Development	128,000
UNDP	75,000
Total Co-financing	643,000

trust fund Resources Requested by agency, Focal Area and country1

GEF Agency	Type of Trust Fund	Focal Area	Country Name/ Global	(in $)
Grant Amount (a)	Agency Fee (b)2	Total c=a+b
Belize	72,105	72,105
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Grant Resources	0	72,105	72,105

1 In case of a single focal area, single country, single GEF Agency project, and single trust fund project, no need to provide information for this
table. PMC amount from Table B should be included proportionately to the focal area amount in this table.

2 Indicate fees related to this project.

Consultants working for technical assistance components:

Component	Grant Amount ($)	Cofinancing ($)	Project Total ($)
International Consultants	459,000	0	459,000
National/Local Consultants	20,000	0	20,000

Does the project include a “non-grant” instrument?

(If non-grant instruments are used, provide in Annex D an indicative calendar of expected reflows to your Agency
and to the GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF Trust Fund).

part ii: project justification

A. describe any changes in alignment with the project design of the original pif

A.1 National strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions, if applicable, i.e. NAPAS, NAPs, NBSAPs, national communications, TNAs, NCSA, NIPs, PRSPs, NPFE, Biennial Update Reports, etc. N/A

A.2. GEF focal area and/or fund(s) strategies, eligibility criteria and priorities. The focal area outcome of CD-5 under the PIF was revised to CD-2 to more accurately reflect project outputs and activities, the objective of which is to improve technical and organizational capacities for data and information collection and knowledge creation. For the purposes of organization and clarity, certain outputs (2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4) have been reordered, reworded, and/or combined with other similar outputs as list in the PIF. This revision was informed on the basis of consultations and a more extensive review of background documents. The goal of the project remains the same, which is to develop and access better information for decision-making through the elaboration of global environmental indicators that can be reconciled and integrated with sustainable development indicators. the project seeks to take a broader and more innovation approach by also identifying and elaborating natural resource valuation as a complement to existing global environmental and sustainable development indicators.

A.3 The GEF Agency’s comparative advantage: N/A

A.4. The baseline project and the problem that it seeks to address: N/A

A. 5. Incremental /Additional cost reasoning: describe the incremental (GEF Trust Fund/NPIF) or additional (LDCF/SCCF) activities requested for GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF financing and the associated global environmental benefits (GEF Trust Fund) or associated adaptation benefits (LDCF/SCCF) to be delivered by the project: N/A

A.6 Risks, including climate change, potential social and environmental risks that might prevent the project objectives from being achieved, and measures that address these risks: N/A

