request for

Project Type:

Type of Trust Fund:

For more information about GEF, visit TheGEF.org

part i: project information

Project Title: Strengthening of institutional and legal capacities to enable improvement of the national monitoring system and management of environmental information
Country(ies):	Kyrgyzstan	GEF Project ID:	5715
GEF Agency(ies):	GEF Agency Project ID:	5302
Other Executing Partner(s):	State Agency for Environmental Protection and Forestry (SAEPF)	Submission Date:	2015-04-09
GEF Focal Area (s):	Project Duration(Months)	36
Name of Parent Program (if applicable): For SFM/REDD+ For SGP For PPP	Project Agency Fee ($):	90,250

Focal Area Strategy framework

Focal Area Objectives	Expected FA Outcomes	Expected FA Outputs	Trust Fund	Grant Amount ($)	Cofinancing ($)
5.1 Enhanced skills of national institutions to monitor environmental changes	(a) Monitoring systems established (b) Capacities for monitoring of projects and programmes developed	950,000	1,210,000
Total project costs	950,000	1,210,000

Project Framework

Project Objective: To strengthen national capacities to meet Rio Convention objectives through an improved environmental information monitoring and management system (EIMMS)
Project Component	Grant Type	Expected Outcomes	Expected Outputs	Trust Fund	Grant Amount ($)	Confirmed Cofinancing ($)
1. Strengthened policy and legal instruments	Outcome 1: By the end of the project monitoring and decision-making for the global environment will be improved	1.1 Targeted policies, legal and regulatory instruments are amended 1.2 Strengthened consultative and decision-making processes	91,500	140,500
2. Strengthened institutional capacities to implement an EIMMS	Outcome 2: By the end of the project institutional and accompanying technical capacities for monitoring global environmental targets will be strengthened	2.1 Institutional mapping and analysis of an optimal information and monitoring system 2.2 Targeted institutional reforms for improved access to data and information 2.3 Selected updating of technologies for information management and monitoring 2.4 Training on improved methodologies and analytical skills OR Pilot implementation of the EIMDSS through a select sectoral plan 2.5 Improved EIMMS tested 2.6 Resource mobilization strategy	466,000	570,000
3. Improving awareness of global environmental values	Outcome 3: By the end of the project, stakeholders environmental attitudes and awareness of the value of the global environment is greatly enhanced	3.1 Stakeholder dialogues on the value of Rio Conventions 3.2 Brochures and articles on the Rio Conventions 3.3 Public service announcements on environmentally friendly behavior 3.4 Improved educational curricula	307,000	410,500
Subtotal	864,500	1,121,000
Project management Cost (PMC) (including Direct Project Services cost US$ 10,000)	85,500	89,000
Total project costs	950,000	1,210,000

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 ($)
State Agency for Environmental Protection and Forestry	650,000
Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation	250,000
UNDP	150,000
UNDP Poverty-Environment Initiative	50,000
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe	110,000
Total Co-financing	1,210,000

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
Kyrgyzstan	950,000	90,250	1,040,250
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Grant Resources	950,000	90,250	1,040,250

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	20,000	0	20,000
National/Local Consultants	268,500	14,900	283,400

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. The PPG reaffirmed the critical value of the project strategy to help Kyrgyzstan operationalize key policy instruments, namely the National Sustainable Development Strategy and its accompanying Programme for the Transition to Sustainable Development, the European Commission's Green Growth Indicators, and the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals.

A.2. GEF focal area and/or fund(s) strategies, eligibility criteria and priorities. Output 1 in the PIF was disaggregated into two outputs, and an additional output 2.6 was added on resource mobilization in order to strengthen the institutional and financial sustainability of the expected outcomes. During the PPG, the extensive consultations and more comprehensive understanding of the institutional field related to environmental data and information, including knowledge creation decision-making, reaffirmed the project strategy of integrating existing environmental information monitoring and management systems as a means for a more cost-effective approach to Rio Convention mainstreaming.

A.3 The GEF Agency’s comparative advantage: No change

A.4. The baseline project and the problem that it seeks to address: No change, however, the PPG reaffirmed the strong baseline that is indicated by key activities to operationalize green growth indicators, mainstreaming poverty and environment indicators, and strengthen key management information systems. For this reason, this CCCD project does not intend to create any new information system, but rather create synergies and cost-effectiveness by strengthening the linkages and networking among systems, removing key barriers to information sharing that are not sufficiently addressed in the baseline, and harmonizing analytical methodologies across multiple stakeholders that is necessary to validate and legitimize the resulting information and decisions.

