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

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	9243	
Country/Region:	India	
Project Title:	Green-Ag: Transforming Indian Agriculture for Global Environmental Benefits and the Conservation of Critical Biodiversity and Forest Landscapes	
GEF Agency:	FAO	GEF Agency Project ID:		
Type of Trust Fund:	GEF Trust Fund	GEF Focal Area (s):	Multi Focal Area	
GEF-6 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s):	BD-3 Program 7; BD-4 Program 9; LD-1 Program 1; LD-3 Program 4; CCM-2 Program 4; SFM-1; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:	$300,000	Project Grant:	$33,558,716	
Co-financing:	$494,121,358	Total Project Cost:	$527,680,074	
PIF Approval:		Council Approval/Expected:	June 01, 2016	
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Yoko Watanabe	Agency Contact Person:	Trevor Self	

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?	The PFD identfies link with BD3 and 4; LD 1,2, and 3; CCM2, and SFM 3.  

Please provide information on how this program aligns with these strategic objectives.   Please also identify appropriate linkage to the Aichi Targets.  

In addition, while there are potential linkages to all these objectives, without clear GEBs identified for each focal area, it is difficult to determine alignment at this point.  Please refer to below comments and provide further information.

15 March 2016
Bd - ok. Aichi targets also identified. 
CCM - ok
CCD - no mention of NAP.  Please provide necessary info. 
SFM - ok		
	2.	Is the project consistent with the recipient country’s national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions?		
	
Project Design	3.	Does the PIF sufficiently indicate the drivers of global environmental degradation, issues of sustainability, market transformation, scaling, and innovation? 			
	4.	Is the project designed with sound incremental reasoning?	Baseline and incremental reasoning: Relevant national missions and policies are identified but it is not clear what are being implemented, what are the remaining gaps, and what needs to be done further.  It is also unclear what the large cofinancing will be focused on, and what the GEF finance would add value towards these investment.  Please provide additional information.  

The Global Environmental Benefits of the project is not sufficiently clear with  most of the important targets not identified (including CCM target, and all the targets under table B).   Therefore, the relevance of BD, LD, CCM, and SFM finance are all not clear and sufficiently justified for this large scale investment on sustainable agriculture in India.  Please clarify and provide necessary information for further review.  

Biodiversity benefits in particular require further tangible information to justify the large investment, in addition to ha coverage.  This would require, among others, brief information on the target landscapes, including species and ecosystems.  

SFM finance would also require further information on the target landscapes, forest ecosystem, and approaches, as well as CO2 target information.  The current information is insufficient to justify CCM and SFM finance.   

The overall explanation on the Alternative Scenario requires further review and revision (page 15-16).   In particular, the focus on the rainfed agriculture should be based on GEBs, not production criteria.

15 March 2016

Drivers:  while the current situations and barriers are described, the drivers of the degradation is not clearly articulated.  Please review and revise the threats/impact section.  In addition para 41 and 42 are repeated. 

National level:  While baseline related to national agriculture policies and programs are noted, limited information is provided on India"s efforts in mainstreaming biodiversity in agriculture sectors.  In addition to several GEF projects that worked/working on related issues, there should be other initiatives supported by international and national partners.  This project should build on related ongoing work and lessons also from the biodiversity-community and further incorporate them in the project design.  Please elaborate further on the ongoing baseline work.

Project site level:  Please clarify site selection criteria and explain why these sites have been selected.  please provide further explanation on how the indicative high conservation value areas were determined.   please provide brief baseline information on each site, both on policy and on the ground works.  

On GEBS:
Further review and revision on the GEBs in table B and para 130, addressing the comments below:

A. GEB on benefit to protected area: is this really realistic? What do we mean by "benefiting protected areas"?  More realistic indicators could be hectares of land with improved biodiversity mgmt or?   Moreover, review and identify additional BD GEBs. We see only agrobiodiversity indicator and it is not sufficient.  Please review and add relevant indicators.  

B. GEB on 5Mha of landscapes: this seems to be an indirect benefit by mapping and prioritizing areas, but not necessary implementation through this project.   Please consider deleting this indicator.   

C, Claiming CC benefits of 5Mha does not seem realistic either. The use of EXACT tool to estimate benefits is helpful. However, Annex 1 presents several different States and it is difficult to assess the rationale used for claiming credit for such significant post-project results. In fact, the GHG tons number referred to in Table F on page 5, 26.9 million tCO2e, differs from the same term on page 32, paragraph 131, 29.1 million tons. Please clearly articulate the rationales behind the estimates.		
	5.	Are the components in Table B sound and sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve project objectives and the GEBs?	Project Framework: 

1) Component 2:  The potential transformative change in policies are vaguely determined by noting only as examples and the program "might" facilitate the stated outcomes.  With the large investment, we would like to see stronger assurance for these policy changes.  Please review and revise the section.  

