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

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	5028	
Country/Region:	Costa Rica	
Project Title:	Capacity Building for Mainstreaming MEA objectives into inter-ministerial Structures and Mechanisms	
GEF Agency:	UNDP	GEF Agency Project ID:	5097 (UNDP)	
Type of Trust Fund:	GEF Trust Fund	GEF Focal Area (s):	Multi Focal Area	
GEF-5 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s):	CD-3; CD-3; CD-4; Project Mana; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:	$0	Project Grant:	$980,000	
Co-financing:	$1,650,000	Total Project Cost:	$2,630,000	
PIF Approval:		Council Approval/Expected:		
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Danielius Pivoriunas	Agency Contact Person:	Tom Twining-Ward	

Review Criteria	Questions	Secretariat Comment at PIF (PFD)/Work Program Inclusion 	Secretariat Comment At CEO Endorsement(FSP)/Approval (MSP)	
Eligibility	1.	Is the participating country eligible?	Yes. Costa Rica ratified the CBD on 7/28/1994, the UNFCCC on 7/4/1994, and the UNCCD on 11/3/1997. Cleared 7/3/2012		
	2.	Has the operational focal point endorsed the project?	Yes. Endorsement letter signed by OFP on 2/9/2012. Cleared 7/3/2012		
Agency’s Comparative Advantage	3. Is the Agency's comparative advantage for this project clearly described and supported?  	Yes. The project is consistent with UNDP's UNDAF and in line with its comparative advantage in the region. Cleared 7/3/2012		
	4. If there is a non-grant instrument in the project, is the GEF Agency capable of managing it?	N/A		
	5. Does the project fit into the Agency’s program and staff capacity in the country?	To some extent. However, there should be a description of the number of UNDP's staff involved in the project and their competencies. Additional information is requested. 7/3/2012

The revised PIF includes a description of UNDP's staff involved in the project. Cleared 10/24/2012		

Resource Availability	6. Is the proposed Grant (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	the STAR allocation?	N/A		
	•	the focal area allocation?	Yes, cross-cutting capacity development allocation. Cleared. 7/3/2012		
	•	the LDCF under the principle of equitable access	N/A		
	•	the SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?	N/A		
	•	Nagoya Protocol Investment Fund	N/A		
	•	focal area set-aside?	N/A		
Project Consistency	7. Is the project aligned with the focal /multifocal areas/ LDCF/SCCF/NPIF results framework?	The links to the GEF Focal Areas are not clearly stated in the PIF. More information is requested. 7/3/2012

The revised PIF provided sufficient clarification. Cleared 10/24/2012		
	8.  Are the relevant GEF 5 focal/ multifocal areas/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF objectives identified?	No they are not. Additional information is requested. 7/3/2012

Yes provided in the revised PIF. Cleared 10/24/2012		
	9.	Is the project consistent with the recipient country’s national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions, including NPFE,  NAPA, NCSA, or NAP? 	The project is consistent with the National Capacity Self Assessment, completed in 2007. Cleared. 7/3/2012		
	10.	Does the proposal clearly articulate how the capacities developed, if any,  will contribute to the sustainability of project outcomes?	Somewhat clear. However, there's no clear indication of how many staff will be positively influenced by the project and how the outcomes will be sustained in the future. Additional information is requested. 7/3/2012

Information provided in the revised PIF. Cleared 10/24/2012		

Project Design	11.	 Is (are) the baseline project(s), including problem (s) that the baseline project(s) seek/s to address, sufficiently described and based on sound data and assumptions?	To some extent. However, no data is provided, and the references to the current situation are somewhat vague and concentrate only on one part of the problem (i.e. the lack of coordination within the MINAET and between agencies). Additional information is requested on the main causes of the problems stated (particularly in terms of the legislation and regulatory framework) and how the project will address them, as well as on the underlying threats and how the project will address them. 7/3/2012

The revised PIF includes a better explanation of the baseline and problems that need to be addressed. Cleared 10/24/2012		
	12.	Has the cost-effectiveness been sufficiently demonstrated, including the cost-effectiveness of the project design approach as compared to alternative approaches to achieve similar benefits?			
	13.	Are the activities that will be financed using GEF/LDCF/SCCF funding based on incremental/ additional reasoning?	To some extent. However, no cash co-financing is provided by the government. A 1:1 ratio of cash co-financing is necessary. Additional information is requested. 7/3/2012.