A.7. Coordination with other relevant GEF financed initiatives N/A

B. additional information not addressed at Pif stage:

B.1 Describe how the stakeholders will be engaged in project implementation. The key project stakeholders are government ministries and their subsidiary agencies and departments that are responsible for data collection and monitoring, EIA and SEA processes, and national developmental planning as the relate to the global environment. Strategically, the project includes activities that will call upon all stakeholder organizations to meet and negotiate the development of new environmental indicators to strengthen the monitoring of environmental impacts and mainstream Rio Convention obligations within the country’s sustainable development framework. The project will also bring together stakeholders to discuss recommendations for institutional and legislative reforms to sustain project outcomes as well as build capacities of state and non-state stakeholders to more effectively manage the natural resource base. This includes technical capacities to produce reliable and actionable data for decision-makers involved in the EIA and SEA processes. In addition to the integration of natural resource valuation and training on its use, the project will help institutionalize these newly developed capacities by demonstrating their value and financial sustainability to stakeholders. All activities will be structured as learn-by-doing exercises. In addition to governmental stakeholders, there are non-governmental stakeholders from academia, the private sector, and CSOs. During the establishment of technical working groups on the three Rio Conventions, these non-state organizations will also be invited to share their comparative expertise, but also to undertake selected project activities. These will be determined during project implementation when setting up with the working group teams as well as when setting up the sub-contracts. The project is to be implemented by the Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries, and Sustainable Development, but in close coordination with key stakeholder groups. This is to ensure that the respective strengths of Government, international organizations and local CSO/CBOs all contribute to the project success. This is also to ensure that knowledge and skills from international organizations are transferred to local organizations and to Government. This project will contribute to building capacities of a large number of stakeholder representatives in the country to make more effective decisions about environmental management, in particular to take a more holistic approach to planning and development and thus generate global environmental benefits. Stakeholders to be trained will come from various line ministries and agencies on best practices and innovative approaches to mainstream Rio Conventions into planning processes. Particular attention will be given to actively engage women and young staff members in the project, largely as trainees to ensure diversity as well as to contribute to building up government’s absorptive capacity. In addition to government representatives, other stakeholder representatives will include those from NGOs, academia, civil society, local authorities, and the private sector. Importantly, development partners such as the European Commission and GIZ will be invited as observers given their involvement in similar activities in Belize. In a number of instances, project activities will be integrated with those of development partners, as appropriate, to achieve cost-effectiveness and capitalize on synergies. Stakeholders will participate in various training activities, as well as learn-by-doing working groups to utilize the new environmental indicators, test improved skills for natural resource valuation, and pilot the new guidelines for monitoring of financial flows. Management of the project will emphasize collaboration and active engagement of key stakeholder representatives in targeted working groups to ensure legitimacy of results. They will receive neutral facilitation and be supported by independent expert resource persons recruited by the project. The structure of training activities and the selection of stakeholder participants will be heavily informed by the need to institutionalize capacities developed under the project. By the end of the project, increased capacities will have been imparted to a diverse cross-section of stakeholders as well as key planners and decision-makers at the central and local levels. Key project stakeholders and their role in project execution: The Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries, and Sustainable Development. As the main executing government agency, MFFSD will play the key coordination role in the implementation of the project. Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture. MNRA is the Senior Beneficiary of the project on the basis that the project will be strengthening and integrating Rio Convention provisions into their sectoral policies, legislation, policies and plans and institutional mandates. As such, MNRA will also coordinate the implementation of the project, particularly in monitoring the progress of the project. Ministry of Public Services. Given this ministry’s role in the training and development of government staff, their input into the project’s capacity building activities will be essential. This Ministry will also have a place on the Project Board. The government departments and agencies listed below will be involved in the project as and when required by the activities of the project that are in line with their mandated roles and functions: The Ministry of Economic Development, the Department of Environment, the Department of Fisheries, and the Coastal Zone Department, among other government bodies. Non-state organizations like the Protected Areas Conservation Trust, the Association of Protected Areas Management Organization and the Belize Association of Private Protected Areas will also play a key role in project activities and be represented on the Project Board. Stakeholders include a broad range of other institutions working on natural resources management actions, such as NGOs, civil society organizations, academia, and research institutions. Of particular importance are the non-state actors who participate in the various convention advisory committees and who are existing members of the National Environmental Appraisal Committee (NEAC) and the Non-State Stakeholder Committee (NSSC) who participate in and informs natural resources policy dialogues. This group of actors includes but is not limited to the Association of Engineers, the Belize Electricity Limited, the Association of Protected Areas Management Organizations, the Belize Association of Private protected Areas, the Belize Tourism Board, and the National Association of Village Council Organizations. The Environmental Research Institute of the University of Belize is also an important project partner as they have certain technical expertise that will contribute to preparation of analyses called for under the project. While the University is not in a position to provide co-financing at the time of project document signature, this is may change during project implementation. A very early project management activity is to convene a meeting of the NSSC to detail more specific roles and contributions of non-state actors in the various technical assistance components. Non-governmental and community-based organizations identified in this document play an integral part of the sustainable development architecture of the country as they are primary partners in the management of the natural resource base. This partnership is clearly demonstrated in their significant participation in the co-management of the protected areas system as well as their direct involvement in assisting the government with technical expertise in the management of various threats to biodiversity. The project will be implemented through the UNDP Country Office in Belize, in partnership with the Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development and associated departments. This project depends on the active involvement of various state actors responsible for all aspects of sustainable development and implementing obligations of multilateral environmental agreements. The Implementing Partner will be the Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development, with other ministries playing a key role as partners, including the Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture, which is the focal point for the Convention to Combat Desertification and Drought. Implementation stakeholders and arrangements are described in Section E below.

B.2 Describe the socioeconomic benefits to be delivered by the Project at the national and local levels, including consideration of gender dimensions, and how these will support the achievement of global environment benefits (GEF Trust Fund/NPIF) or adaptation benefits (LDCF/SCCF): The socio-economic benefits to be delivered through this project are indirect as the emphasis of this project is to mainstream Rio Convention obligations within the framework of development planning to achieve sustainability. That is, socio-economic benefits would be delivered through the baseline project, with the GEF increment being that global environmental benefits would be enhanced by modifying this baseline through the institutionalization of stronger tools to value the global environment. Specifically, these socio-economic benefits would be demonstrated in the medium-term through better indicators and planning decisions being made that will enhance more environmentally-friendly and sustainable development. These socio-economic indicators will be reconciled with global environmental priorities, in particular through the development and use of natural resource valuation, and tested in a high-value development project.

