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

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	9361	
Country/Region:	Vietnam	
Project Title:	Mainstreaming Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation objectives into socio-economic development planning and management of Biosphere Reserve in Viet Nam	
GEF Agency:	UNDP	GEF Agency Project ID:	5659 (UNDP)	
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; BD-4 Program 9; LD-3 Program 4; SFM-1; SFM-3; BD-3 Program 6; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:	$189,315	Project Grant:	$6,660,000	
Co-financing:	$30,000,000	Total Project Cost:	$36,660,000	
PIF Approval:		Council Approval/Expected:	June 01, 2016	
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Nicole Glineur	Agency Contact Person:	Doley Tsehering	

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?	1. The project is aligned with relevant GEF strategic objectives.  In line with PIF narration, please consider adding Programs 2 (BD1) & 6 (BD3). For BD, only Aichi target 11 is mentioned, please add relevant ones. 

2.For CEO endorsement, please provide a result framework table in line with the Results framework in GEF-6 BD strategy, including SMART indicators.

02/03/16 UA: 
Has been addressed.

Cleared		
	2.	Is the project consistent with the recipient country’s national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions?	Yes	
	
Project Design	3.	Does the PIF sufficiently indicate the drivers of global environmental degradation, issues of sustainability, market transformation, scaling, and innovation? 	Overall strengthening the implementation of the biosphere concepts is very relevant  for Vietnam and the proposed project is  well designed.

The scaling-up section needs to address how to scale up from the 3 pilot sites to the entire 8 sites.

Please provide a map with the 8 BRs, highlight the 3 pilot sites, and explore the potential for corridors.

KBAs are mentioned in the PIF in a generic way. Please provide KBA information for the BRs and apply the KBA criteria.

02/03/16 UA: 
Has been addressed.

Cleared		
	4.	Is the project designed with sound incremental reasoning?	yes		
	5.	Are the components in Table B sound and sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve project objectives and the GEBs?	Please strengthen the GEB section.  Regulatory & enforcement frameworks are not GEBs but means to achieve them.

Components are set to achieve project objectives but the Table should be strengthened on the GEB front at CEO endorsement

02/03/16 UA: 
Has been addressed already at PIF stage. Updates are expected at CEO endorsement stage.

Furthermore, at CEO endorsement stage, the proposed SFM activities (4,000 ha forest restoration and 78,000 ha HCFV management) will need to be developed in detail and commensurate with the SFM investment. 

Cleared		
	6.	Are socio-economic aspects, including relevant gender elements, indigenous people, and CSOs considered? 	Gender & CSOs: yes

Please provide indigenous people aspects where relevant

02/03/16 UA: 
Has been addressed.

Cleared		
Availability of Resources
	7.	Is the proposed Grant  (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	The STAR allocation?	BD: yes
LD: yes		
	•	The focal area allocation?	Yes for BD & LD		
	•	The LDCF under the principle of equitable access			
	•	The SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?			
	•	Focal area set-aside?	SFM: The SFM incentive is currently available; however, the availability will need to be re-checked at the time of eventual work program inclusion.		
Recommendations	8.	Is the PIF being recommended for clearance and PPG (if additional amount beyond the norm) justified?	PIF will be recommended for clearance pending on addressing above comments.

02/03/16 UA: 
All comments have been addressed. Program Manager recommends the project for CEO clearance.

Please take note of above comments related to requested information at CEO endorsement stage, in particular in box 5 with regard to the SFM investment.		
Review Date
	Review	January 11, 2016		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	February 03, 2016		
	Additional Review (as necessary)			

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)