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

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	4775	
Country/Region:	Ecuador	
Project Title:	Promotion of Climate-smart Livestock Management Integrating Reversion of Land Degradation and Reduction of Desertification Risks in Vulnerable Provinces	
GEF Agency:	FAO	GEF Agency Project ID:		
Type of Trust Fund:	Multi Trust Fund	GEF Focal Area (s):	Multi Focal Area	
GEF-5 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s):	LD-1; LD-1; CCA-1; CCA-2; CCA-3; CCM-5; Project Mana; Project Mana; Project Mana; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:	$100,000	Project Grant:	$3,856,060	
Co-financing:	$12,726,720	Total Project Cost:	$16,582,780	
PIF Approval:	February 21, 2013	Council Approval/Expected:	April 01, 2013	
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Mohamed Bakarr	Agency Contact Person:	Christina Seeberg Elverfeldt	

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?	13 December 2011

Yes, Ecuador is an eligible country.
CCA: YES. Ecuador is a non-Annex I Party to the UNFCCC.

Cleared		
	2.	Has the operational focal point endorsed the project?	13 December 2011

Yes the OFP endorsement is attached.

Cleared		
Agency’s Comparative Advantage	3. Is the Agency's comparative advantage for this project clearly described and supported?  	13 December 2011

Yes.  FAO has clarified its thematic experience and technical capability to implement the proposed integrated approach. This is also demonstrated by the range of planned and existing activities from which it will draw some resources as co-financing for this project.

Cleared		
	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?	13 December 2011

Yes, a list of planned and ongoing initiatives are listed that demonstrate a strong country-level engagement by the Agency.  In addition, the project will leverage some of the Agency's existing in-country capacity for technical support and administrative purposes.

Cleared		

Resource Availability	6. Is the proposed Grant (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	the STAR allocation?	13 December 2011

Yes, the GEF TF resources requested are within the country's STAR allocation.

Cleared		
	•	the focal area allocation?	13 December 2011

Yes, the LD and CC resources are within the country's STAR allocation.

Cleared		
	•	the LDCF under the principle of equitable access	N/A		
	•	the SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?	13 December 2011

CCA: YES. The proposed SCCF grant is available from the SCCF Adaptation Program (SCCF-A).

Cleared		
	•	Nagoya Protocol Investment Fund	N/A		
	•	focal area set-aside?	13 December 2011

The project is not requesting any set-aside funds.

Cleared		
Project Consistency	7. Is the project aligned with the focal /multifocal areas/ LDCF/SCCF/NPIF results framework?	13 December 2011

Yes. The project is aligned with the LD focal area results framework, with an emphasis on livestock systems. The concept of "climate-smart livestock management" is introduced, but without a clear explanation of why this is necessary as opposed to a conventional approach to improving livestock management.  Please clarify and justify the need for pursuing this approach, including rationale for combining resources from multiple trust funds in the GEF.

CCA: YES

Climate Change Mitigation (CCM): 
a) Expected Outcomes should use the same terms as appearing in the Reference Guide outcomes (for CCM-5)
b) Output 5.1 "One GHG monitoring systems established in pilot areas" should be associated with  Outcome 5.1.  Also in Table A please use the exact text in the Template Reference Guide.

09 January, 2013

The concept of CSLM is now explained and reflects LD focal area priorities.

Cleared		
	8.  Are the relevant GEF 5 focal/ multifocal areas/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF objectives identified?	13 December 2011

For the LD focal area, the project will contribute to LD1 (agro-ecosystems), with an emphasis on livestock management.

CCM:  Yes.  And it appears that the NAMA is financed from the STAR allocation of Ecuador, which is the appropriate approach.

CCA: NOT CLEAR. According to the Focal Area Strategy Framework (Table A), the proposed project would contribute towards CCA-1 and CCA-2, specifically mainstreamed adaptation in broader development frameworks (CCA-1.1) and the successful demonstration, deployment and transfer of relevant adaptation technology (CCA-3.1). Yet, as described in Table B and Section B.2.2 of the PIF, the proposed project would support the development of a National Climate Change Adaptation Plan (NCCAP) and a Climate-Smart Livestock Strategy (CSLS), rather than mainstreaming adaptation in existing policies and plans in relevant sectors. Moreover, the SCCF grant would support significant capacity building activities, corresponding to CCA-2.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please ensure that Table A captures the full range of CCA objectives, outcomes and outputs towards which the proposed project is expected to contribute.