B.3. Explain how cost-effectiveness is reflected in the project design: The cost-effectiveness of this project lies largely in the project strategy, namely by building upon a significant baseline of commitment by the Government of Belize to pursue sustainable development and participate in training and learn-by-doing exercises to improve monitoring and enforcement of their environmental legislation, and enable more accurate valuation and representation of the global environment in developmental planning. This cost-effectiveness is indicated by the government’s significant co-financing to project activities in the order of US$ 643,000. This co-financing is significant and represents the commitment of the Government to improve national planning and decision-making regarding the global environment. This contribution is an estimate of the cost to assign staff (decision-makers and planners) time away from their regular work to actively participate in project activities as well as the cost of convening workshops, dialogues, meetings, office space and administrative support for the Project Management Unit. Although in-kind, this contribution translates into real cash since it is the cost of the staff’s salaries, meeting services, and office space. The cost-effectiveness of this project is also demonstrated in efficient allocation and management of financial resources. The recruitment of specialists under the project will be financed by the GEF contribution, reducing the transaction costs associated when contracting consultants through multiple sources of finances. Due to the limited amount of GEF funds available for project management, this project has leveraged significant co-financing from the Government and UNDP to implement this project. Notwithstanding the nature of project management activities, these serve the dual purpose of institutionalizing the technical capacities that will be developed under the project through a learn-by-doing approach. This investment also ensures continued project ownership by the government. The effectiveness of the project is also indicated by the relative percentages attributed to project management. The US$ 69,000 represents 4.9% of the total project cost, with the non-GEF contribution being 8.8%, for a total 13.7%. The cost-effectiveness is also indicated by the assignment of the Sustainable Development Unit of the MFFSD to coordinate this project under full National Implementation Modality.

C. describe the budgeted m &e plan: Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures. The project team and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) will undertake monitoring and evaluation activities, with support from UNDP-GEF, including by independent evaluators in the case of the final evaluation. The logical framework matrix in Annex A provides a logical structure for monitoring project performance and delivery using SMART indicators during project implementation. The output budget and the work plan in the UNDP project document provide additional information for the allocation of funds, both the GEF and co-financing, for expected project deliverables and the timing of project activities to produce these deliverables. Annex 5 in the project document provides a breakdown of the total GEF budget by outcome, project management costs, and allocated disbursements on a per year basis. A GEF tracking tool for CCCD will be used as part of monitoring and evaluation activities to assess project delivery. The work plan is provisional, and is to be reviewed during the first project board and endorsed at the project initiation workshop.

The following sections outline the principle components of monitoring and evaluation. The project’s monitoring and evaluation approach will be discussed during the project’s initiation report so as to fine-tune indicators and means of verification, as well as an explanation and full definition of project staff M&E responsibilities.

A project initiation workshop will be conducted with the full project team, National Project Director, relevant government counterparts, co-financing partners, the UNDP-CO, with representation from the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit as appropriate. Non-governmental stakeholders should be represented at this workshop.

A fundamental objective of this initiation workshop will be to further instill an understanding and ownership of the project’s goals and objectives among the project team, government and other stakeholder groups. The workshop also serves to finalize preparation of the project’s first annual work plan on the basis of the project’s log-frame matrix. This will include reviewing the log frame (indicators, means of verification, assumptions), imparting additional detail as needed, and on the basis of this exercise, finalize the Annual Work Plan with precise and measurable performance (process and output) indicators, and in a manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project.

Specifically, the project initiation workshop will: (i) introduce project staff to the UNDP-GEF expanded team that will support the project during its implementation, namely the CO and responsible Project Management Unit (PMU) staff; (ii) detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and PMU staff with respect to the project team; (iii) provide a detailed overview of UNDP-GEF reporting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements, with particular emphasis on the combined Annual Project Reports - Project Implementation Reviews (APR/PIRs), Project Board meetings, as well as final evaluation. The initiation workshop will also provide an opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project-related budgetary planning, budget reviews, and mandatory budget re-phasing.

The initiation workshop will also provide an opportunity for all parties to understand their roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project’s decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The Terms of Reference for PMU staff and associated decision-making structures will be discussed again, as needed, in order to clarify for all, each party’s responsibilities during the project’s implementation phase.

The initiation workshop will present a schedule of M&E-related meetings and reports. The Project Coordinator in consultation with UNDP will develop this schedule, and will include: (i) tentative time frames for Project Board meetings, and the timing of near-term project activities, such as the in-depth review of literature on natural resource valuation; and (ii) project-related monitoring and evaluation activities. The provisional work plan will be approved in the first meeting of the Project Board.

Day-to-day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator based on the project’s Annual Work Plan and its indicators. The Project Coordinator will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion.

The Project Coordinator will fine-tune outcome and performance indicators in consultation with the full project team at the initiation workshop, with support from UNDP-CO and assisted by the UNDP-GEF. Specific targets for the first year implementation performance indicators, together with their means of verification, will be developed at the initiation workshop. These will be used to assess whether implementation is proceeding at the intended pace and in the right direction and will form part of the Annual Work Plan. Targets and indicators for subsequent years would be defined annually as part of the internal evaluation and planning processes undertaken by the Project Team, and agreed with the Executing Agency (Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries, and Sustainable Development) among other key project partners sitting on the Project Board.

Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the UNDP-CO through the provision of quarterly reports from the Project Coordinator. Furthermore, specific meetings may be scheduled between the PMU, the UNDP-CO and other pertinent stakeholders as deemed appropriate and relevant (particularly the Project Board members). Such meetings will allow parties to take stock and to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the project in a timely fashion to ensure smooth implementation of project activities.

Annual Monitoring will occur through the Annual Project Board meeting. This is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. The project will be subject to Project Board meetings at least twice per year. The first such meeting will be held within the first twelve months following the initiation workshop. For each year-end meeting of the Project Board, the Project Coordinator will prepare harmonized Annual Project Report / Project Implementation Reviews and submit it to UNDP-CO, the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordination Unit, and all Project Board members at least two weeks prior to the meeting for review and comments.

The APR/PIR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the Project Board year-end meeting. The Project Coordinator will present the APR/PIR to the Project Board members, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the Committee participants. The Project Coordinator will also inform the participants of any agreement(s) reached by stakeholders during the APR/PIR preparation, on how to resolve operational issues. Separate reviews of each project output may also be conducted, as necessary. Details regarding the requirements and conduct of the APR and Project Board meetings are contained with the M&E Information Kit available through UNDP-GEF.

The terminal review meeting is held by the Project Board, with invitation to other relevant Government and municipal stakeholders as necessary, in the last month of project operations. The Project Coordinator is responsible for preparing the terminal review report and submitting it to UNDP-COs, the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit, and all participants of the terminal review meeting. The terminal review report will be drafted at least one month in advance of the terminal review meeting, in order to allow for timely review and to serve as the basis for discussion. The terminal review report considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to whether the project has achieved its stated objectives and contributed to the broader environmental objective. The report also decides whether any actions remain necessary, particularly in relation to the sustainability of project outputs and outcomes, and acts as a vehicle through that lessons learned can be captured to feed into other projects under implementation or formulation. The terminal review meeting should refer to the independent final evaluation report, conclusions and recommendations as appropriate.

The UNDP-CO, in consultation with the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinator and members of the Project Board, has the authority to suspend disbursement if project performance benchmarks are not met as per delivery rates, and qualitative assessments of achievements of outputs.

A project initiation report will be prepared immediately following the initiation workshop. This report will include a detailed First Year Work Plan divided in quarterly time-frames as well as detailed activities and performance indicators that will guide project implementation (over the course of the first year). This Work Plan will include the proposed dates for any visits and/or support missions from the UNDP-CO, the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit, or consultants, as well as time-frames for meetings of the project decision-making structures (e.g., Project Board). The report will also include the detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the Annual Work Plan, and including any monitoring and evaluation requirements to effectively measure project performance during the targeted 12 months’ time-frame.

The initiation report will include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions and feedback mechanisms of project related partners. In addition, a section will be included on progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may affect project implementation, including any unforeseen or newly arisen constraints. When finalized, the report will be circulated to project counterparts who will be given a period of one calendar month in that to respond with comments or queries.

The combined Annual Progress Report and Project Implementation Review is a UNDP requirement and part of UNDP’s Country Office central oversight, monitoring and project management. As a self-assessment report by project management to the Country Office, the APR/PIR is a key input to the year-end Project Board meetings. The PIR is an annual monitoring process mandated by the GEF. It has become an essential management and monitoring tool for Project Coordinators and offers the main vehicle for extracting lessons from on-going projects. These two reporting requirements are very similar in input, purpose and timing and they have now been amalgamated into a single APR/PIR Report.

An APR/PIR is to be prepared on an annual basis by June, but should be completed well before this deadline (at least one month) in order to be considered at the Project Board meeting. The purpose of the APR/PIR is to reflect progress achieved in meeting the project’s Annual Work Plan and assess performance of the project in contributing to intended outcomes through outputs and partnership work. The APR/PIR is discussed by the Project Board, so that the resultant report represents a document that has been agreed upon by all of the key stakeholders.

A standard format/template for the APR/PIR is provided by UNDP-GEF. This includes the following:

An analysis of project performance over the reporting period, including outputs produced and, where possible, information on the status of the outcome;

The constraints experienced in the progress towards results and the reasons for these;

The three (at most) major constraints to achievement of results;

Annual Work Plans and related expenditure reports;

Lessons learned; and

Clear recommendations for future orientation in addressing key problems in lack of progress.

UNDP will analyze the individual APR/PIRs by focal area, theme and region for common issues/results and lessons. The APR/PIRs are also valuable for the independent evaluators who can utilize them to identify any changes in the project’s structure, indicators, work plan, among others, and view a past history of delivery and assessment.

Quarterly Progress Reports are short reports outlining the main updates in project performance, and are to be provided quarterly to the UNDP Country Office. UNDP-CO will provide guidelines for the preparation of these reports, which will be shared with the UNDP-GEF RCU.