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: No change

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: Perhaps the most important risk to the project is internal resistance to change. This is a natural human condition and reflects people’s comfort with known policies and procedures. However, the basis for this project is that these policies and procedures could be improved. The activities of this project were strategically selected and designed to take into account these existing “business-as-usual” approaches, and to facilitate a process by they could be improved incrementally. Most, if not all, of the activities under this project call for such incremental modifications to be made. These will not be dictated by external expertise, but rather facilitated by experts and independent advisors in order that stakeholders discuss and come to consensus agreements themselves. This approach serves to strengthen the ownership and legitimacy of the decisions reached in these stakeholder consultations, workshops, or other project exercises. For this reason, the project makes the implicit assumption that stakeholders will give the benefit of the doubt to the design of the project activities, be open to new and opposing perspectives, and actively participate in the project to negotiate issues and recommendations towards a consensus.

A.7. Coordination with other relevant GEF financed initiatives No change, however, a careful review was made of the other GEF initiatives, including the FAO/GEF project on sustainable land management. UNDP will work closely with FAO and other development partners, including the GIZ to ensure that there is no duplication of resources or activities, but rather that to catalyze and institutionalize synergies. In accordance with the Instrument for the Establishment of the Restructured Global Environment Facility, GEF financing will be directed to activities that deliver global environmental benefits, with the project co-financing used to finance activities and objectives in line with national sustainable development priorities. For example, while gender equality and gender mainstreaming is a requirement for GEF-financed projects, related activities will be financed through leveraged project co-financing (cash and/or in-kind).

B. additional information not addressed at Pif stage:

B.1 Describe how the stakeholders will be engaged in project implementation. This project will be executing through the Direct Implementation Modality (DIM) by UNDP Country Office (as the GEF Implementing Agency) within the framework of Environment Protection for Sustainable Development Programme and UNDP’s Area-Based Development Offices that are instrumental for local interventions in the field. The project will receive extended support from the Country Office on all procurement and human resources issues. The implementing partner is the State Agency of Environment Protection and Forestry by the Government (Focal Point for the CBD, FCCC and GEF) will chair a Project Board comprised of high-level representatives of other key ministries and agencies, and who will make available their respective staffs and network of experts to participate is all relevant project activities. The Focal Point for CCD is the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR) that will be one of the senior project’s beneficiaries, also providing in-kind co-financing. The MALR and Ministry of Economy are senior project beneficiaries. Together, these government bodies will facilitate active stakeholder engagement and the implementation of project activities. The project will also have the participation of other Ministries, NGOs, academic institutions, private sector representatives, and representatives of civil society. Consultations during the project preperation phase included: State authorities: 1. The State Agency of Environment Protection and Forestry (SAEPF), including its structural subdivisions (International cooperation department, State Environment Regulation and Ecological Security Center, Environmental Monitoring Administration, Environmental policy and Strategy Administration, Forestry Ecosystems Development and Specially Protected Natural Reservations Department, Hunting department, among others) 2. The Ministry of Agriculture and land Reclamation 3. The Ministry of Economy 4. The National Statistics Committee 5. The State Agency on Hydrometeorology under the Ministry of Emergency Situations (Kyrgyzhydromet), including its structural subdivisions Academic community: 6. National Academy of Science, including Biology and Soil Institute 7. Kyrgyz Scientific – Research Irrigation institute 8. Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University 9. Research Institute Kyrgyzgyprozem Civil Society and Non-Governmental Organizations 10. Agency on Modernization and Development 11. Aleine Ecological Movement 12. Association of Land and Forest Users 13. Climate Change Centre 14. Environmental Movement BIOME 15. Independent Environmental Expertise LLC 16. Public Environmental Information Services (EKOIS-Bishkek) Bilateral and multilateral development partners 17. Germany’s international cooperation agency GIZ (which includes their supported projects CAREC, ERCA and FLERMONECA) 18. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 19. Food and Agriculture Organization 20. Japanese International Cooperation Agency 21. World Bank 22. Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe 23. Environment Agency Austria 24. Swiss Embassy UNDP 25. Environment and Energy Programme 26. Poverty and Environment Initiative 27. Women's Empowerment Taking an adaptive and collaborative management approach to execution, the project will ensure that key stakeholders are involved early and throughout project execution as partners for development. This includes their participation in the Project Board, review of project outputs such as recommendations for amendments to policies, plans, programmes and legislation, as well as participation in monitoring activities. Input from all levels of government, NGOs and community leaders is expected, encouraged, accommodated, and accounted for in order to ensure stakeholder support and assistance in maintaining long-term and self-sustaining results. Particular attention will be given to actively engage women. The transformative nature of this project rests largely on negotiating coordination and collaboration agreements among agencies and non-state stakeholders to share data, information, and knowledge. The project seeks to facilitate improved collaboration and engagement of stakeholders with comparative expertise and knowledge that is intended to yield better quality data, information and knowledge to apply best practices. For example, during the drafting of a memoranda of agreement on consultative and decision-making processes particular attention will be given to engaging the academic community, such as the National Academy of Sciences, and other non-state stakeholders. 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. 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. Stakeholders will participate in various training activities, as well as learn-by-doing working groups to test their new and improved skills for mainstreaming Rio Conventions. 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.