09 January, 2013

CCA: YES. The Focal Area Strategy Framework (Table A) has been revised as recommended. The proposed project would contribute towards CCA-1.1, 2.2 and 3.1

Cleared		
	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? 	13 December 2011

Links to relevant country strategies and plans have been highlighted for the most part.  For UNCCD, however, it is not clear whether the country has a NAP that will be supported.  Please clarify and explain clearly how the project will address SLM priorities as they related to implementation of the UNCCD and related country plans.

CCA: NOT CLEAR. The PIF refers mainly to Ecuador's Second National Communication (SNC), which is yet to be submitted and could hence not be accessed for this review. According to the Initial National Communication (INC), however, Ecuador suffers from the effects of droughts and floods on agriculture, particularly in the Coast and Sierra regions. While the proposed project would target these vulnerable regions, it remains unclear to what extent livestock production will be affected by climate change. According to the INC, it appears that the most urgent adaptation needs are associated with the production of food crops and livestock in the Sierra region. However, the proposal targets climate-smart livestock management in cantons that are not in Sierra region.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please elaborate on the consistency of the proposed project with Ecuador's adaptation priorities as outlined in the INC and SNC. In particular, justify the focus of the proposed adaptation measures on livestock as opposed to crop production.

CCM:  The SNC (second national communications) has not yet been submitted. From the first national communications, LULUCF emissions were overall far greater than agriculture, although the methane emissions in the agriculture sector were higher than LULUCF. Please provide details on the overall trend of emissions and more specifically, data for the livestock systems, etc.

09 January, 2013

The re-submission now demonstrates consistency with NAP priorities and relevant data for the SNC. It also clarifies the alignment of the proposed project with the climate change impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation measures identified in Ecuador's SNC, released in April 2012.

Cleared		
	10.	Does the proposal clearly articulate how the capacities developed, if any,  will contribute to the sustainability of project outcomes?	13 December 2011

No. Given the level of planned investment in individual and institutional capacity, The PIF needs to include specific details on how exactly the capacities developed will contribute to sustainability of project outcomes. Also, specifically add concise explanation on proposed 5 financing mechanisms and 5 incentive schemes.

09 January 2013

The re-submission is now clear on how capacity building will support sustainability of outcomes.

Cleared		

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?	13 December 2011

No. The project context is not very clear especially in relation to the extent of degradation that is associated with livestock production versus other land uses.  Given the emphasis on livestock, please provide a clear assessment of the interactions between productivity trends, land degradation, and climate change relative to the human livelihoods in the targeted areas. How is the Government specifically addressing or planning to address the complex dynamics through the MAGAP, MAE, and SENAGUA? What are the underlying assumptions about the Government's approach, and how are these supported by the available data on livestock production, population, and degradation trends in the targeted areas? 

CCA: NOT CLEAR. While the PIF describes adequately the effects of past and current changes in temperatures, precipitation, and associated extreme weather events, the baseline projects require considerable clarification. The PIF describes only the Sustainable Livestock National Plan, which would provide $2.6 million in co-financing to the proposed GEF-SCCF project. In addition, section C.1 of the PIF lists five FAO projects, through which the Agency would bring $250,000 in co-financing. Thus, only $2.85 million out of the total indicative co-financing of $8.76 million is accounted for in the description of the baseline projects. Moreover, the PIF does not describe the extent to which the baseline projects would be unable to achieve sustainable results due to the effects of climate change, including variability (see also Section 9 above).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please (i) describe the full range of baseline initiatives on which the proposed GEF-SCCF project would build and (ii) describe the extent to which these baseline projects are vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

CCM:  There is little data presented on livestock systems associated GHG emissions and trends (and related project impact on these emissions). Please discuss this information in the text, and include relevant information from the SNC.