Cash co-financing has been increased and it seems appropriate. Cleared 10/24/2012		
	14.	Is the project framework sound and sufficiently clear?	It is sound to some extent. However, there seems to be a mix in some outputs between strategy development and actual implementation of legislation and regulation. It's not clear whether the project will actually achieve amendments to the current laws and regulations or just a strategy to target them and a set of recommendations for those amendments. If implementation is the case, then the project seems a bit ambitious with the amount of funding allocated, particularly with no cash co-financing from the government. In addition, it's not clear how the third FA outcome corresponding to CD-4 will be achieved without the implementation of the training program which the project will design. Additional information is requested. 7/3/2012

The revised PIF includes higher co-financing and a better description of the project components. Cleared 10/24/2012		
	15.	 Are the applied methodology and assumptions for the description of the incremental/additional benefits sound and appropriate?	Somewhat. However, the global environmental benefits (GEB) that the project will contribute to are not described. Additional information is requested. 7/3/2012

Provided in the revised PIF. Cleared 10/24/2012		
	16.	Is there a clear description of: a) the socio-economic benefits, including gender dimensions, to be delivered by the project, and b) how will the delivery of such benefits support the achievement of incremental/ additional benefits?	To some extent. However, there's no indication of how the changes brought about by the project will produce wider socio-economic benefits in the country. The statement is there but seems vague. Additional information is requested. 7/3/2012

Provided in the revised PIF. Cleared 10/24/2012		
	17.	Is public participation, including CSOs and indigeneous people, taken into consideration, their role identified and addressed properly?	Somewhat. There's mention of NGOs being consulted, but only a clear role for international NGOs seems to be stated. No specific role is identified for one of stakeholders -national CSOs. Additional information is requested. 7/3/2012

The revised PIF gives a better indication of the role of civil society groups. Cleared 10/24/2012		
	18.	Does the project take into account potential major risks, including the consequences of climate change and provides sufficient risk mitigation measures? (i.e., climate resilience)	Yes. Cleared 7/3/2012		
	19.	Is the project consistent and properly coordinated with other related initiatives in the country or in the region? 	Yes, to some extent. However, there's a need to explain how coordination will be achieved. Which mechanisms will be used to ensure that coordination? Additional information is requested. 7/3/2012

Provided in the revised PIF. Cleared 10/24/2012		
	20.	Is the project implementation/ execution arrangement adequate?	Yes. Cleared 7/3/2012.		
	21.	Is the project structure sufficiently close to what was presented at PIF, with clear justifications for changes?			
	22.	If there is a non-grant instrument in the project, is there a reasonable calendar of reflows included?			

Project Financing	23.	Is funding level for project management cost appropriate?	Yes. Cleared 7/3/2012		
	24.	Is the funding and co-financing per objective appropriate and adequate to achieve the expected outcomes and outputs?	To some extent. However, in FA output 2, under CD-3 a better explanation between implementation or design should be stated. There needs to be better clarity between strategy development and actual implementation of legislation and regulation. If the project aims at actually achieving amendments to the current laws and regulations then it seems a bit ambitious with the amount of funding allocated, particularly with no cash co-financing from the government. Additional information is requested. 7/3/2012

Responses in the revised PIF are adequate. Cleared 10/24/2012		
	25.	At PIF: comment on the indicated cofinancing;
At CEO endorsement: indicate if confirmed co-financing is provided.	Cash co-financing from the government should be substantially increased to meet requirements. Additional information/changes are requested. 7/3/2012

Co-financing has been increased. Cleared 10/24/2012		
	26.	Is the co-financing amount that the Agency is bringing to the project in line with its role?	yes. Cleared 7/3/2012		
Project Monitoring and Evaluation	27.	Have the appropriate Tracking Tools been included with information for all relevant indicators, as applicable?			
	28.	Does the proposal include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?			
Agency Responses	29.	Has the Agency responded adequately to comments from:			
	•	STAP?			
	•	Convention Secretariat?			
	•	Council comments?			
	•	Other GEF Agencies?			
Secretariat Recommendation	

Recommendation at PIF Stage	30.	 Is PIF clearance/approval being recommended?	Not yet but could be if necessary changes/clarification is provided. Additional information and changes are requested. 7/6/2012

Yes, the PIF is cleared and approval is recommended. 10/24/2012		
	31.	Items to consider at CEO endorsement/approval.			
Recommendation at CEO Endorsement/ Approval	32.	 At endorsement/approval, did Agency include the progress of PPG with clear information of commitment status of the PPG?			
	33.	 Is CEO endorsement/approval being recommended?			
Review Date (s)	First review*	July 06, 2012		
	Additional review (as necessary)	October 24, 2012		
	Additional review (as necessary)			
	Additional review (as necessary)			
	Additional review (as necessary)			

*  This is the first time the Program Manager provides full comments for the project.  Subsequent follow-up reviews should be recorded. For specific comments 
     for each section,  please insert a date after comments. Greyed areas in each section do not need comments. 

Request for PPG Approval
Review Criteria	Decision Points	Program Manager Comments	
PPG Budget	1.	 Are the proposed activities for project preparation appropriate?		
	2.	Is itemized budget justified?		
Secretariat
Recommendation	3.	Is PPG approval being recommended?		
	4. Other comments		
Review Date (s)	First review*		
	 Additional review (as necessary)		
*  This is the first time the Program Manager provides full comments for the project.  Subsequent follow-up reviews should be recorded. For specific comments for each section, please insert 
      a date after comments.