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

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	9584	
Country/Region:	Philippines	
Project Title:	Integrated Approach in the Management of Major Biodiversity Corridors (IA-Biological Corridors)	
GEF Agency:	UNDP	GEF Agency Project ID:	5886 (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 2; BD-4 Program 9; LD-3 Program 4; SFM-1; SFM-2; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:	$273,000	Project Grant:	$12,260,241	
Co-financing:	$67,500,320	Total Project Cost:	$79,760,561	
PIF Approval:		Council Approval/Expected:	November 01, 2017	
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Paul Hartman	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?	No, please provide rationale for BD, LD & SFM programs (details below).  A robust SFM justification is needed as to the importance of conserving forests in these 2 corridors related to the overall forestry situation in PI.  Why is it a priority?

Please explicitly articulated which Aichi Target(s) the project will help 
achieve and identify SMART indicators that will be used to track the project's contribution 
toward achieving the Aichi Target(s)

Re. KBAs, please apply KBA criteria

Nov 15, 2016,
Yes. The rationale for BD/SFM has been strengthened, Aichi Targets are now explicitly articulated and possible indicators have been identified. Explicit detail on how the corridors align with KBA criteria has been provided.
Cleared.	We thank the reviewer for the comment. In line with it, we have now added substantive text under Project Description in Threats and in discussion of the Corridors outlining the BD/SFM significance of the corridors in general and the two pilot sites specifically.  

Likewise as advised we have introduced more explicit reference to Aichi Targets (including possible Indicators) added under section 6: Consistency with National Priorities.

Finally a new table can be found in Annex 1 that shows how in detail how the KBA criteria has been applied to the selected corridors	
	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? 	Drivers of GED need to be more clearly identify.  Symptoms have been used instead of drivers (see below).  

Sustainability is questionable from the enforcement side which is not incorporated in components.

November 15, 2016
Drivers of GED at the national and corridor levels have been clarified, as well the connection between the two. The discussion on enforcement, as a means of ensuring sustainability, has been strengthened.
Cleared	We agree. The new discussion on Threats covers the causes and drivers in addition to the impacts.

Enforcement brought in more specifically in a number of places and new Output 1.4 added as follows: "A compliance monitoring and enforcement strategy developed and adopted comprising elements such as patrolling and mobility, assisting compliance through education and information, arrest and apprehension of law-breakers, and prosecution".	
	4.	Is the project designed with sound incremental reasoning?	The framework is very good. The text needs improvement and the enforcement aspects should be included in all components (text & framework).
1.	Under Project description, please delete the 1st 2 paras which are generic.  The first sentence should introduce the 2 corridors the project is focusing on and the specific area relevance and importance of these corridors for all the BD, LD, & SFM GEF programs identified. A map highlighting the forest coverage of the corridors‘areas is needed.
2.	Under threats to BD, please delete the 1st para which is generic. This para needs to focus on the 2 corridors as well. Regarding Forests within the 2 corridors, please provide specific information to strengthen the case (some generic info is presented under the pilot biological corridors section , a summary of the specifics is needed): species, forest coverage and % related to total PI forest coverage, role & global importance of these forests; specific number as to how much conversion of forest to agriculture would be avoided through the project as well as how much forest would be saved from IUU.
3.	Clearly identify the root of the problem and assess if it can be handled within the poverty and migration influx context. The text focus on symptoms vs causes as root causes of GED. The 2nd para under threats appears to identify poverty and migration as putting pressures on forestry resources and leading to conversion to agriculture for food security and illegal logging for fuel and heat- this is the root cause.  Aside from mining, are there any agricultural or logging commercial operations in these 2 corridors that are undertaken illegally?
4.	Regarding mining, how can you ensure that a proposed national or corridor level land use allocation framework will solve the current issues which seems to be systemic in mineral rich areas in PI ? 
5.	The DENR's moratorium does not seem to be enforced and the national forest program does not appear to have incentives for the local population to conserve forest resources. 
6.	Section 4 pollution is not the only element that threatens ecosystems and species, land degradation resulting from conversion and logging are also factors.
7.	Should the Forestry management bureau, relevant agriculture and mining entities (well reflected in output 1.3), and communities representatives be included as executing partners to ensure project success?  Stakeholders are well identified but please provide a draft organization chart including specific roles of forestry management bureau, relevant agriculture and mining entities, and communities representatives.
8.	Please describe the content of the "investment plans" in component 1.
9.	Beyond strategies and plans, how will the enforcement of measures and regulations take place? Please elaborate and include into components as well as risks.
10.	44.3M tons of sequestered carbon are included in GEB, please add reference to Annex 3 for details
11.	There is a combination of letters and number in Annex titles.

November 15, 2016
The importance of the corridors for BD and SFM is more clearly represented and detailed information on the forests, including national and global significance has been provided. 

Discussion has been expanded of existing agriculture, logging and mining operations on-going in these areas. With regard to mining and logging, please provide information on how the project will encourage and support operations in the area to 'adhere to industry standards'.