During the last three months of the project, the PMU will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements and outputs of the project, lessons learned, the extent to which objectives have been met, structures and mechanisms implemented, capacities developed, among others. Together with the independent final evaluation, the project terminal report is one of two definitive statements of the project’s activities during its lifetime. The project terminal report will also recommend further steps, if necessary, in order to ensure sustainability and replicability of the project outcomes and outputs.

An independent final evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal tripartite review meeting, and will focus on: a) the cost-effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation and performance; b) highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and c) present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this evaluation will be incorporated as lessons learned, and recommendations for improvement addressed to ensure the institutional sustainability of project outputs, particular for the replication of project activities. The final evaluation will also look at project outcomes and their sustainability. The final evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities, as appropriate. The terms of reference for the final evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP-CO based on guidance from the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit, in consultation with MFFSD.

The Project Coordinator will provide the UNDP Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements and an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds according to the established procedures set out in UNDP’s Programming and Finance manuals. The audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of UNDP Belize.

PART iII: Approval/endorsement by gef operational focal point(s) and gef agency(ies)

Record of Endorsement of GEF Operational Focal Point(s) on Behalf of the Government(s): ): (Please attach the Operational Focal Point endorsement letter(s) with this form. For SGP, use this OFP endorsement letter).

Name	Position	Ministry	Date (MM/dd/yyyy)
Martin Alegria	GEF Operation Focal Point	MINISTRY OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT	12/19/2011

B. GEF agency(ies) certification

This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF policies and procedures and meets the GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF criteria for CEO endorsement/approval of project.

Agency Coordinator, Agency Name	Signature	Date (Month, day, year)	Project Contact Person	Telephone	Email Address
Adriana Dinu Executive Coordinator and Director a.i. UNDP-GEF	04/29/2013	Tom Twining-Ward, UNDP Green-LECDRS	+ 421 2 59337 386	tom.twining-ward@undp.org

ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

Project Strategy	Objectively verifiable indicators	Sources of verification	Risks and Assumptions
Indicator	Baseline value	Target value and date
Long-term goal: To put in place new approaches that will facilitate better development decisions for the global environment
Project objective: To strengthen institutional and technical capacities for: a) improved monitoring and assessment; b) natural resource valuation and impact assessment; and c) resource mobilization	Outcome indicators: Monitoring and assessment of environmental impacts and trends are better enabled Technical and management staff sufficiently trained in the use and application of natural resource valuation tools, and decision-makers fully aware of natural resource valuation tools Financial framework for delivering on Rio Conventions obligations is strengthened	There is high-level support from the Cabinet for sustainable development. Nonetheless, many high-level officials question the need for the MFFSD Planners and decision-makers do not fully appreciate the value of the Rio Conventions and the use of net present value to determine value leads to heavy discounting of the global environment and poor incorporation into development planning Changes in government leadership have caused uncertainty and confusion over mandates and as well as an overall loss of institutional memory	By the end of the project: Government staff have learned, applied, and tested best practice tools to integrate natural resource valuation into national decision-making processes for improved implementation of Rio Conventions Future planning and development will account for the true value of environmental goods and services Increased capacity within relevant stakeholder groups to address Rio Convention obligations Gender equality targets per UNDP 2013-2017 Strategic Plan are met	Meeting Minutes Working Group meeting reports UNDP quarterly progress reports Independent final evaluation reports Rio Convention national reports and communications Strategic documents detailing the new indicators, valuation tools, and resource mobilization plan GEF Cross-Cutting Capacity Development Scorecard	Planners and decision-makers are resistant to adopt new attitudes towards the global environment Involvement of the UNDP will ensure, the lack of absorptive capacity does not undermine the project Involvement of the UNDP will ensure, the lack of absorptive capacity does not undermine project Improving the valuation process will help decision-making relating to the global environment become more inclusive, legitimate, and robust The project will be executed in a transparent, holistic, adaptive, and collaborative manner
Outcome 1: Planners, policy-makers, and decision-makers are more effectively achieving national and global environmental priorities
Output 1.1 Improved indicators for environmental monitoring and natural resource management	In-depth analysis of data needs and indicators Comprehensive set of environmental, natural resource, and sustainable development indicators	Evidence of public sector staff’s technical capacities related to the Rio Conventions is limited Despite expressed government commitment to the global environment, several barriers limit policies and efforts	At least two senior level meetings are held with each department before month 4 Analysis completed by month 5, reviewed by month 6, and endorsed by month 8 Indicators prepared, reviewed, and endorsed by month 12	Meeting minutes Tracking and progress reports Analysis of data needs and indicators Letters of endorsement	Analyses and indicators are deemed legitimate, relevant, and valid among all key stakeholder representatives Expert peer-reviews are thorough and of high quality
Output 1.2: Uniform data collection methods	Expert sub-committee meetings Assessment of current methodologies for collecting and analyzing data and information Learning-by-doing workshops on improved data collection and analysis Synthesis workshop on cross-fertilization among three Rio Conventions	Data is not regularly collected or analyzed in a manner consistent with international standards or Rio Convention obligations	Sub-committee meets every four months beginning no later than month 4 Assessment of methodologies drafted by month 5, peer-reviewed by month 8, and finalized by month 12 Workshops begin no earlier than month 13 and are completed by month 17. Each workshop will have at least 20 unique participants. Final synthesis workshop convened within one month of the completion of previous workshops	Meeting minutes Tracking and progress reports Methodologies assessment Participant registration lists Feedback evaluations Workshop reports	Members of the sub-committee will be comprised of proactive specialists and project champions Lead agencies will allow their staff to attend all training workshops Trainers will agree with best practices to mainstream and implement training based on the Rio Conventions
Output 1.3: Strengthened real-time monitoring of environmental trends	Strengthened technological and technical capacities for real-time monitoring Hardware and software for improved data/information management and monitoring systems identified and installed, and training provided Training manuals / guidelines on use of improved system	Belize lacks the national capacities needed to generate good, reliable data and transform it into knowledge that is useful in national development planning processes.	Hardware and software needs identified and approved by month 12, and procured and installed by month 15 Training on use of new systems provided to at least 75 unique participants with gender balance and appropriate regional representation by month 18 Feedback evaluations from workshops with 90% response rate and analysis by month 31 High quality training manuals and/or guidelines updated / drafted by month 20, peer-reviewed and endorsed by month 22	Meeting minutes Tracking and progress reports Participant registration lists Workshop evaluations and results analysis Training materials / guidelines Letter of endorsement	The right representation from the various government ministries, departments, and agencies participate in project activities There is sufficient absorptive capacity to implement improved data management and monitoring systems
Output 1.4: Rio Convention criteria and indicators are integrated into sustainable development planning frameworks	Improved environmental indicators integrated into NSDS Global environmental priorities integrated into targeted sectoral development plans Workshops with state and non-state stakeholders to update selected sectoral development plans	Institutional capacities for managing the Rio Conventions is piecemeal and takes place through Rio Convention-specific projects, with development emphasizing near to medium-term socio-economic priorities, often at the expense of long-term sustainability. The country is currently in the process of preparing its NSDS with the help of UNDESA	NSDS updated by month 20, with revised draft peer-reviewed and finalized by month 24, and approved by the Cabinet by month 33 At least 50 relevant participants in the learning-by-doing workshops for each topic Two sectoral development plans selected for integrating Rio Convention criteria and indicators by month 24 Series of workshops to draft new plans and peer-review them by month 29, validated by month 30, and finalized by month 32. Plans approved by Cabinet by month 33	Meeting minutes Tracking and progress reports Participant registration lists Workshop reports Revised NSDS and sectoral development plans Official letters of approval	The right representation from the various government ministries, departments, agencies, and non-state stakeholders participate in project activities and legitimately reflect stakeholder constituent views and priorities Workshop participants contribute their honest attitudes and values Planners and decision-makers are open to suggested revisions and changes
Output 1.5: Web-based environmental project database	Technological structure of data and information management system improved to include a web-based portal Assessment report recommending changes to regulatory framework Expert working group drafts recommended regulatory and legislative texts	Many of the government ministries including MFFSD have not created or updated their web presence following the government restructuring. Data is not easily accessible from one centralized source.	Web-based portal is structured, beta-tested, and launched by month 16 Assessment report is prepared, reviewed, and endorsed by month 18 Texts drafted by month 24, peer-reviewed and finalized by month 27, endorsed by month 28, and submitted for Cabinet approval by month 31	Meeting minutes Tracking and progress reports Web-based portal Assessment report Drafted legislative and regulatory texts	Recommended legislative and regulatory reforms are technically, financially, and politically feasible All stakeholders will have access in one way or another to the information that is stored in the database Web-based portal will be maintained and updated as appropriate following launch
Outcome 2: Holistic planning and decision-making incorporates global environmental values into the development process
