request for

Project Type:

Type of Trust Fund:

For more information about GEF, visit TheGEF.org

part i: project information

Project Title: Improvement of the decision-making process in Kazakhstan through introduction of mechanisms of economic assessment of fulfilling national obligations under global environmental agreements
Country(ies):	Kazakhstan	GEF Project ID:	5399
GEF Agency(ies):	GEF Agency Project ID:	5248
Other Executing Partner(s):	Ministry of Environment and Water Resources	Submission Date:	2014-06-16
GEF Focal Area (s):	Project Duration(Months)	36 months
Name of Parent Program (if applicable): For SFM/REDD+ For SGP For PPP	Project Agency Fee ($):	47,500

Focal Area Strategy framework

Focal Area Objectives	Expected FA Outcomes	Expected FA Outputs	Trust Fund	Grant Amount ($)	Cofinancing ($)
2.2.Increased capacity of stakeholders to diagnose, understand and transform complex dynamic nature of global environmental problems and develop local solutions	(a) Institutions and stakeholders trained how to use different tools available to institute natural resource valuation (b) Stakeholders are better informed via workshops and trainings about the application of natural resource valuation	459,000	597,000
Project Management	41,000	53,000
Total project costs	500,000	650,000

Project Framework

Project Objective: To develop individual and institutional capacities for undertaking an economic valuation of global environmental goods and services as potentially impacted by proposed development policies, programmes, plans and projects
Project Component	Grant Type	Expected Outcomes	Expected Outputs	Trust Fund	Grant Amount ($)	Confirmed Cofinancing ($)
I. Development of natural resource valuation tools	Outcome 1. Tools and methodologies to undertake natural resource valuation within government planning and development frameworks	1.1 Development of natural resource valuation tools 1.2 Training of technical capacities	210,000	246,000
II. Institutionalizing natural resource valuation	Outcome 2. Holistic planning and decision-making that accounts for more accurate value of the global environment is institutionalized	2.1 Mainstreaming natural resource valuation 2.2 Legislative and institutional Reforms	249,000	351,000
Subtotal	459,000	597,000
Project management Cost (PMC) (including Direct Project Services cost US$ 5,000)	41,000	53,000
Total project costs	500,000	650,000

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 Environment and Water Resources	600,000
UNDP	50,000
Total Co-financing	650,000

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
Kazakhstan	500,000	47,500	547,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Grant Resources	500,000	47,500	547,500

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	92,000	0	92,000
National/Local Consultants	199,500	199,500

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. N/A

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: There is significant co-financing to the project, albeit all in-kind and parallel co-financing. Cash co-financing was not available due to relatively low and high demand of TRAC resources, all of which had have already been committed. Co-financing from other soures is also in-kind in terms of the staff time and workshops. Notwithstanding, UNDP is currently developing another important project on the Green Economy under the EU/OECD 9.3million Euros “Support to the Government of Kazakhstan for Implementation of the Green Economy Concept”. This parallel project will provide important complementary and in-kind support to the proposed CCCD project.

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. Given the project strategy, the key project stakeholders are government ministries and their subsidiary agencies and departments that are responsible for EIAs and development projects as they relate to the global environment. Strategically, the project includes activities that will call upon all stakeholder organizations to meet and negotiate the development of natural resource valuation tools and strenghten the technical capacities to use them to produce reliable and actionable data for decision-makers involved in the EIA and development process. In addition to the integration of natural resource valuaiton and training on its use, the project will help institutionalize these newly developed tools and capacities by demonstrating their value and financial sustainability to stakeholders. All activities will be structured as learn-by-doing exercises. In addition to these 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 Environment and Water Resources, 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 additional 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 Union and the OECD will be invited as observers given that they are also carrying out similar activities in Kazakhstan. 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 test their new and improved skills for natural resource valuation. 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: 1. The Ministry of Environment and Water Resources. As the main executing government agency, MEWR will play the key coordination role in the implementation of the project. 2. Ministry of Economy and Budget Planning. MEBP 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, MEBP will also coordinate the implementation of the project, particularly in monitoring the progress of the project. 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 Agriculture, the Ministry of Regional Develoment, and the Ministry of Industry and New Technologies among other government bodies. Non-state organizations like the Green Academy is another important stakeholder organization, given their experience and expertise on Green Economy and environal indicators.

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 planning decisions being made that take into account stronger environmental conservation criteria. This will first be demonstrated through the piloting of the newly developed tools in one high-value development project.

