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

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	9909	
Country/Region:	Regional (Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Maldives, Malaysia, Thailand)	
Program Title:	Sustainable Management of the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Programme	
GEF Agency:	FAO and ADB	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):	IW-3 Program 5; IW-3 Program 6; IW-3 Program 7; CCM-2 Program 3; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:		Program Grant:	$14,266,055	
Co-financing:	$165,000,000	Total Program Cost:	$179,266,055	
PIF Approval:		Council Approval/Expected:	June 01, 2018	
Program Manager:	Leah Karrer	Agency Contact Person:	Sameer Karki FAO	

Review Criteria	Questions	Secretariat Comments 	Agency Response 	
Program Consistency	1.	Is the program aligned with the relevant GEF strategic objectives and results framework?	LKarrer (Sept 7, 2017). Yes; however, during PPG the RF outputs need to be quantified and targets need to be determined. The IW Tracking Tool also needs to be completed.		

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?	LKarrer (Sept 7, 2017). Yes		
	3.	Is the program framework (Table B) sound and sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve program objectives and the GEBs?	LKarrer (Sept 7, 2017). No. Please address the following points:

1) The Implementing Agencies (FAO and ADB) cannot be the Executing Agencies. The child projects (Annex A, B) note FAO as both IA and EA. This needs to be corrected to identify a different organization as EA. 

2) For the overall Programme the Executing Agency needs to be identified and cannot be FAO or ADB. If this is going to be determined during PPG, then plans to do so need to be clearly stated.  

3) OFP endorsement letters are missing from India, Malaysia and Thailand. 

4) The SAP with ministerial level signatures from all countries needs to be provided. 

5) There is a heavy biast toward fisheries activities, which are much more explicit and impressive. For example there will be 2 fisheries plans for all countries; whereas only 2 new MMAs in total. This needs to reconsidered or justified, especially given that the SAP identifies needs for pollution and habitat restoration in all the countries.

6) Outcome 2.1 (para 47 and title in Results Framework) notes "At least two MMAs contribute to…"; yet the italisized text in the Results Framework notes "two MMAs established or strengthened".  The text needs to be edited for consistency and clarity to "established and strengthened" . 

7) Outcome 2.2 notes "MMA established/strengthen" implying activities could be establishing new MMAs or strengthening existing MMAs. Yet the outputs imply new MMAs. This needs to be clarified. 

8) In addition the Bangladesh activities have inconsistent outputs that are notably vague (i.e. avoided over-exploitation and informed valuation of ecosystem services). These outputs need to be modified to be specific and preferably in line with other commitments (i.e. improved management in ha or GHG emissions mitigated). 

9) Outcome 3.1 needs to be edited to clarify the outputs both in the RF and in next (para 52). Currently unclear the actual outputs and inconsistent between RF and text. According to para 52 outputs are sharing tools (TEST), disseminating materials in fishing harbors and sharing guidelines about abandonded gear. There need to be concrete activities to reduce land based sources of pollution. Also what is the justification for focusing only on fishing ports when land based sources of marine pollution is occurring along the entire coastline and part of the reason for the massive hypoxic zone in Bay of Bengal. Fishing ports are not a noted priority in the SAP. This project is not only addressing fisheries but the suite of threats to marine and coastal waters, which are not limited to ports. 

10) For the ADB project it needs to be clear what GEF will cover relative to co-financing. Note that GEF does not support cover marine litter or conventional waste water infrastructure; rather GEF focus is on innovations and new technologies and policy development and implementation.

Finally, please note that during PPG the following measures need to be addressed:
a) Outcome 5 on knowledge sharing plans is particularly weak and needs significant attention and strengthening during PPG, including internal and external sharing of experiences. This includes, but is not limited to, ensuring sharing with IWLEARN.

b) Plans for long-term financial sustainability need to be developed during PPG.

c) During PPG In considering stakeholder engagement the private sector needs to be better included in plans. There is a vague list in the Stakeholder Table, which needs to be detailed. More importantly, these organizations need to be contacted and engaged in PPG planning as a priority.

LKarrer (Feb 11, 2018): No. All of the above points have been addressed except the revised Thailand letter of endorsement needs to be submitted.

LKarrer (March 5, 2018): Yes. The revised letter was submitted.		
	4.	Are socio-economic aspects, including relevant gender elements, indigenous people, and CSOs considered?	LKarrer (Sept 7, 2017). Yes		
	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)			
	6.	If there is a non-grant instrument in the program, is the GEF Agency(ies) capable of managing it?			
	7.	Is the program coordinated with other related initiatives and national/regional plans in the country or in the region?			
	8.	Is the program implementation/ execution arrangement adequate?			
	9.	Does the program include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?			
	10.	Does the program have description of knowledge management plan?			
Resource Availability	11.	Is the proposed Grant (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	the STAR allocation?	LKarrer (Sept 7, 2017). Yes for CCM.		
	•	the focal area allocation?	LKarrer (Sept 7, 2017). Yes for IW; however, during PPG 1) 1% of funding needs to be allocated to IWLearn activities to ensure knowledge exchange. 2) Attention needs to be paid for ensuring grant co-financing, not only in-kind.		
	•	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?	LKarrer (Sept 7, 2017). No. The above comments need to be addressed.

LKarrer (Feb 11, 2018). No. The revised Thailand letter of endorsement needs to be submitted.

LKarrer (March 5, 2018): Yes. The programme is recommended for technical clearance.		
Review Date (s)	Review*	September 07, 2017		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	February 11, 2018		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	March 05, 2018		
* 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.