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

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	9270	
Country/Region:	Malaysia	
Project Title:	Sustainable Management of Peatland Ecosystems in Malaysia (SMPEM)	
GEF Agency:	IFAD	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; CCM-2 Program 4; LD-3 Program 4; SFM-2; BD-4 Program 9; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:	$200,000	Project Grant:	$9,433,027	
Co-financing:	$47,850,000	Total Project Cost:	$57,283,027	
PIF Approval:		Council Approval/Expected:	June 01, 2016	
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Yoko Watanabe	Agency Contact Person:	Roshan Cooke	

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?	The project is identified to align with BD4-9, CCM2-4, LD3-4, and SFM.  Relevant SFM objective and program needs to be identified.

20 Sept 2015
SFM 3 has been identified.		
	2.	Is the project consistent with the recipient country’s national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions?	Not sufficient.  Please provide clear information on how this project align with the national strategies related to CBD, UNFCCC, and UNCCD.  Please identify relevant objective/section of these documents related to the project initiative.  The information currently provided is insufficient to recognise the linkages.

20 Sept 2015
Yes, adequate information provided.	
	
Project Design	3.	Does the PIF sufficiently indicate the drivers of global environmental degradation, issues of sustainability, market transformation, scaling, and innovation? 	Drivers: Adequate. 

Sustainability: No.  Initiatives to ensure financial sustainability is unclear.  Please clarify and incorporate relevant outcome, output, activities in the project framework.  

Scaling and Innovation: No.  Concrete outputs and activities need to identified to ensure upscaling of initiatives at the national level, beyond the targeted landscape, such as through development of appropriate legislation, guideline and tools, and capacity development.  Vague description on knowledge management is insufficient to ensure upscaling.

20 Sept 2015
Still insufficient. 

- Description related to ensuring sustainable financing needs to be translated and incorporated into the project framework as distinct and concrete outcome or output.  Considering multiple investments made by the GEF in the past on related activities, this is an important element to be considered and further strengthened in the project design.

- On policy development, it is unclear whether the project is only to "enhance policy dialogue" or it will support to actually "enhance and develop policies."  The description provided under 1.3. is rather unclear.  It would be important that this GEF investment would have a lasting impact at the national level, and for that reason, it seems that formalizing and enforcing the National Action Plan and/or development and implementation of relevant additional policies seem essential.  Please clarify.

- Please also further clarify the barriers in implementing the relevant existing policies (i.e. NAP) and the project to adequately address the challenges in the project design.		
	4.	Is the project designed with sound incremental reasoning?	No.  While baseline activities by the government is generally described, it is unclear what the EU and German cofinancing projects are planned to implement, and what the GEF will be financing under this project.   Further, it is not at all clear how these different related projects will be coordinated and managed as cofinanced projects.  Please provide adequate information to justify incremental financing from the GEF.  Moreover, it is important to provide further information on the lessons learned from the previous GEF investment in the country (i.e. regional project on peatland), and clarify how this project builds on the initiative.

20 Sept 2015
Additional information provided.  However, linkages and complimentality with other major related activities, such as UNREDD and REDD+ processes are not described.  Please clarify.		
	5.	Are the components in Table B sound and sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve project objectives and the GEBs?	Without clear information on the baseline and cofinancing initiatives, it is hard to examine whether the suggested project framework is appropriate or not.  Please provide the necessary information noted under section 4. 

On the GEBs, please provide specific and tangible information on the global biodiversity benefits, including species and ecosystem services.  The current  general and vague statement is not sufficient.   Please also provide specific information on the sustainable land management benefits.  
 
On component 1. output 1.3 seems to cover everything that the project is planned to do (i.e. "implementation of the national action plan on peatlands").   Please specify outputs/activities and revise as appropriate.  

On component 2 and 3:  It is unclear why there are two separate components and some elements are rather repetitive (i.e  both seems to be working on integrated management of peatlands).   Please clarify the scope of the activities and consolidate as appropriate.  

On component 4:  As noted under section 3 above, the scope of activities are very limited to ensure effective upscaling at the national level.  Please review and revise as appropriate.

20 Sept 2015
Adequate revision has been made.  However, please clarify on the policy and sustainable financing issues as noted above, and incorporate/revise the project framework.  On component 1, please also clarify how the NAP will be enhanced and formalized.		
	6.	Are socio-economic aspects, including relevant gender elements, indigenous people, and CSOs considered? 	Gender - considering strong relevance, please clarify and ensure gender analysis will be included as part of the socio-economic assessment at the PPG stage, and gender responsive results framework will be developed by the time of CEO endorsement.   Please also provide appropriate information based on country situation rather than cut and pasting same information for all related projects.  

IPs - Please clarify that the appropriate IPs Plan will developed through a FPIC process.

20 Sept 2015
Yes, adequate revision has been made.  By CEO endorsement, please provide further information on the involvement of specific CSOs and IP groups, and their roles.		
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, CCM, LD resources are within the GEF-6 allocation.  SFM incentive ratio is 1 to 2.

20 Sept 2015
Cofinancing is noted as 1 to 3.8 ratio.  Most of the cofinancing is noted as in-kind.  Considering that there seem to be several related activities ongoing by the national government on fire control and monitoring, please kindly review and try to increase the grant cofinancing ratio.		
	•	The focal area allocation?	Refer above		
	•	The LDCF under the principle of equitable access	n/a		
	•	The SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?	n/a		
	•	Focal area set-aside?	n/a		
Recommendations	8.	Is the PIF being recommended for clearance and PPG (if additional amount beyond the norm) justified?	No, please review the comments carefully and review the scope of the project.  The PIF requires substantial revision.

20 Sept 2015
No.  Substantial improvement has been made in the PIF, however, please further clarify and provide appropriate information on the remaining points as noted above.

21 March 2016
Yes.  GEFSEC has received a revised PIF that adequately addresses earlier comments.   The PM recommends the PIF for work program inclusion.		
Review Date
	Review	August 07, 2015		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	September 21, 2015		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	March 21, 2016		

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)