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

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	9262	
Country/Region:	Honduras	
Project Title:	Agroforestry Landscapes and Sustainable Forest Management that Generate Environmental and Economic Benefits Globally and Locally	
GEF Agency:	UNDP	GEF Agency Project ID:	5704 (UNDP)	
Type of Trust Fund:	GEF Trust Fund	GEF Focal Area (s):	Multi Focal Area	
GEF-6 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s):	BD-1 Program 1; BD-4 Program 9; LD-2 Program 3; SFM-1; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:	$275,230	Project Grant:	$13,286,697	
Co-financing:	$48,203,000	Total Project Cost:	$61,489,697	
PIF Approval:		Council Approval/Expected:	June 01, 2016	
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Mark Zimsky	Agency Contact Person:	Santiago Carrizosa, Senior Technical Advisor, EBD	

PIF Review	
Review Criteria	Questions	Secretariat Comment 	
Agency Response 	
Project Consistency	1.	Is the project aligned with the relevant GEF strategic objectives and results framework?	8-14-15 (JC/CS)

The proposed activities do not fall under the Biodiversity Objective 1, Program 1. Most of the financial resources are targeting the production landscapes (BD Objective 4, program 9). Unless serious TA and INV are injected into the PA System to increase its sustainability, funding under BD-1 in the current PIF need to migrate to BD-9. If BD-1 is to be maintain in the PIF, activities need to be more focused on development and implementation of comprehensive financing solutions that are real, tangible and viable. The sustainable financing of the high number of PAs identified will be essential for the long term sustainability. 

The proposed activities under LD, appear to be more in line with LD program 3, than LD program 1.

The project document does not mention how it will help achieve the Aichi indicators, nor does it have any SMART indicators identified to track this contribution. Please address.

9/14/2015

Adequate revisions provided.		
	2.	Is the project consistent with the recipient country’s national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions?	8-14-15 (JC/CS): The proposed project seems to be in line with the Honduras, however, considering the changes that need to happen on aligning the investment with the Strategic Objectives and the Programs, this may change.  Will need to be reassessed when resubmitted.

9/14/2015

Cleared.	
	
Project Design	3.	Does the PIF sufficiently indicate the drivers of global environmental degradation, issues of sustainability, market transformation, scaling, and innovation? 	8-14-15 (JC/CS)

Drivers of deforestation: Mentioned in the text and addressed (without making further connections) with the proposed activities on SFM and SLM.

Market Transformation: 1) Please elaborate on the status of the certification of coffee and cocoa and explain what is missing to achieve the proposed outcomes. 2) Is it realistic to think that the project can provide extension work for 71,690 producers? Is this number is so accurate, it must come from a survey of an specific area, Please provide a map of the target area.

Scaling: This needs to be developed.

Innovation: State that the innovation is at the National level.

9/14/2015

Adequate revisions provided.		
	4.	Is the project designed with sound incremental reasoning?	8-14-15 (JC/CS)

Incremental reasoning is treated on a Focal Area Basis. It would have been better to do it at the landscape level, that is, in relation to the target area.

Biodiversity: The information provided is on the "background" information, not the "Baseline". "Baseline" are the series of investments that will take place in the target area and in biodiversity over the next 84 months, whether or not the GEF gets approved. Please provide the upcoming investments.

Land Degradation: Provides a figure of $165M in investments by different areas. For CEO Endorsement, it would be necessary to articulate how the GEF funding allocated to SLM activities pays for the "incremental" costs.

Forests: Provides figures of $1.6 billion from PRONAFOR and $13M fro Eco-Stoves project. As with LD, and for CEO Endorsement, it would be necessary to articulate how the GEF funding allocated to thee activities pays for the "incremental" costs of investments in Forests. This is a challenging task considering that the proposed investments in forests are insignificant compared to the PRONAFOR funding.

9/14/2015

Adequate revisions provided.		
	5.	Are the components in Table B sound and sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve project objectives and the GEBs?	8-14-15 (JC/CS)

The structure of the project shows how the project will try to reach the objective. Nevertheless, there are issues that need to be address to better visualize the expected outcome of a landscape with increase connectivity between the PAs and the production landscape.

Component 1. 

In order to visualize the objective, please provide a line-map of the "dry-humid" corridor (the target area) covering 1.27 million hectares of production landscapes and 721K of PAs. The map does not have to contain a great deal of detail. Enough for the GEF Secretariat and GEF Council Members to quickly relate to this corridor.

If the project still aims at targeting the GEF BD-1 Program, the outputs and outcomes related to financial sustainability require refinement. Not clear how the financial sustainability and the management effectiveness of the PA System (of 63 in the target area with 721K ha) will be improved with the proposed activities. Please elaborate on the "new" financial mechanisms. Not clear is there are real possibilities in the horizon.

Not clear how the project aims at increasing the PA management effectiveness of 63 PAs covering 721K ha by 10% with Technical Assistance. Even if the $3.4M budget for this component were to used in support of this areas, the investment per unit area would be in the order of $4.7/ha over the life of the project, and $0.6 per ha per year. The resources allocated to this component are inadequate. Budget need to increase or number of PA decrease. 