2) Component 3:  All the target outcomes under Component 3 are missing.  Appropriate information is required at this stage.  

3) Component 4:  
- Please provide further information on the Agriculture sustainability index and dashboard  
- There seem to be overemphasis on the research and education activities.  Please provide further information on the relevance of the research and education activities with university etc to the related project outcomes.  It requires stronger and direct linkages with the suggested project outcomes and outputs (i.e. can not be a standalone research/education components) and require further thoughts and revision both on activities and budget.    
- The relevance and sustainability of establishing an ecological interpretation center in each state are not clear, and require further information..

Financial and institutional sustainability of the key program outcomes need to be ensured.  Relevant approaches need to be clarified and incorporated in the program design.  

Please further articulate and provide information on innovation and scaling up  of the program. 

Finally, the table on child projects need to follow the PFD template posted on the GEF website.  Please also submit child project concepts based on earlier GEFSEC communication on the issue from March.  This will help understand and determine the relevance/consistency of the program framework and associated targets.

15 March 2016

Based on upstream discusions, the project has now became a PIF, not a PDF. 

If understood correctly, the theory of change of this project is recognized as: by developing the Green Landscape Conservation strategy, tool box for implementation, monitoring system at the national level, and the same at each project site as demonstration, the results would eventually be used to transform relevant agriculture policies and initiatives in India. 

The PMs have numbers of concerns and comments to the approach|

1) Project Outcomes

Currently, the project outcomes, outputs, and indicators are weak and do not indicate a likelihood that this project will have substantial and sustainable results.  The outcomes should be for example "XX ha under sustainable land management" or "Improved biodiversity mgmt of XXha landscape."  Currently, the outcomes states only "XXha applying SLM, SFM, green Ag practices" and is weak and unsubstantiated.  Please review and revise all outcomes and indicators.   

On the output, for example, 1.1 should read "multi-sectoral coordination platform established at national, state, and local levels" and 1.3 "policy and strategy related to sustainable/conservation agriculture developed and adapted by national and state governments."

On output 2.3 on GLCS implementation, it would be useful to understand initial thinking on which tools maybe used in which state for what reasons.  

2) Green Landscape Conservation Strategy

A. Who owns this strategy? Would it be officially adapted as MoA and/or MoEF strategy?  Please clarify what "strategy" may mean in India's context as legislative document.  If this is merely a project strategy, the impact of such document is doubtful to influence the agriculture sector in India at both national and state levels.  With substantial investment from the GEF and national/state governments, this project is expected to help develop concrete policy that will be adapted and implemented by the government and other stakeholders. 

B. On the project site level's Green landscape conservation strategy: would this mean a state level strategy? In order to have a meaningful impact, it seems it needs at least to be at the state level. In addition, again what does strategy means at the state level? Please clarify.

C. Table B, 1.3 notes "conservation agriculture strategy," Is this different from the Green Landscape Conservation Strategy?

3) Mainstreaming biodiversity in landscape mgmt
Please clarify the rational and tangible biodiversity benefits that are expected from working around the specific national park that has been identified, e.g. how does a specific national park "anchor efforts" at the site level?  Please also identify additional indicators related to biodiversity benefits in addition to coverage indicators ( I.e. Species, ecosystem services, etc).

4) Sustainable Forest Mgmt
The approaches and activities related to SFM is unclear.  Please clarify the approaches and activities related to SFM and highlight it in Table B as well as in the text.  

5) climate smart agriculture
Para 28 on CSA does not describe how the project will address the GEF CCM focal area objectives for climate smart agriculture. Please cite specific interventions and project activities that would address the GEF-6 Programming Directions.  CCM program 4 specifically requests projects to address the following:
Paragraph 61: Projects supported by this Program will be expected to address one or more of the root causes of forest carbon and other land use emission and emissions from agricultural practices. Within such focus, this Program may also be used to address mitigation potential within the context of food security projects, and to strengthen and improve the MRV of the GHG emissions and carbon sequestration. Initiatives to address SLCFs will also be considered for support. The GEF will provide support for the four areas described in the following sections.
Paragraph 62. Support mitigation-focused management practices in LULUCF.
Paragraph 65. Support mitigation focused management practices in agriculture.
Paragraph 69. Support policies and financial mechanisms to maintain and enhance carbon stocks or reduce emissions from LULUCF and agriculture.
Paragraph 71. Establish and strengthen accounting and MRV in LULUCF and agriculture.
Each of these paragraphs has illustrative examples of eligible interventions. We expect the project to provide list of proposed interventions and activities that align with these objectives so that we could determine eligibility of the activities under GEF-6.  In particular, the CCM resources for this project could  be relevant to align with Paragraph 69 and 71.  