Specifically, there are two sets of outputs related to delivering socio-economic benefits. The first is the strengthening of the country's decision-making and planning frameworks with the development of natural resource valuation to address Rio Convention obligations. The second set of outputs builds on the first, and will develop clear instituional guidelines for the mainstreaming of natural resource valuation and make the requisite institutional and legislative reforms to ensure long-term use of the valuation tools in the screening and planning process.

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 Kazakhstan to pursue a Green Economy and participate in training and learn-by-doing exercises to 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$ 600,000. This co-financing is significant and represents the commitment of the Government to improving national planning and decision-making regarding the global environment. This in-kind 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, as well as well as 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 consultants 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 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. An indicator of cost-effectiveness is the percentage of the GEF contribution allocated to project management (3%) and the total percentage of the project budget allocated to project management (20%). This latter percentage falls within acceptable ranges of international donor-funded development projects.

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 10 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 meeting 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 and 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 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 Country Office (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 the 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 Manager 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 Manager based on the project’s Annual Work Plan and its indicators. The Project Manager 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 Manager 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 Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, 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 Manager. 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 PB, the Project Manager will prepare harmonized Annual Project Report / Project Implementation Reviews (APR/PIR) 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 Manager will present the APR/PIR to the Project Board members, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the Committee participants. The Project Manager 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 Manager 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 Project Report (APR) and Project Implementation Review (PIR) 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 managers and offers the main vehicle for extracting lessons from on-going projects. These two reporting requirements are very similar in input, purpose and timing that 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 well in advance (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 PB, 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 MEWR.

The Project Manager 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 Kazakhstan.

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)
Nurlan Kapparov	Minister of Environment and Water Resources, GEF Operation Focal Point	Ministry of environment and water Resources	12/25/2012