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. The project’s design sets out to shorten the divide between protecting the environment and socio-economic priorities. This is to be achieved through mainstreaming, with an emphasis on tools to manage and monitor environmental information related to the global environment. The project will select a high value sector development plan to apply new and improved indicators and analytical methodologies. Through the learning-by-doing exercises, stakeholders will take a critical thinking approach to learn how to reconcile key socio-economic and global environmental priorities. This project will hold workshops that will include representatives from local government officials, NGOs, private sector, and civil society to ensure local legitimacy and validity, with particular attention to ensure that local socio-economic priorities can be addressed though improved monitoring of environmental trends and making more informed connections between socio-economic issues and the global environment.

Gender issues will be one of the social issues that will be monitored throughout project implementation. A gender analysis was conducted and is included in the project document. There are specific indicators to address the identified gender issues, while others are expected to be identified and monitored during project implementation. See paragraphs 64 through 66, and project activities 1.1.3, 2.4.7, 3.1.6, and 3.1.7. The project design and implementation will ensure both an adequate balance of participation in the project, and the equitable distribution of benefits. Additionally, to help ensure that gender does not become a marginalized issue, gender sensitive indicators to be monitored per good practice, in particular GEF and UNDP guidance on gender mainstreaming and gender balance. This gender monitoring and special consideration is in line with other gender initiatives in Kyrgyzstan, such as the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women that Kyrgyzstan acceded to in 1997. Consideration of gender issues will not necessarily lead or support the achievement of global environmental benefits other than to ensure that as complete as possible a diverse set of perspectives is taken into account when formulating policies and policy responses.

B.3. Explain how cost-effectiveness is reflected in the project design: The incremental cost of this project is determined on the basis of the main criterion that the co-financing achieves an equal share of the GEF increment was negotiated with potential donors. Indeed, the PPG was very succesful in leveraging an excess amount of co-financing due to the high interest and commitment to the project strategy and their expected involvement in project activities. Notwithstanding, the precise nature of the capacity development activities of this project does not lend itself to clearly distinguish those activities that will deliver global environmental benefits and those that should be undertaken in the country’s own sustainable development interest. In certain instances, the average cost of project activities was estimated on the basis of an equal share of GEF and non-GEF financial resources. The project will also increase its cost-effectiveness by coordinating the respective project activities with other nitiatives in Kyrgyzstan in order to create synergies. As a result, there is a high expectation that new and additional co-financing will be leveraged during the implementation of the project.

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 1 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 3 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 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, representatives of the Project Board, other 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 an 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, and 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 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 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 consultative and decision-making structures will be reviewed and clarified.

The initiation workshop will present a schedule of M&E-related meetings and reports. The Project Coordinator 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 Coordinator based on the project’s Annual Work Plan and its indicators. The Project Coordinator 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 Coordinator 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 Executing Agency (SAEPF) 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 Coordinator. 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 Project Board, the Project Coordinator 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 Coordinator will present the APR/PIR to the Project Board members, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the Committee participants. The Project Coordinator 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 Coordinator 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 Progress 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 monitoring and management tool for Project Coordinators and offers the main vehicle for extracting lessons from on-going projects. These two reporting requirements are very similar in input, purpose and timing and 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 should be completed well before this deadline (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 Project Board, so that the resultant report represents a document that was 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 Regional Coordination Unit.

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 the SAEPF.

A project financial management system will be established to provide for accountability, and annual audits will be performed. The Project Coordinator 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 Kyrgyzstan.

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)
Mr. Sabir S. Atadjanov	GEF Operational Focal Point	State Agency for Environmental Protection and Forestry	06/17/2013

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 UNDP-GEF	04/09/2015	Tom Twining-Ward, Senior Technical Advisor, UNDP (Green-LECDRS)	tom.twining-ward@undp.org

ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

Please refer to Annex 1 of the project document.

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: 50,000
Project Preparation Activities Implemented	GEF/LDCF/SCCF/NPIF Amount ($)
Budgeted Amount	Amount Spent Todate	Amount Committed
Baseline study 1 - Assessment report of policy and legislative instruments on environmental governance	7,000	2,390	4,610
Baseline study 2 - Assessment report of institutional arrangements on environmental governance, including project partnerships, linkages and synergies	7,000	2,083	4,917
Baseline study 3 - Assessment report on standards, norms, indicators, procedures and IT architectures	5,000	1,843	3,157
Stakeholder consultations: - Project implementation arrangements - Project co-financing - M&E and sustainability plan	4,500	4,500	0
Project document preparation - MSP document - Request for CEO Endorsement	22,000	19,800	1,610
Validation workshop - Validation workshop report	4,500	5,090	0
0	0	0
Total	50,000	35,706	14,294

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.

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.