The project needs to reduce the number of outcomes and outputs to better understand what this project is aiming at doing. Please refer to the Focal Area Outcomes and Indicators as guidance. In addition, there are some outcomes that are really outcomes like: "Sustainability indicators...", Conflict Resolution protocol...". 

Not clear how some of the outcomes can be achieved. Like the stabilization of the populations of quetzals and ocelots. No related outputs. 

Component 2. 

It is not clear how the proposed outcomes can be achieved with only Technical Advice in the amount of GEF $6.4M. Investment appears to be a Sine qua non condition to obtain: 3K ha of landscape tools sequestering 513K of tCO2, reaching 71K produces to adopt SLM practices, rehabilitation of degraded, reduction of erosion by 20%. etc.

The experience of GEF investments in PES is that if buyers of ES are not already identifies, piloting PES schemes are likely to fail. This is putting this part of the project at risk of failure. In addition, these "pilots" will suck-up high levels of funding and TA. A project in itself.

Not clear what are the activities that will be carried out to achieve the following GEBs: Reduction by at least 20% in the deforestation rate, and 70% reduction in firewood consumption and GHG emissions.

Component 3. 

Please elaborate on the status of the "supply chains" of the proposed products [(coffee, cocoa and agroforestry (of what?)]While the outputs are realistic and doable as part of the project, the outcomes are not realistic (i.e. 15% annual net incommode increase. That is almost twice as high as the rate growth of the Chinese economy at its peak!).

9/14/2015

Adequate revisions provided.		
	6.	Are socio-economic aspects, including relevant gender elements, indigenous people, and CSOs considered? 	8-14-15 (JC/CS): Please make sure to mention that the project will be reporting on the GEF6 GENDER indicators.

9/14/2015

Cleared.		
Availability of Resources
	7.	Is the proposed Grant  (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	The STAR allocation?	8-14-15 (JC/CS)

Honduras has $10,952,072 available for programming as of today. That would be sufficient to cover the STAR component of the project $9,655,000. There would be a residual of approx. $1.2M after the $275K PPG.		
	•	The focal area allocation?			
	•	The LDCF under the principle of equitable access			
	•	The SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?			
	•	Focal area set-aside?			
Recommendations	8.	Is the PIF being recommended for clearance and PPG (if additional amount beyond the norm) justified?	8-14-15 (JC/CS): NO please address above comments.

9/14/2015

Adequate revisions have been provided to all previous comments.  However, two data issues remain:

1) The sum of the cofinance as given per source differs from Focal Area Strategic Framework's total cofinance (TABLE A).

2) The sum of the cofinance as given per source differs from Project Framework's total cofinance (TABLE B).

Please revise and resubmit.

In addition, please note that many key design issues that have been identified in the PIF require further clarification and refinement during the design phase.  Please ensure that all commitments to these design changes are clearly addressed and presented in the final project document.

11/19/2015

Thank you for the clarification with the cofinancing issue.  

Please clarify two issues.  

First, please clarify if new protected areas are to be created under this project, and if so, please clarify how they meet the KBA criteria as described in the GEF-6 strategy.  

Second, for the areas that will update management plans covering 287,802 hectares please clarify the global importance of these areas vis a vis the KBA criteria.  

The GEFSEC is available for a teleconference to discuss these final issues.

12/14/2015

The revised PIF clarified the first point in stating that no new protected areas will be created.

For the updated management plans, the PIF demonstrates how some of the areas meet the KBA criteria and the global importance of other areas.  At PIF stage this is deemed adequate for clearing the PIF.  However, by the time of the CEO endorsement, present a table in the document that demonstrates how the sites in project area covering the identified 287,802 clearing meet the criteria for a KBA.  Please refer to this website for more details: http://www.kbaconsultation.org/#!home/mainPage.  The final criteria and their approval are in the final stages and should be final very soon.  Please contact GEFSEC for any further clarification.

The PM recommends CEO PIF clearance.		
Review Date
	Review	August 14, 2015		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	November 19, 2015		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	December 14, 2015		

CEO endorsement Review	
Review Criteria 	Questions	Secretariat Comment at CEO Endorsement	
Response to Secretariat comments  	
Project Design and Financing	1.	If there are any changes from that presented in the PIF, have justifications been provided?			
	2.	Is the project structure/ design appropriate to achieve the expected outcomes and outputs?			
	3.	Is the financing adequate and does the project demonstrate a cost-effective approach to meet the project objective? 			
	4.	Does the project take into account potential major risks, including the consequences of climate change, and describes sufficient risk response measures? (e.g., measures to enhance climate resilience)			
	5.	Is co-financing confirmed and evidence provided?			
	6.	Are relevant tracking tools completed?			
	7.	Only for Non-Grant Instrument: Has a reflow calendar been presented?			
	8.	Is the project coordinated with other related initiatives and national/regional plans in the country or in the region?			
	9.	Does the project include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?			
	10.	Does the project have descriptions of a knowledge management plan?			
Agency Responses 
	11.	Has the Agency adequately responded to comments at the PIF stage from:			
	•	GEFSEC 			
	•	STAP			
	•	GEF Council			
	•	Convention Secretariat			

Recommendation 	12.	Is CEO endorsement recommended?			
Review Date	Review			
	Additional Review (as necessary)			
	Additional Review (as necessary)