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	06/16/2014	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 objectives: To develop technical and institutional capacities for undertaking an economic valuation of global environmental goods and services as potentially impacted by proposed development policies, programmes, plans and projects.	Outcome indicators: Decisions to protect the global environment 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	There is high-level support and parliamentary approval for the Green Economy concept in Kazakhstan Requirements of the Rio Conventions are not adequately incorporated in development planning Institutional capacities for managing the Rio Conventions is piecemeal and takes place through Rio Convention-specific projects, with development emphasizing socio-economic priorities Planners and decision-makers, particularly at the local level 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	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	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 valuation tools GEF Cross-Cutting Capacity Development Scorecard Gender equality targets per UNDP 2013-2017 Strategic Plan are met	The project will be executed in a transparent, holistic, adaptive, and collaborative manner Policy and institutional reforms and modifications recommended by the project are politically, technically, and financially feasible Improving the valuation process will help decision-making relating to the global environment become more inclusive, legitimate, and robust Planners and decision-makers are resistant to adopt new attitudes towards the global environment
Outcome 1: Decisions to protect the global environment are better enabled
Output 1.1 Development of natural resource valuation tools	Report on natural resource valuation Natural resource valuation tools Expert working group meetings Integration of valuation tools into decision-making	Planners and decision-makers do not incorporate full value of ecosystem goods and services Evidence of public sector staff’s technical capacities related to the Rio Conventions is limited Despite expressed government commitment to the global environment, several issues undermine policies and efforts	Natural resource valuation report drafted by month 4 and peer-reviewed, finalized and presented by month 5 Valuation tools developed and peer-reviewed by month 7, endorsed by Government by month 9, and revised during piloting phase in year 2, and finalized by month 30 Expert working group convened by month 3 Memoranda of Agreement to utilize natural resource valuation tools in decision-making signed by month 12	Meeting minutes Tracking and progress reports Natural resource valuation tools and report Letter of endorsement Memoranda of Agreement	Reports and analyses are deemed legitimate, relevant, and valid among all key stakeholder representatives Members of the working group will be comprised of proactive experts and project champions Institutions and working groups are open to proposed agreements and there is no active institutional resistance Enabling policy and legislation in place to support the signing of any MOA Institutions follow through on commitments under MOA
Output 1.2: Training of technical capacities	NRV training materials and curriculum Sensitization workshops on NRV for government decision-makers, private sector, and NGOs NRV training courses	There is a lack of capacity among agency staff and less than optimal understanding of natural resource valuation NRV guidelines and tools are not widely known among planners and decision-makers	Materials and curriculum developed and peer-reviewed by month 12, revised following piloting by month 24, and again by month 30 after NRV mainstreaming and reforms At least six workshops convened, the first by month 9 and the last by month 30 Workshops will have a total of at least 150 different stakeholders including at least 50 senior decision-makers and planners Training courses begin by month 13 and end by month 16 No fewer than 200 government staff will have participated in courses and average test score of at least 80%	Meeting minutes Tracking and progress reports Training materials and curriculum Participant registration lists Workshop reports Test scores Feedback from training	Expert peer-reviews are thorough and of high quality Lead agencies will allow their staff to attend all trainings The right representation from the various government ministries, departments, and agencies participate in project activities Trainers will agree with best practices to mainstream and implement training based on the Rio Conventions Other training programmes and curricula do not work against Rio Conventions
Outcome 2: Technical and management staff trained in the use and application of NRV tools, and decision-makers fully aware of NRV tools
Output 2.1: Mainstreaming natural resource valuation	Criteria for high-value development project to pilot NRV tools Stakeholder workshop to select development project for piloting Workshops to evaluate pilot project and feedback surveys from attendees Pilot project evaluation and report on best practices and lessons learned Awareness-raising brochures prepared from report Sectoral screening workshops Guidelines and methodologies for application of NRV	There is a shortage of technical capacity amongst planners at all levels to utilize information and knowledge related to the value of ecosystem goods and services, and to mainstream it into the planning processes Civil society stakeholders have limited experience with participation in the economic arena, and few CSOs have the necessary technical and administrative capacities to operate effectively in Kazakhstan Kazakhstan will host the International Exposition (Expo 2017) in June 2017, the central theme of which is innovative and practical energy solutions. This will be an opportunity to showcase its lessons learned in pursuing green economy, and project activities	Criteria approved by Project Board by month 14 Workshop convened by month 16 with at least 50 representative from private sector and NGOs, project for NRV piloting selected by month 17 Six workshops with at least 100 staff and stakeholder representatives convened by month 22 90% response rate for workshop feedback surveys by month 22, and statistical analysis of evaluations by month 23 Best practices and lessons learned report from workshops drafted by month 24, peer-reviewed by month 26, and finalized by month 28 500 brochures available for distribution at Expo 2017 Five sectoral screening workshops with at least 250 key government staff and representatives by month 30 Guidelines and methodologies for NRV drafted by month 28, peer-reviewed and finalized by month 31, and officially endorsed by month 32	Meeting minutes Tracking and progress reports Participation lists Workshop reports Feedback surveys Statistical analyses Best practices and lessons learned report Awareness raising brochures NRV guidelines and methodologies Letter of endorsement	Workshop participants contribute their honest attitudes and values Regional and non-state stakeholder representation in project activities legitimately reflect their stakeholder constituent views and priorities Expert peer reviewers follow through with quality reviews Planners and decision-makers are resistant to adopt new attitudes towards the global environment Brochures will be read and the content absorbed Report will be read and valued by target recipients There is sufficient commitment from policy-makers to maintain long-term support to project activities
Output 2.2: Legislative and institutional reforms	Institutional and legislative assessment Bills for institutional and legislative reforms Resource mobilization strategy for long-term financial needs	Some political reforms are already ongoing including a draft Law on Local Governance that is designed to strengthen capacities of local communities to monitor local state budget spending, and encourage development of multi-stakeholder public and local community entities which can engage with the local and sub-regional authorities	Institutional and legislative assessment drafted by month 9, revised by month 26, and finalized by month 28 Expert working groups validate expert analysis on NRV institutionalization by month 12 and institutional and legislative assessments by month 30. Group meets three times in year 2 for project updates. Bills for reforms drafted by month 30, peer-reviewed, validated and submitted for Parliamentary approval by month 33 Expert working group convened by month 13 to draft resource mobilization strategy by month 21, strategy reviewed and finalized by month 25 and approved by month 28	Meeting minutes Tracking and progress reports Institutional and legislative assessment and bills for reforms Peer-review comments Resource mobilization strategy Letter of approval	Best practices and lessons learned are applicable in Kazakhstan and appropriately used Expert peer reviewers follow through with quality reviews Legislative and institutional reforms recommended by the project are politically, technically, and financially feasible

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
Preliminary assessments of the policy, legal and institutional framework	5,000	5,000	0
Baseline study on mainstreaming global environmental conventions into human resource development	15,000	1,640	13,360
Stakeholder consultations and Validation workshop, plus communications, printing	5,000	3,150	1,850
Total	25,000	9,790	15,210

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.