Innovation:  yes, however further strengthen the policy link of the project as demonstration activities has also been done in the past but the key is to use these pilots to influence the needed transformation on related policies. 

Sustainability:  key weakness of this project is on financial sustainability. Please clarify how the project will ensure increased financial investment in sustainable agriculture and what kind of mechanisms will be supported through this project.  Please clarify and incorporate in the project design.  Moreover, institutional sustainability is also unclear as it is not clear which entity will be taking the lead, particularly on the policy framework.  Moreover, what happened to the idea of establishing a multi-sectoral platform for sustainable agriculture? 

Scaling up: further elaborate on how the scale up will be ensured with the learning from the demonstrations.  Output 2.3 requires further review and substantial thinking to enable the scaling up.		
	6.	Are socio-economic aspects, including relevant gender elements, indigenous people, and CSOs considered? 	Please note and confirm that gender and social analysis will be undertaken during PPG.  Appropriate gender, indigenous peoples, and stakeholder plans will be developed, and key elements should be incorporated in the results framework of each child project.

15 March 2016

Agriculture sector has a strong linkage and benefits to communities. However, socio-economic benefits are vaguely described without tangible indicators.  Please review this element and substantiate the benefits.  

The project also has substantial opportunity for private sector involvement and could be one of the key focus of the project. Approach towards private sector and markets are only vaguely described,  Please review and incorporate relevant approach to develop viable business models for conservation oriented agriculture in partnership with private sector stakeholders.  

On gender, the description is very general and does not provide tangible information related to agriculture sector in India.  Please provide project specific context. 

On indigenous peoples, please provide further information on their involvement and plan to ensure full participation and consent.		
Availability of Resources
	7.	Is the proposed Grant  (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	The STAR allocation?	Yes, all BD, LD, CCM are within the STAR allocation.  SFM resource follows the incentive mechanism but requires further information to justify the investment.

15 March 2016

On financial issues: 
The GEBs are not very substantial and impressive for the amount of resources requested.  The amount of government co-financing is impressive but please clarify and confirm if all these investment will be reoriented towards conservation oriented agriculture under this project.  

On co financing
Non-government cofinance is limited.  There are no other substantial partners who are working on similar direction on sustainable agriculture to partner? What about the co financing that were expected from IFAD, KfW, Bioversity international, etc?

Project mgmt cost: Ok

PPG: 300k is the norm. Please reduce.		
	•	The focal area allocation?	Refer above.		
	•	The LDCF under the principle of equitable access	n/a		
	•	The SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?	n/a		
	•	Focal area set-aside?	n/a		
Recommendations	8.	Is the PIF being recommended for clearance and PPG (if additional amount beyond the norm) justified?	No, following above comments, the PFD requires substantial revision and additional information.

15 March 2016
No.  Please address the comments noted above and resubmit.

7 April 2016
Yes, FAO has resubmitted a revised PIF that adequately responds to the earlier comments through the review sheet and upstream discussions.   The PM technically clears the PIF for work program inclusion.

13 April 2016. Please correct the following entries in the PIF.
1) The total for Table A is $33,558,716 and $494,121,358. This has two errors.
a) The total for GEF project financing should be $33,558,718 based on the entries in the rows. Please make a correction so the entries align with the total and all Tables align.
b) The co-financing does not match Table B, which totals to $494,121,357, but does match Table C. Please correct.
2) Table D and Table E need to include "programming of funds" entries for all appropriate rows. Do not leave these blank for the MFA â€“ please code as SFM.
Please revise the PIF as indicated and re-submit.

The above financial issues have been addressed.  The PM recommends the PIF for work program inclusion.		
Review Date
	Review			
	Additional Review (as necessary)	March 15, 2016		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	April 05, 2016		

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)	Risks: 
- Please clarify the risk associated with lack of commitment and interest to work on multi-sectoral approach on sustainable agriculture, which seems to be one of the risk in the country.

15 March 2016
Ok.  Further detailed expected at CEO endorsement.		
	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?	n/a		
	8.	Is the project coordinated with other related initiatives and national/regional plans in the country or in the region?	As noted above, information on the baseline projects/initiatives are not sufficient.  Please also clarify coordination with these baseline initiatives.   Particularly, further concrete information are required on how the proposed activities will coordinate with the national programs/missions, and other donor funded projects.

15 march 2016

Please clarify "how" and on "what" the project will coordinate with the identified projects.  In addition, please also include the WB/GEF mainstreaming BD/SLM project in the western ghats that is relevant to this project.  

Please also clarify other partners that are expected for implementation of the project, particularly at the state level.		
	9.	Does the project include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?	No, please provide necessary information on the budget. indicators and targets.		
	10.	Does the project have descriptions of a knowledge management plan?	Yes, sufficient information at this point, but require further detail under the child projects.		
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)