Output 2.1: Natural resource valuation tools	Expert review of lessons learned and best practices on natural resource valuation Natural resource valuation tools selected and modified for Belize by expert working group NRV tools integrated into key decision-making processes	There is a shortage of technical capacity amongst planners at all levels to utilize information and knowledge related to the value of environmental goods and services, and to mainstream these values into planning and decision-making processes NRV guidelines and tools are not widely known or understood among planners and decision-makers	High quality report on best practices and lessons learned drafted by month 6 and peer-reviewed, finalized, and validated by month 7 Expert working group convened by month 3 Tools modified and peer-reviewed by month 7, and officially endorsed by month 9. Tools revised by month 26 based on lessons learned from piloting MOA to formally include NRV into decision-making processes signed by relevant parties by month 12	Meeting minutes Tracking and progress reports Best practices and lessons learned report NRV tools Letter of endorsement Memorandum of Agreement	Planners and decision-makers are resistant to adopt new attitudes towards the global environment including proposed agreements Enabling policy and legislation in place to support the signing of an appropriate agreement, and institutions follow through on commitments under agreement Insufficient commitment from policy-makers to maintain long-term support for project
Output 2.2: Training programme on natural resource valuation	Report on best practices and lessons learned for designing and implementing a training programme on natural resource valuation Training modules and materials for NRV training programme Training courses for state and non-state stakeholders on NRV Learning-by-doing piloting of skills in selected development projects through workshops in conjunction with training programme	There is currently no training available on NRV in Belize, however, the opportunity to do so exists through academic and research institutions in Belize that have other related training programmes	Report on best practices drafted by month 9 and finalized by month 10 NRV module and training materials drafted and peer-reviewed by month 12 Six training courses, each with at least 15 unique participants at least half of whom are government staff. All technical staff with responsibilities regarding EIAs participate and have an average test score of at least 80%. Statistical analysis of incremental learning Six learning-by-doing workshops convened in conjunction with training programme	Meeting minutes Tracking and progress reports Best practices and lessons learned report Training materials and curriculum Participation lists and test scores Feedback from training/workshop Statistical analyses Piloted EIA with NRV	Best practices and lessons learned are applicable in Belize and appropriately used Improving the valuation process will help decision-making relating to the global environment become more inclusive, legitimate, and robust Training programme participants are open to new tools and fully absorb knowledge imparted Other training programmes and curricula do not work against Rio Conventions
Output 2.3: SEA implementation guidelines	Institutional analysis of policy assessment Sensitization workshops to raise stakeholder awareness of SEA process Set of guidelines for improving SEA implementation	The SEA process in Belize does not account for true value of natural resources	Institutional analysis and best practices report prepared by month 6, and peer-reviewed by month 7 Three workshops with diverse representation from government, private sector, NGOs, and civil society convened by month 12 Guidelines drafted by month 13, peer-reviewed and validated by month 14, and finalized by month 15	Meeting minutes Tracking and progress reports Institutional analysis Participation lists Workshop reports SEA guidelines	Regional and non-state stakeholder representation in project activities legitimately reflect their stakeholder constituent views and priorities Raising awareness of issues will increase support for project activities
Output 2.4: Targeted institutional and legislative reforms for EIA and SEA compliance	Expert working group meets regularly Consultations with senior-level decision-makers to discuss legislative and policy reforms to EIA and SEA processes Assessment on current legislative and regulatory environment SEA policy to enable more effective Rio Convention implementation Bill to integrate NRV into planning and development processes with full input from stakeholders Series of one-day sensitization workshops to raise awareness	Belize has poorly defined institutional structures and mandates relating to the collection, management, and sharing of data and information relevant to environmental protection, risk reduction, and development planning. The creation of the MFFSD helped consolidate the mandates under one ministry, but there is still much confusion regarding specific responsibilities and mandates.	Working group convened by month 3 with quarterly meetings for two years, and institutionalization within ministry by month 32 At least 10 consultative meetings with senior-decision makers by month 10 and regulatory/legislative assessment by month 12 SEA policy drafted by month 14, peer-reviewed by month 15 and finalized by month 16 Bill drafted and reviewed by month 18 and presented at stakeholder workshop by month 20. Discussion forums held in three districts by month 22 with summary of stakeholder consultations prepared and presented by month 23 NRV bill revised, finalized, endorsed, and submitted for Parliamentary approval by month 24 Ten one-day workshops with at least 50 mid-level and senior decision makers between months 20 and 30	Meeting minutes Tracking and progress reports Institutional and legislative assessment SEA policy and NRV bill Peer-review comments Summary report of stakeholder consultations Letter of endorsement Participation lists	Legislative and institutional reforms recommended by the project are politically, technically, and financially feasible There is no active institutional resistance to proposed changes The Parliament approves the institutional and legislative reforms Expert peer reviewers follow through with quality reviews Integrating NRV into planning processes with improve decision-making with regard to the global environment
Outcome 3: Institutional reforms and mobilized financial resources ensure long-term term achievement of Rio Convention obligations, and other MEAs
Output 3.1: Improved monitoring of resource mobilization	Expert finance and economic group leads in-depth analysis of current financial tracking mechanisms New guidelines for financial tracking mechanism Learning-by-doing workshops to pilot improved guidelines for tracking mechanism	Natural Resource management entities including MFFSD are expected to see a freeze or cuts in recurrent budgets. National investments in capacity development for natural resource management have been stalled due to reduced budgetary allocations as the Government redirects available public finances to social sector stabilization	Expert group of at least 20 rotating members convened by month 23 In-depth analysis and best practices drafted by month 25, peer-reviewed and finalized by month 26 Guidelines drafted by month 27, peer-reviewed by month 28, and finalized and endorsed by month 30 Four workshops with at least 25 unique stakeholders at each to be completed by month 33	Meeting minutes Tracking and progress reports Analysis of current tracking and best practices Financial tracking guidelines Letter of endorsement Participation lists Workshop reports	Finance and economic group is composed of specialists who become champions of the project Peer-reviews and analysis are thorough and of high quality 100 unique stakeholders for workshops is feasible
Output 3.2: Resource mobilization strategy for the financial sustainability of global environment outcomes	In-depth financial analysis of monitoring and enforcement of environmental legislation in Belize Best practices and financial/economic instruments for resource mobilization identified and tested for feasibility Operational procedures for allocation of funds for natural resource management Resource mobilization strategy informed by best practices and lessons learned	The NCSA and MDG7 Scorecard both indicated weak compliance with existing legislation due to limitations in national capacities for monitoring and enforcement and inadequate financing for environmental management.	Analytical report drafted by month 25, peer-reviewed and finalized by month 26 Feasibility study on financial instruments drafted by month 27, peer-reviewed by month 28 and finalized by month 30 Operational procedures drafted by month 26, tested and piloted by month 30, and approved by month 31. Resource mobilization strategy is drafted by month 28, peer-reviewed by month 29, and finalized and approved by month 32 Independent final evaluation by month 36 determines project outcomes are capable of raising and allocating funds	Meeting minutes Tracking and progress reports Participation lists Analytical report Feasibility study Operational procedures Resource mobilization strategy Letter of approval Final evaluation	State and non-state stakeholders will remain committed to project outcomes beyond the life of the project Best practices show that the project goal is attainable with on-going and sustained effort without compromising socio-economic development
Output 3.3: Capacity building for low carbon development strategies	Assessment of capacity needs to prepare low carbon development strategies Learning-by-doing sensitization workshops to improve understanding of low carbon development options Guidelines and training manuals to build capacity to implement integrated global environmental and sustainable development strategies	The lack of institutional capacities in terms of technical knowledge, personnel, financial resources to participate in evidence-based environmental management and development planning limits Belize’s ability to develop low carbon strategies	Capacity needs assessment completed by month 26 Four sensitization workshops in four districts with at least 60 participants at each by month 28 Guidelines and training materials drafted by month 30, peer-reviewed by month 32, and approved by month 33	Meeting minutes Tracking and progress reports Capacity assessment Participation lists Workshop reports Feedback surveys Guidelines and training manuals Letter of approval	Best practices and lessons learned are applicable to the context of Belize Staff have sufficient absorptive capacity and will to effectively participate in training activities