09 January 2013

The re-submission is now includes a sufficient description of the project context and baseline from the LD and CC perspectives, with sound data and assumptions.

CCA: YES. The re-submission clarifies the baseline initiatives on which the proposed project would build, as well as their associated co-financing. Section B.1 of the revised PIF also describes adequately the extent to which the baseline initiatives are unable to adequately address the effects of climate change.

Cleared		
	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?	14 December 2011

No. Overall, the PIF does not provide an adequate reasoning for the GEF increment and SCCF additionality based on the context and baseline activities as noted in #11 above. How exactly are the baseline investments being targeted to justify the GEF increment for GEBs and the SCCF additionality for adaptation?  What specific transformative impacts will be achieved with the GEF increment and SCCF addition, or that will otherwise not be realized without GEF?

CCA: NOT CLEAR. In absence of an adequate description of relevant baseline initiatives, the additional reasoning cannot be fully assessed at this stage. As described above (see Section 8), the proposed project appears to support the development of NCCAP and CSLS rather than mainstreaming adaptation into existing policies, strategies and plans in accordance with the principle of additional cost. Moreover, Component 1 would support considerable, stand-alone capacity building initiatives, including no less than 70 workshops for 1,860 participants. These capacity building measures do not appear to be integrated into any existing training programs or structures and they would only in part support the implementation of the concrete, on-the-ground investments proposed under Components 2 and 3.

Under Component 2, the SCCF would support the creation of "10 financing mechanisms to stimulate the transfer of enhanced silvo-pastoral technologies for CCA". Rather than establish new financing mechanisms, the project should explore means to allow farmers to access existing sources of finance to invest in climate-resilient technologies and practices. Moreover, the SCCF would finance "communitarian micro-finances to support agro-tourism to compensate climate-related economic losses". Agro-tourism appears more relevant for baseline development initiatives and the merits of such a compensation scheme, as opposed to micro-insurance, are unclear.

The PIF repeatedly refers to, but does not define, "climate-smart livestock management", which according to FAO encompasses both adaptation and mitigation. This has lead, however, to a confusion of incremental and additional cost as Section B.2.2 maintains that the SCCF would support "technology services focused on GHG emissions reduction" and "shrubs and forages that capture CO2". Such activities are ineligible for SCCF-A financing.

Finally, Component 3, although not requesting SCCF resources, appears to include activities that are highly relevant for adaptation, such as increased rainwater-use efficiency and the introduction of flood and drought-resistant species.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Upon addressing the recommendations under Section 7 and 11 above, please revisit the additional reasoning presented in Section B.2.2 of the PIF. In particular, demonstrate that the SCCF supports activities that generate adaptation benefits and that, where applicable, build on existing structures and initiatives rather than creating new ones.

09 January 2013

The incremental reasoning is now clear for use of GEF TF resources.  Please address the concern below for SCCF.

CCA: NOT CLEAR. While the activities proposed for SCCF funding have been streamlined considerably in the re-submission, and the additional reasoning for Component 1 has been adequately clarified for this stage of project development, it is still not clear how the capacities developed and the technologies transferred through Component 2 would build on and be scaled up through MAGAP and other relevant baseline initiatives.

February 8, 2013

All issues have now being addressed.

Cleared		
	14.	Is the project framework sound and sufficiently clear?	14 December 2011

No. The project framework is neither sound nor sufficiently clear. The project is structured around three components, six outcomes, and 21 outputs. The project framework could be streamlined considerably with fewer outputs. The framework appears repetitive, presenting different aspects of the same activities as separate outputs (e.g. outputs 2.1.1 and 2.1.1; 2.3.1 and 2.3.2). Moreover, the outcomes are articulated as outputs. Finally, it is not clear why Component 2 has been described as INV, as the activities appeared more geared towards TA. Please streamline and clarify the project framework.

CCM: Please clarify that the end product of the NAMA should be a suite of actions and policies to be implemented

09 January 2013

The overall project framework is now clear, with outcomes and outputs appropriately streamlined under the three components. There is one remaining concern related to CC-M that needs to be addressed.
 
CC-M: NO. One of the proposed expected output is the national communications (Output 6.1). The current design of this project will not allow for a national communications to be completed. It is recommended that the output 6.1 relating to national communications and its associated budget be removed from the project.