Significant clarification has been provided on root cause of GED in the two corridors, with poverty shown to play a significant role as a driver of environmental loss in the areas. While the long term economic and ecosystem benefits of sustainable management and secure land tenure for communities are discussed, it is not year clear how the project will address the immediate and near-term threats that poverty plays as direct and indirect drivers of the illegal activity, poor land practices, etc. that drive environmental degradation of the two areas. Please expand on information related to incentive systems, technical support and other mechanisms to be provided to Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the two target areas that will help reduce the threats caused by poverty and landlessness, and encourage conservation and improved management of natural resources. 

The Preliminary Implementation Framework sufficiently lays out roles and responsibilities of institutions, beneficiaries and other key actors. 

Investment plans have been better described.

Enforcement plans for the two corridors have been more clearly laid out.

It has now been clarified that the FAO Ex-Ante Carbon Balance tool has been utilized as the basis for carbon benefit estimates. The expectation expressed in the calculation of GHG emissions prevented is that the entire 200k area of HCV to be identified will be maintained over a twenty year period, and that it would otherwise be cleared for logging, agricultural conversion, etc. Yet an estimate is then provided based on PI annual deforestation rate 2%, meaning 4,000 ha of deforestation will prevented annually by the project, or 80,000 ha over twenty years. Please clarify why the 200k ha of avoided deforestation was used as the basis for the GHG Benefit calculation and not the 80k ha of prevented deforestation based on PI annual forest lost data, or revise the estimate accordingly.

January 20, 2017
The project's approach to ensuring mining and logging operations in the area adhere to industry standards is now clear, as are the measures that will be employed to address the potential threats to natural resources in the corridors that are driven by poverty.

We appreciate the clarification of how the forest area that serves as a basis for the carbon benefit was derived. We ask that the estimate of the carbon calculation be limited to a 10 year period and that the incremental reasoning is clarified on the benefits derived directly through the project's interventions. Given the broad range of threats to the area that are well discussed in the proposal, and the challenges to the Philippines natural resources base posed more broadly by illegal extraction, an estimate of carbon benefits that conservatively factors in some degree of forest loss may be warranted.

February 17, 2017
The incremental reasoning or estimated carbon benefits derived from the project is clear and reasonable. The FAO Ex-Ante Carbon Balance tool was well utilized in the development of this estimate.
Cleared	Thank you for the useful comments. We have brought in reference to enforcement as appropriate in many places and new Output 1.4 added (please see above). In addition the specific comments have been addressed as below.

1.  Paras deleted as suggested and text revised extensively.  Maps added in the text and Annex 1
2. Revision carried out as suggested – paras deleted and new text brought in
3. Text describing drivers of environmental degradation has been revised to focus on root causes.
4. We would like to clarify that the corridor approach proposed by the project (comprehensive, integrated) will lead to better decisions by local authorities (with the addition of enhanced capacity. This has been discussed and brought out clearly in the revised PIF.
5. Thank you for raising this. We discussed this with the DENR partners. The DENR clarifies that the project will enhance DENR capacity for enforcement. It will also raise awareness on benefits for communities.
6. We thank the reviewer for the comment and have now clearly identified Land degradation and conversion as threats.
7. FMB and community reps now added up front as Other Executing Partners.  Project Implementation Framework clearly identifies these as active stakeholders. The current project is presented simultaneously with a FAO/GEF "sister project" "Enhancing biodiversity, maintaining ecosystem flows, enhancing carbon stocks through sustainable land management and the restoration of degraded forestlands". In addition to inherent complementarities, the project will proactively explore ways to work with and link to the GEF/FAO/FMB project. For example the tools and approaches that the GEF/FAO/FMB project will develop will have impacts on the overall strategy of the NGP and are therefore expected to apply more widely to ecosystem oriented management of other corridors in the Philippines. Further, proactive efforts will be made during the implementation of the two projects to ensure complementarities and synergies.   These will start with a joint PPG Inception Workshop to bring together the project preparation teams of both projects.  As illustrated in the following preliminary implementation framework, there will be a joint PSC/PB chaired by the Under Secretary of DENR with the participation of both BMB and FMB (as well as of UNDP and the beneficiaries' representatives).  It is also planned to have joint coordination committees in the two corridor landscapes.  Furthermore, in an effort to ensure operational synergy, the two projects will hold joint annual review and planning meetings.

DENR organogram now in Annex 2.  Project Implementation Framework added in section 5 Coordination and shows the extent of participation by key stakeholders
8. New text added on investment plans
9. As noted above, enforcement has now been brought out better and more specifically throughout and new Output 1.4 added
10. Reference to Annex 3 added
11. Fixed

December 15, 2016 Response
We thank the reviewer for the comment. In order to support efforts to make sure mining operations adhere to industry standards, the project among other will support the review of the EIA and mining permitting procedures to integrate environmental, social safeguards including the mitigation hierarchy and other industry standards are incorporated in their proposals and their implementation are monitored. Beyond that the project will also assist in application of 
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) standards in the mining operations. On logging, the project will promote SFM certification to ensure adherence to SFM standards (also under output 3.5). In order to ensure adherence to these standards, the project will support the FD to institutionalize the conduct of regular social and technical audit of both logging and mining. This will be carried out under output 1.4 on enforcement and monitoring. In addition
the project will strengthen multi-stakeholder monitoring mechanisms for both logging and mining such as through the Multi-Sectoral Forest Monitoring Committees, Multi-Partite Monitoring Committee, so that public, private and CSO partnerships are enhanced in monitoring and addressing mining impacts.

