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

  
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	5399	
Country/Region:	Kazakhstan	
Project Title:	Improvement of the Decision-making Process through Introduction of Mechanisms of Economic Assessment of Fulfilling National Obligations under Global Environmental Agreements	
GEF Agency:	UNDP	GEF Agency Project ID:	5248 (UNDP)	
Type of Trust Fund:	GEF Trust Fund	GEF Focal Area (s):	Multi Focal Area	
GEF-5 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s):	CD-2; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:	$0	Project Grant:	$500,000	
Co-financing:	$650,000	Total Project Cost:	$1,150,000	
PIF Approval:	June 10, 2013	Council Approval/Expected:		
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Maria Del Pilar Barrera Rey	Agency Contact Person:	Tom Twining-Ward	

Review Criteria	Questions	Secretariat Comment at PIF (PFD)/Work Program Inclusion 	Secretariat Comment At CEO Endorsement(FSP)/Approval (MSP)	
Eligibility	1.	Is the participating country eligible?	Yes, Kazakhstan ratified the CBD on September 6, 1994, the UNFCCC on May 17, 1995 and the UNCCD on July 9, 1997. Cleared 04/09/2013	Yes. Cleared 06/27/2014	
	2.	Has the operational focal point endorsed the project?	Yes, with letter signed by Mr. Nurland Kapparov dated December 25, 2012. Cleared 04/09/2013	Yes. Cleared 06/27/2014	
Resource Availability

	3. Is the proposed Grant (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	the STAR allocation?	N/A	N/A	
	•	the focal area allocation?	Yes, within the Cross-Cutting Capacity Development (CCCD) allocation. Cleared 04/09/2013	Yes. Resources from CCCD allocation. Cleared 06/27/2014	
	•	the LDCF under the principle of equitable access	N/A	N/A	
	•	the SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?	N/A	N/A	
	•	the Nagoya Protocol Investment Fund	N/A	N/A	
	•	focal area set-aside?	N/A	N/A	
Strategic Alignment	4. Is the project aligned with the focal area/multifocal areas/ LDCF/SCCF/NPIF results framework and strategic objectives?
For BD projects: Has the project explicitly articulated which Aichi Target(s) the project will help achieve and are SMART indicators identified, that will be used to track progress toward achieving the Aichi target(s).	The project is aligned with the CCCD strategic objectives. Cleared 04/09/2013	Yes. Cleared 06/27/2014	
	5. Is the project consistent with the recipient country’s national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions, including NPFE, NAPA, NCSA, NBSAP or NAP?	The project is consistent with the country's NCSA. Cleared 04/09/2013	Yes. Cleared 06/27/2014	

Project Design	6. 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?	Not clear. There's no indication of the environmental problems that the country is facing and their root causes. In addtion, there's no description of the baseline project(s) onto which the GEF contribution will build. Finally, the alternative scenario does not refer to the project itself but to the preparation of the project. Therefore, it's difficult to understand what the baseline and alternative scenarios are. Please provide additional information on all these points. 04/09/2013

Provided. Cleared 06/05/2013	Yes. Cleared 06/27/2014	
	7.	Are the components, outcomes and outputs in the project framework (Table B) clear, sound and appropriately detailed? 	Yes. Cleared 04/09/2013	Yes. Cleared 06/27/2014	
	8.	(a) Are global environmental/ adaptation benefits identified? (b) Is the description of the incremental/additional reasoning sound and appropriate?	To some extent. However, once the baseline scenario is revised as per point above, please revisit the incremental reasoning as necessary. Additional information is requested 04/09/2013

Provided. Cleared 06/05/2013	Yes. Cleared 06/27/2014	
	9.	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?		Yes. Cleared 06/27/2014	
	10.	Is the role of public participation, including CSOs, and indigenous peoples where relevant, identified and explicit means for their engagement explained?	Yes. Cleared 04/09/2013	Yes, although the civil society sector in Kazakhstan is not strong and it seems to be dominated by international NGOs, please ensure multi-stakeholder consultations and decision-making with participation of relevant CSOs as cited in the prodoc under Table 2: Conformity with GEF Capacity Development Operational Principles.