February 8, 2013

All issues have now being addressed.

Cleared		
	15.	 Are the applied methodology and assumptions for the description of the incremental/additional benefits sound and appropriate?	14 December 2011

No. In addition to the apparent lack of clarity on why the CSLM approach is being proposed, the incremental/additional reasoning is very weak.  It is therefore hard to assess whether the proposed approach is cost effective relative to others that could have also being pursued.  Please provide a clear description of how the incremental/adaptation benefits can be assured. 

CCA: NOT CLEAR. Provided that the additional reasoning requires considerable clarification, the adaptation benefits of the proposed project cannot be adequately assessed at this stage.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Upon addressing the recommendations under Section 13 above, please describe the expected adaptation benefits in Section B.2.2 of the PIF.

CCM: a) Specifically, mitigation benefit in animal husbandry depends on the balance between CH4 emissions from livestock and CO2 captured thanks to sustainable practices. The PIF is not yet clear on how this balance will be managed to achieve GHG mitigation in the end (some actions deal with CO2 capture. Would activities also focus on CH4 emissions? Would activities look at the balance between the two and how to make it in favor of GHG reductions?). Please briefly discuss and also explain if new methodologies will need to be developed or can existing methodologies, say from VCS, be adopted? 
b) Please provide preliminary estimates of GHG benefits for these activities, briefly documented.

09 January 2013

The resubmission now includes a more rigorous approach to clarifying GEBs, which is acceptable. However, it is expected that the CEO Endorsement will include clear measures of the GEBs and take into account potential tradeoffs at scale (see #31 below).

CCA: NOT CLEAR. Please refer to Section 13 above.

February 8, 2013

All issues have now being addressed.

Cleared		
	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?	14 December 2011

Yes. The proposed project would generate socio-economic benefits, such as poverty reduction and enhanced food security, with a particular emphasis on women. The PIF provides a clear description of potential role for beneficiaries in generating GEBs.  

CCM:  However, when livelihood enhancement implies livestock development this could lead to a negative impact on the balance between CH4 emissions and CO2 sequestration. Please ensure that this concern is clarified in response to #15.

Cleared		
	17.	Is public participation, including CSOs and indigeneous people, taken into consideration, their role identified and addressed properly?	14 December 2011

Yes.  The PIF includes a preliminary assessment of stakeholders to be engaged, including potential roles.  It is also noted that this will be elaborated at CEO endorsement.

Cleared		
	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)	14 December 2011

While the PIF provides a risk matrix (Section B.4), it does not adequately describe the effects of nor appropriate mitigation measures associated with extreme drought events. Droughts would directly affect the food security and livelihoods of the project beneficiaries, rather than merely aggravating land degradation. Please elaborate on the effects of and appropriate mitigation measures associated with the risk of extreme drought events.

09 January 2013

The concern about drought risk has been addressed.

Cleared		
	19.	Is the project consistent and properly coordinated with other related initiatives in the country or in the region? 	14 December 2011

The PIF includes a list of other initiatives for coordination, but does not provide specific details on what aspects will need to be aligned to maximize opportunities for synergy and complementarity. Please provide a more clear indication of how consistency will be reflected between the proposed project and other initiatives. Specifically, for projects and initiative with similar goals or outcomes, it needs to explain the lessons learned, what the proposed project will do that has not been done already, and is not planned by the other projects and why this has not or cannot be achieved by the other projects.

CCA: NOT CLEAR. Section B.6 of the PIF cites two climate change adaptation projects, namely the UNDP-SCCF project â€˜Adaptation to climate change through effective water governance' and the World Bank-SCCF project â€˜Adaptation to glacier retreat'. Yet, the PIF does not describe how the proposed project would complement and build on these ongoing initiatives.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please describe how the proposed GEF-SCCF project would complement and build on the ongoing adaptation initiatives in Ecuador.

09 Janurary 2013

Consistency and coordination with other initiatives is now adequately reflected.