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).

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: 25,000
Project Preparation Activities Implemented	GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF Amount ($)
Budgeted Amount	Amount Spent Todate	Amount Committed
Baseline study/strategy development - part 1A	2,500	2,500	0
Baseline study/strategy development - part 1B	2,500	2,500	0
Baseline study/strategy development - part 1C	2,500	2,500	0
Draft M&E strategy	2,000	2,000	0
Determine sustainability arrangements	1,000	1,000	0
Prepare MSP document per GEF and UNDP guidelines	12,500	12,500	0
Validation Workshop	2,000	2,000	0
Total	25,000	25,000	0

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

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

N/A

Project ID number will be assigned by GEFSEC.

Refer to the Focal Area Results Framework and LDCF/SCCF Framework when completing Table A.

PMC should be charged proportionately to focal areas based on focal area project grant amount in Table D below.

DPCs relate to operational and administrative support activities carried out by UNDP office on behalf of DIM (Direct Implementation) or to NIM (National Implementation) projects, such as: (a) Identification and/or recruitment of project and programme personnel; (b) Identification and facilitation of training activities; (c) Procurement of goods and services; (d) Financial support services

For questions A.1 –A.7 in Part II, if there are no changes since PIF and if not specifically requested in the review sheet at PIF stage, then no need to respond, please enter “NA” after the respective question.

Meeting minutes includes records of key meetings such as local, regional and national consultations regarding inputs on the design and implementation of the relevant output and associated activities. Meetings may be individual or group meetings, with government officials or non-state stakeholders.

Tracking and progress reports include UNDP Quarterly Reports, Annual Performance Reports, and Project Implementation Reports. Each output will be tracked by a report that records the activities and milestones of each output using tools such as Gantt or PERT charts.

If at CEO Endorsement, the PPG activities have not been completed and there is a balance of unspent fund, Agencies can continue undertake the activities up to one year of project start. No later than one year from start of project implementation, Agencies should report this table to the GEF Secretariat on the completion of PPG activities and the amount spent for the activities.