GEF-6 GEF Secretariat Review for Full-sized/medium-sized projects
The GEF/ldcf/sccf Trust Fund

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	9190	
Country/Region:	Uzbekistan	
Project Title:	Sustainable Management of Forests in Mountain and Valley Areas 	
GEF Agency:	FAO	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):	CCM-2 Program 4; LD-2 Program 3; SFM-3; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:	$150,000	Project Grant:	$3,187,023	
Co-financing:	$13,000,000	Total Project Cost:	$16,187,023	
PIF Approval:		Council Approval/Expected:		
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Ulrich Apel	Agency Contact Person:	Norbert Winkler	

PIF Review	
Review Criteria	Questions	Secretariat Comment 	
Agency Response 	
Project Consistency	1.	Is the project aligned with the relevant GEF strategic objectives and results framework?	07/22/2015 UA:
Yes. Aligned with CCM-2, Program 4; LD-2, Program 3; SFM-3.		
	2.	Is the project consistent with the recipient country’s national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions?	07/22/2015 UA:
Yes. refer to section "Consistency with National Priorities".	
	
Project Design	3.	Does the PIF sufficiently indicate the drivers of global environmental degradation, issues of sustainability, market transformation, scaling, and innovation? 	07/22/2015 UA:
No. Although the PIF is very lengthy, pages 4 - 11 only give a very general overview that is not clearly addressing drivers of environmental degradation and provides insufficient justification for GEF involvement. Please build a stronger case on why and how GEF funds are needed to introduce SFM in Uzbekistan and on which current baseline this builds. Most information is somewhere in the PIF text, however, it would be helpful to concisely present this in the concept and to better bring this into the country's context and regional context with regard to SFM. 

Please shorten the PIF to the usual maximum of 12-15 pages of text. At the same time, please concisely describe the drivers and problems to be addressed by the project.

08/26/2015 UA:
PIF has been adequately revised. Please remove some inserts in the text that appear to be comments such as: "Error!" or "It is outdated, no?" etc.

11/6/2015 UA:
Has been addressed.

Cleared	Has been received in a separate file and filed in PMIS.	
	4.	Is the project designed with sound incremental reasoning?	07/22/2015 UA:
Yes. Incremental reasoning has been applied but should be strengthened in line with remarks above in box #3.

08/26/2015 UA:
Has been adequately addressed.

Cleared	Has been received in a separate file and filed in PMIS.	
	5.	Are the components in Table B sound and sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve project objectives and the GEBs?	07/22/2015 UA:
Not fully. 
Project objective - maybe formulate better as to INTRODUCE sustainable forest management rather than ESTABLISH?

Explain output 2.2: trade-off and potential conflicts if this land is currently being used for food production/livestock grazing?

Explain output 2.4: if this is solely a co-financed component that is not managed by this project, how to ensure coordination and more importantly, the results of this output?

In general, the outcomes and outputs do not make clear what benefits the project will create for smallholder farmers and communities. As LD funding is involved, the project would need to target such beneficiaries (see also comments on socio-economic benefits below).

Please also better outline scaling-up and replication of results to be achieved by the project.

On GEBs, please estimate direct and indirect GHG emission reduction targets as the 5.5 million tCO2 eq seems very high for a small project. It also seems that the target of 191,750 ha has been double counted under SLM and SFM (see Table 4 on page 17).

In addition to above comments, please also revise the paragraph on CACILM )p. 22). The recently submitted PIF "CACILM2" has already been approved by the GEF Council. Please outline clearly the coordination arrangements with CACILM2.

08/26/2015 UA:
Has mostly been adequately addressed.

Outstanding issue: While benefits for smallholder farmers and local communities will be created and this has been responded to in the comments matrix, it is not fully incorporated into the project framework in Table B. Please explicitly include livelihood benefits into outcomes and outputs and quantify, if possible (this may be estimated and more details provided at CEO endorsement stage).

11/6/2015 UA:
HAs been addressed.

Cleared	Has been received in a separate file and filed in PMIS.	
	6.	Are socio-economic aspects, including relevant gender elements, indigenous people, and CSOs considered? 	07/22/2015 UA:
Not fully. What socio-economic ('local') benefits the project will create for smallholder farmers, including women? How exactly CSOs will be involved into the project. 

Please note that the stakeholder section in the PIF should focus on stakeholders from CSOs and on-the-ground beneficiaries in a concrete way, not only as a potential activity as currently formulated.

08/26/2015 UA:
Has been adequately addressed. However, as mentioned above, the benefits for the target group should be incorporated into outcomes and outputs.	Has been received in a separate file and filed in PMIS.	
Availability of Resources
	7.	Is the proposed Grant  (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	The STAR allocation?	07/22/2015 UA:
Yes.

09/22/2015 UA:
No. Per our most recent records, the request for STAR resources for this PIF & PPG exceeds the available STAR for Uzbekistan. The request is for $2,655,027 while only $2,436,027 are available. Please check with the OFP and adjust accordingly.

11/6/2015 UA:
The request for STAR resources has been adjusted. At this point in time the requested resources are available.

Cleared	Has been received in a separate file and filed in PMIS.	
	•	The focal area allocation?	07/22/2015 UA:
Yes.		
	•	The LDCF under the principle of equitable access	n/a		
	•	The SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?	n/a		
	•	Focal area set-aside?	Please enter Programming of funds in Table D for SFM, please select SFM from the drop down menu.

08/26/2015 UA:
Has been corrected.		
Recommendations	8.	Is the PIF being recommended for clearance and PPG (if additional amount beyond the norm) justified?	07/22/2015 UA:
No. Please address comments in this review.

08/26/2015 UA:
No. Please address outstanding issues.

09/22/2015 UA:
Please also check STAR availability as indicated in box #7.

11/6/2015 UA:
Yes. Program Manager recommends CEO clearance.		
Review Date
	Review	July 22, 2015		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	August 26, 2015		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	September 22, 2015		

CEO endorsement Review	
Review Criteria 	Questions	Secretariat Comment at CEO Endorsement	
Response to Secretariat comments  	
Project Design and Financing	1.	If there are any changes from that presented in the PIF, have justifications been provided?			
	2.	Is the project structure/ design appropriate to achieve the expected outcomes and outputs?			
	3.	Is the financing adequate and does the project demonstrate a cost-effective approach to meet the project objective? 			
	4.	Does the project 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)			
	5.	Is co-financing confirmed and evidence provided?			
	6.	Are relevant tracking tools completed?			
	7.	Only for Non-Grant Instrument: Has a reflow calendar been presented?			
	8.	Is the project coordinated with other related initiatives and national/regional plans in the country or in the region?			
	9.	Does the project include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?			
	10.	Does the project have descriptions of a knowledge management plan?			
Agency Responses 
	11.	Has the Agency adequately responded to comments at the PIF stage from:			
	•	GEFSEC 			
	•	STAP			
	•	GEF Council			
	•	Convention Secretariat			

Recommendation 	12.	Is CEO endorsement recommended?			
Review Date	Review			
	Additional Review (as necessary)			
	Additional Review (as necessary)