Cleared		
	20.	Is the project implementation/ execution arrangement adequate?	14 December 2011

Yes, and the proposed arrangement will build on existing instutional arrangements and links between key stakeholders, including the government agencies.  This will maximize efficiency and effectiveness during implementation.

Cleared		
	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?	14 December 2011

No. Please adjust to 5% of the sub-total of GEF grants (i.e. 0.05 X $3,663,258).

09 January 2013

The PMC has been adjusted, but please specify how the amount is apportioned between the GEF focal areas / TFs.

February 8, 2013

The PMC is now adjusted between the TFs.

Cleared		
	24.	Is the funding and co-financing per objective appropriate and adequate to achieve the expected outcomes and outputs?	14 December 2011

No. While the proportional breakdown between Trust Funds is understandable, it is still not clear how the amounts will be amounts allocated relate to the outcomes and outputs.  Specifically, the co-financing for component 2 does not reflect incremental reasoning for GEBs and needs to be increased. Because the GEFTF includes multi-focal objectives, please list the funding amounts by GEFTF focal area by component (CCM, LD) in Table B. Please provide indicative breakdown of TF amounts using actual amounts as opposed to percentages, and as best as possible at the outcome level.

CCA: NOT CLEAR. Given concerns over the additional reasoning, the appropriateness of the SCCF funding per outcome cannot be adequately assessed at this stage.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Upon addressing comments under Section 13 above, please adjust the SCCF funding request as appropriate.

09 January 2013

The funding breakdown is now appropriate for components using the the GEF TF.

For CCA: NOT CLEAR. Please refer to Section 13 above on the SCCF.

February 8, 2013

All issues have now been addressed.

Cleared		
	25.	At PIF: comment on the indicated cofinancing;
At CEO endorsement: indicate if confirmed co-financing is provided.	14 December 2011

The total indicative cofinancing level ($8.76 million) is not adequate for such an ambitious project, considering especially that 16 per cent of the total indicative co-financing is in the form of in-kind contributions. Please consider increasing the confinancing to a ratio of at least 1:5, including cash and in-kind contributions.

09 January 2013

The indicative co-financing is now appropriate, and mostly in the form of grants.

Cleared		
	26.	Is the co-financing amount that the Agency is bringing to the project in line with its role?	14 December 2011

Yes, although the amount is relatively modest given the range of baseline activities presented as well as case made for comparative advantage. Please consider revisiting this amount at CEO endorsement., with the possibility of increasing it in light of FAO's important role.

Cleared		
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?	14 December 2011

Please provide comments is applicable.		
	•	Convention Secretariat?			
	•	Council comments?			
	•	Other GEF Agencies?			
Secretariat Recommendation	

Recommendation at PIF Stage	30.	 Is PIF clearance/approval being recommended?	14 December 2011

No, PIF clearance cannot be recommended. Please address all concerns raised in the PIF, including specific issues related to the focal areas and trust funds. 

For CCA: Please refer to sections 2, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, and 26. Significant elaboration is required to demonstrate that the proposed project would support effective measures to transfer relevant adaptation technologies to Ecuador's vulnerable farmers in accordance with the principle of additional cost.

09 January 2012

No. Please address the remaining concerns as highlighted:

CC-M: #14 on national communication

CCA: Please refer to sections 13, 15 and 24

#23 - PMC breakdown

Febryuary 8, 2013

All issues have now being addressed. The PIF is technically cleared and may be considered for inclusion in a future Work Program.		
	31.	Items to consider at CEO endorsement/approval.	09 January 2013

Please note the following during project development:

1. CC-M: At CEO endorsement, it is expected that detailed estimation of the GHG emissions impact of the project will be provided, taking account of CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions, along with the assumptions and methodology used for these estimations. These estimations should detail in particular the resulting balance between carbon sequestration and avoided emissions on one hand, and potential CH4 and N2O emission increase due to production increase on the other hand.

2. CC-M: At CEO endorsement please clarify how the project will avoid redundancy of funding and activities between GEF funded activities and baseline funded activities, in particular concerning the potential overlap between the FAO MICCA programme.		
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*	December 14, 2011		
	Additional review (as necessary)	January 09, 2013		
	Additional review (as necessary)	February 08, 2013		
	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.