GEF-6 GEF Secretariat Review for Programmatic Framework Document*
The GEF/ldcf/sccf Trust Funds

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	9607	
Country/Region:	Regional (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Montenegro, Tunisia)	
Program Title:	Mediterranean Sea Programme (MedProgramme): Enhancing Environmental Security	
GEF Agency:	UNEP and EBRD	GEF Agency Project ID:		
Type of Trust Fund:	GEF Trust Fund	GEF Focal Area (s):	Multi Focal Area	
GEF-6 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s):	BD-1 Program 1; IW-2 Program 3; IW-2 Program 4; IW-3 Program 5; IW-3 Program 6; CW-2 Program 3; CW-2 Program 4; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:		Program Grant:	$42,376,147	
Co-financing:	$708,000,000	Total Program Cost:	$750,376,147	
PIF Approval:		Council Approval/Expected:	October 03, 2016	
Program Manager:	Steffen Hansen	Agency Contact Person:	Christine Haffner-Sifakis	

Review Criteria	Questions	Secretariat Comments 	Agency Response 	
Program Consistency	1.	Is the program aligned with the relevant GEF strategic objectives and results framework?	Shansen (7.29): Yes, the project is well aligned with IW obj 2 program 3 and 4 and IW obj 3 program 5 and 6.

However, please change the submission in the country section, where it is noted to be a GLOBAL project. The project is regional, with participating countries having included endorsement letters.

The program is also aligned with CW 3 and 4		

Program Design	2.	Is the description of the baseline scenario reliable, and based on sound data and assumptions?  Are the activities that will be financed using GEF/LDCF/SCCF funding based on incremental/ additional reasoning?	Shansen (7.29):  

Baseline: Yes, the PIF baseline is based on sound date and outlines the issues of environmental degradation within the Med Sea, including nutrient pollution (point and non point), degradation of coastal aquifers, climate change variability and the necessity of developing integrated monitoring systems towards facilitating effective future interventions. Importantly, this second phase of SAP implementation is well integrated within the Barcelona Convention regional framework, the two GEF supported Strategic Action Programs (SAP-MED and SAP-BIO (2005 and 2003) and the subsequent NAPs.        

Incremental reasoning: Yes, GEF resources will be critical in providing additionality to EIB and EBRD investments stimulating investment into targeted technologies and techniques within i.e. waste water treatment and recirculation. Further, IW resources are considered critical towards the testing and dissemination of solutions enabling sustainable and climate resilient utilization of coastal aquifers.

In regard to chemicals and waste, please provide a description of the baseline projects in relation to PCBs and POPs chemicals.		
	3.	Is the program framework (Table B) sound and sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve program objectives and the GEBs?	Shansen (7.29):

-	Under Part One Program Identification and Program Agency Fees: please remove reference to PPG fees. 

Shansen (8.26): Addressed

-	Table F, outcome 5, indicator (iii): There seems to be a mismatch between the indicator and the stated target â€“ the indicator speaks to number of countries while the target speaks to number of demonstrations. Please consider rephrasing and making apparent the tie between indicator (i) and (iii).

Shansen (8.26): Addressed

-	Regarding the Nexus related activities (child project 2.2). Please insert text specifying clearly where the necessary regional nexus policy dialogue and decision making capacity will be permanently anchored?  

Shansen (8.26): Addressed

-	The PIF baseline identifies a strong need to integrate existing national and regional databases to facilitate systems of sharing data, and making it publicly available. Accordingly, the PIF stresses the need for advancing data agreements (agreed with all participating countries), and potentially also a data sharing decision to be adopted by the Barcelona Convention Contracting Parties. Within this context, please explain if the PFD targets such outcomes within the agreed funding envelope? If yes, table F should reflect this under component 1 and its associated outcomes, indicators and targets with text speaking to data-sharing agreements and a data sharing decision adopted by the Barcelona Convention contracting parties. In addition, the outcomes, indicators and targets under child project 1.1 should be revised. 

Shansen (8.26): Addressed

-	Table F Outcome 8 indicator ii (child project 4.1) states that: "At least 5 awareness-raising tools aimed at the regional and global audiences produced." Please insert additional text explaining the nature of such awareness raising tools: who will they target? How will they support a future country driven SAP implementation process (drawing on national funding, IFIs, bilateral aid) and support the PFDs theory of change? 

Shansen (8.26): Addressed

-	As part of project coordination and learning (child project 4.1), please include text stating that the project will share best practices and facilitate a discussion regarding exchange of relevant datasets (incl IMAP)  with the GEF/UNEP project titled "Towards an International Nutrient Management System" (GEF ID 5400).

Shansen (8.26): Addressed

-	Please include text speaking to uptake of lessons learnt from the GEF MFA MENARID projects (i.e. lessons learnt from aquifers recharge techniques).  

Shansen (8.26): Addressed

-	Please note that IW funds dedicated towards IW:LEARN activities should constitute 1 % of the TOTAL IW PFD grant. Please rephrase text under component 4 accordingly. 

Shansen (8.26): Addressed

-	Please consider strengthening the project title so that it better reflects the political context within which the PFD is embedded - i.e. "Mediterranean Sea Programme â€“ Towards Enhanced Ecosystem security". Also, please consider adding a "political context" section as part of the program justification section. This section should highlight the integral nature between a healthy environment (i.e. through the preservation of coastal aquifers, strengthening of IZCM plans, agreement on and implementation of Nexus action plans) and that of sustainable long term livelihoods, which underpins stable political regimes. This new section should also highlight the PFDs expected significant contribution towards increased resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change in the highly vulnerable Med developing countries.