Cleared 06/27/2014	
	11.	Does the project take into account potential major risks, including the consequences of climate change, and describes sufficient risk mitigation measures? (e.g., measures to enhance climate resilience)	Yes. Cleared 04/09/2013	Yes. Cleared 06/27/2014	
	12.	Is the project consistent and properly coordinated with other related initiatives in the country or in the region? 	Yes. Cleared 04/09/2013	Yes. Cleared 06/27/2014	
	13.	Comment on the project’s innovative aspects, sustainability, and potential for scaling up.
•	Assess whether the project is innovative and if so, how, and if not, why not.
•	Assess the project’s strategy for sustainability, and the likelihood of achieving this based on GEF and Agency experience.
•	Assess the potential for scaling up the project’s intervention.	To some extent. The project's innovativeness will be derived from its contribution to the green economy strategy of the country. In terms of replicability and sustainability of project outcomes, the PIF mentions that preparatory activities will include the identification and development of measurable indicators within a broader framework of monitoring and evaluation in order to assess project performance towards meeting immediate objectives. However, the broader mechanisms that will ensure sustainability and scaling up are not clear. Please provide additional information and clarifications. 04/09/2013

Explanation provided. Cleared 06/05/2013	Innovativeness: The project's innovativeness will be derived from its contribution to the green economy strategy of the country. While natural resource valuation is not a new concept or approach, its application remains one that will be innovative and potentially transformative for Kazakhstan. Lessons learned and best practices from countries where natural resource valuation has been used, in particular in Europe, will significantly help reduce the learning curve in Kazakhstan and offer new models in the pursuit of a Green Economy. 
Sustainability and Scaling-up: Sustainability will be addressed by ensuring that there's specialized expertise that meets internationally accepted standards to review, develop and implement natural resource valuation tools, producing relevant and valid data in a form usable by decision-makers. This expertise will also be used to develop training modules to be offered to experts with necessary prerequisite training who would be called upon to bid for contracts to undertake natural resource valuation for future EIAs. Once tested, and incorporated as training modules in at least three accredited academic institutions of higher learning, it serves to develop a national skill set in natural resource valuation tools, reducing the risks that these skills must be secured from overseas over the long-term. The Project Board will be required to meet regularly with the members that are senior level representatives of key agencies and able to champion the positive outcomes of the project are lead institutional reforms within their respective agencies. In terms of scaling up, a more complete assessment and design of development and conservation interventions that better reflect Rio Convention obligations and that also showcase good practices of a Green Economy will make this project well for being replicated for other similar planned investments and interventions in Kazakhstan.	
	14.	Is the project structure/design sufficiently close to what was presented at PIF, with clear justifications for changes?		Yes. Cleared 06/27/2014	
	15.	Has the cost-effectiveness of the project been sufficiently demonstrated, including the cost-effectiveness of the project design as compared to alternative approaches to achieve similar benefits?		Yes. Cleared 06/27/2014	

Project Financing	16.	Is the GEF funding and co-financing as indicated in Table B appropriate and adequate to achieve the expected outcomes and outputs?	Yes, cleared 04/09/2013	Yes. Cleared 06/27/2014	
	17.	At PIF: Is the indicated amount and composition of co-financing as indicated in Table C adequate? Is the amount that the Agency bringing to the project in line with its role? 
At CEO endorsement:  Has co-financing been confirmed?	The Agency is bringing the equivalent of 10% of the GEF's contribution to the project. This contribution is in-kind. Is there a possibility of bringing some cash co-financing? Please provide clarification. 04/09/2013

Explanation provided. Cleared 06/05/2013	UNDP is not providing cash co-financing, but the in-kind co-financing has been confirmed. Also, there is a new project starting which will complement some of the proposed project's activities.

Cleared 06/27/2014	
	18.	Is the funding level for project management cost appropriate?	Yes, cleared 04/09/2013	Yes. Cleared 06/27/2014	
	19.	At PIF, is PPG requested?  If the requested amount deviates from the norm, has the Agency provided adequate justification that the level requested is in line with project design needs?  
At CEO endorsement/ approval, if PPG is completed, did Agency report on the activities using the PPG fund?	PPG is requested.  04/09/2013

PPG is requested and recommended. 06/05/2013	Yes. Cleared 06/27/2014	
	20.	If there is a non-grant instrument in the project, is there a reasonable calendar of reflows included?	N/A	N/A	
Project Monitoring and Evaluation	21.	Have the appropriate Tracking Tools been included with information for all relevant indicators, as applicable?		Yes. Cleared 06/27/2014	
	22.	Does the proposal include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?		Yes. Cleared 06/27/2014	
Agency Responses	23.	Has the Agency adequately responded to comments from:			
	•	STAP?			
	•	Convention Secretariat?			
	•	The Council?			
	•	Other GEF Agencies?			
Secretariat Recommendation	

Recommendation at PIF Stage	24.	 Is PIF clearance/approval being recommended?	Not yet. Please review questions and comments above and provide information. 04/09/2013

PIF is technically cleared and is being recommended for approval. 06/05/2013		
	25.	Items to consider at CEO endorsement/approval.			
Recommendation at CEO Endorsement/ Approval	26.	 Is CEO endorsement/approval being recommended?			
	First review*	April 09, 2013	June 27, 2014	
Review Date (s)	Additional review (as necessary)	June 05, 2013		
	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.