Shansen (8.26): Addressed

- on pp 12-13, there is a long list of previous investments listed, focusing on the number of demo projects. Please consider to include a couple of paragraphs on the main outputs/deliverables/results of the impressive list of demonstration projects. 

Shansen (8.26): Addressed

- Plastics and marine litter has been identified as a major issue in the Mediterranean sea, please note that activities dealing with these issues can not be funded out of the IW focal area. It should be noted that only upstream waste management issues that would prevent waste material from being emitted into the costal zone can be funded from chemicals and waste.  The context would have to be in relation to preventing the emission of POPs and would require baseline investments on waste management.  Is this envisioned in the program?

Shansen (8.26): Addressed

- on pp 32 the SDGs that the project will deliver towards have been presented in a nice tabular presentation. Please insert a paragraph or two on the Aichi targets that the proposed projects under the PFD will assist the participating countries in reaching. Especially relevant for the proposed investment in Libya. 

Shansen (8.26): Addressed

- on pp 35 please include a sentence alluding to the fact that the project will through its GENDER activities be reporting using the GEF6 Gender indicators

Shansen (8.26): Addressed

- Please elaborate on if other non-gef eligible countries from the Mediterranean region will be participating. In previous investments in the region we have seen southern European countries participating, but self funded, in GEF activities, to ensure the most optimal pooling of capacities to address the stresses to be addressed.

Shansen (8.26): Addressed 

- On subproject "management support and expansion of marine protected areas in Libya" please make so to during project preparation identify the targeted habitats, construct a BD TT for the MPAs in question. Further, there is also a need for justifying the selection of the protected areas, based on the Biodiversity priorities vis a vis the BD strategy. 

 - Please ensure that the monitoring programs envisioned in connection to Libya need to be related to improved BD outcomes, while being sustainable.		
	4.	Are socio-economic aspects, including relevant gender elements, indigenous people, and CSOs considered?	Shansen (7.29): Yes, the project activities will significantly impact socio-economic conditions for the Med coastal populations aiming towards the creation of sustainable and climate resilient livelihoods. 

Yes, as part of PPG phase the project will hire a gender specialist to ensure that gender considerations are well integrated into the development of the Child Projects, in the implementation process and in the delivery of the outputs. The specialist will be involved throughout the duration of the programme.

The program builds on a strong CSO participation on both the regional and national levels.		
	5.	Does the program take into account potential major risks, including the consequences of climate change, and describes sufficient risk response measures? (e.g., measures to enhance climate resilience)	Shansen (7.29): Yes, the risk section elaborates on all relevant risks. However, please note that GEF will need to see the Terminal Evaluation of the previous GEF Mediterranean program investment prior to recommending the project for inclusion in an upcoming work program.

Shansen (8.26): Addressed		
	6.	If there is a non-grant instrument in the program, is the GEF Agency(ies) capable of managing it?	Shansen (7.29): No		
	7.	Is the program coordinated with other related initiatives and national/regional plans in the country or in the region?	Shansen (7.29): Yes, this second phase SAP implementation is well integrated within the Barcelona Convention regional framework, the two GEF supported Strategic Action Programs (SAP-MED and SAP-BIO (2005 and 2003) and the subsequent NAPs. Further, endorsement letters have been received from all seven participating countries.		
	8.	Is the program implementation/ execution arrangement adequate?	Shansen (7.29): 

Yes, GEF has good experiences with UNEP as main implementing agency and UNEP MAP as one of several executive partners. However, GEF needs to see the Terminal Evaluation to evaluate any need towards actions that increase the effectiveness of the suggested implementing/executive arrangements.   

Shansen (8.26): Addressed

Child project 1.3: Please be aware that EBRD cannot take on both the lead implementing agency and executive partner roles. Provided that EBRD will be the lead implementing agency for child project 1.3: please make necessary changes throughout the project document (incl the description of child project 1.3) replacing EBRD with i.e. relevant government agencies as the main executive partner.

Shansen (8.26): Addressed		
	9.	Does the program include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?	Shansen (8.26): A detailed M&E plan should be presented at the time of CEO endorsement.		
	10.	Does the program have description of knowledge management plan?	Shansen (7.29): Yes. However, please include text under project component 4 (child project 4.1) stating that a Communication and Outreach strategy will be developed taking into account the effective dissemination of results on both regional and national level. Please note that national level communication should include planning/finance ministry reps and aim towards the mobilization of national budgets for future SAP related investments. Also, and within this context, please explain how the Communication and Outreach strategy will form an overarching framework incorporating the envisioned awareness raising communication tools?

Shansen (8.26): Addressed		
Resource Availability	11.	Is the proposed Grant (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	the STAR allocation?			
	•	the focal area allocation?	Shansen (7.29): Yes		
	•	the LDCF under the principle of equitable access?			
	•	the SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?			
	•	focal area set-aside?			
Secretariat Recommendation	

PFD Clearance	Is the PFD recommended for clearance to include in the work program?	Shansen (7.29): No, please address comments and resubmit.

Additionally on table D of the PFD and table A of the Child project "Reducing pollution from harmful chemicals and so on...."please separate the POPS and Mercury resources into separate rows.

Shansen (8.26): Yes, all comments have been sufficiently addressed and the program is technically cleared and recommended for WP inclusion.		
Review Date (s)	Review*			
	Additional Review (as necessary)			
	Additional Review (as necessary)			
* This is the first time the Program Manager provides full comments for the program.  Subsequent follow-up reviews should be recorded. For specific comments for each 
section, please insert a date after comments.