To address the immediate and near term threats, the project plans to explore provision of targeted financial support to IPs and local communities that are linked to changes in practices and behaviour so that such support acts as an incentive to change. While specific activities are to be confirmed through a participatory approach, some examples of such targeted support mechanisms include socialized micro-credit, crop insurance, access to investment funds, etc. In
order to make sure these mechanisms are sustainable and viable in the long run, the project will seek collaboration and align with existing initiatives under relevant agencies including the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation (PCIC), Land Bank of the Philippines, Agricultural Credit Policy Council, Development Bank of the Philippines. Further, other measures will include: support in granting and strengthening of land tenure rights to forest communities, and in securing certificates of ancestral domain titles (CADTs), for indigenous peoples, developing
local community forest management plans, and ADSDPPs, which incorporate conservation actions, and recognition of ICCAs. These are linked to the project strategy to promote BD friendly enterprises, ensuring local government revenues from extractive industries are allocated to poverty reduction programmes, certification systems for communities engaged in SFM and sustainable agriculture etc.

The project's carbon benefit calculation is indeed based on the 80,000 ha that would be lost (based on the official annual deforestation rate of 2% per year). Thus the establishing of HVCF will reduce the deforestation and generate a carbon benefit over a 20 year period of 39,657,653 tCO2-eq. In addition the project will rehabilitate 30,000 ha of moderately degraded forest with measures such as enrichment planting to reduce degradation that will result in total carbon benefit of 2,327,237 tCO2eq over a 20 year period. There was an error in calculation which has been rectified. The total carbon benefit of the project over a 20 year period is 41,984,890 tCO2eq

February 2, 2017
We have taken the advice on board and revised the carbon benefit calculation. Two contributions are recognized – avoided GHG emissions and sequestered CO2. A 10-year period is taken as the minimum duration of these benefits although in effect they could go on for longer. The period takes into account that it might take some time from project start for the HCVF to be classified and areas delineated and for deforestation to stop. It also recognizes that not all of the rehabilitation of degraded forest will happen at the start of the project. The FAO Ex-Ante Carbon-balance Toll (EX-ACT) Tier ONE Edition was used and the forest type selected for the calculations is Tropical Moist Forests.
GHG emissions avoided: Establishment of HVCF will change the regime from economic use to protection and this will reduce or halt deforestation in these areas. Using the PI annual deforestation rate of 2%, 4,000 ha of deforestation will be prevented annually. Assuming that direct contribution of the project take effect after 5 years when majority of project activities complete, this translates to 20,000 ha of deforestation prevented. While commercial logging and other felling operations will largely be halted some forest loss may take place due to illicit felling other associated threats. Thus total deforestation prevented is reduced by a factor of 15% to 17,000 ha. The GHG emissions reductions from this prevented deforestation is 11,303,651 tCO2eq over a 10 year period. However, after clearing, the land would have converted to either annual crops of perennial/tree crop. In the calculation, perennial tree crops was used and the carbon sequestrated by the trees was calculated as 1,136,733 tCO2eq over a 10 year period. The avoided GHG emission due to the project is therefore 10,166,918 tCO2-eq.

CO2 sequestered 30,000 ha of slightly degraded forest will be rehabilitated with enrichment planting by the project. This will result in a total carbon benefit of 2,148,487 tCO2eq over a 10 year period or 214,845 tCO2eq per year. 
Assuming that the actual carbon sequestration will significantly come into effect after year 5 when the majority of rehabilitation efforts are completed, the total actual sequestration accrued by the project in the next 5 years is 1,074,225 tCO2eq.

The total carbon benefit over a 10 year period by the project is 11,241,143 tCO2eq	
	5.	Are the components in Table B sound and sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve project objectives and the GEBs?	Not for the enforcement aspects.

November 15, 2016
Yes. Cleared	Please see above. Enforcement elements has been brought out more explicitly in various sections and a new dedicated output has been added.	
	6.	Are socio-economic aspects, including relevant gender elements, indigenous people, and CSOs considered? 	yes		
Availability of Resources
	7.	Is the proposed Grant  (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	The STAR allocation?	yes		
	•	The focal area allocation?	yes		
	•	The LDCF under the principle of equitable access			
	•	The SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?			
	•	Focal area set-aside?	Please note that the demand for SFM resources exceed the funding available and will need to be re-checked at work program stage.

Please provide the details as how you reached the 44.3M tons of carbon sequestered

November 15, 2016
We note that the total SFM resources requested in the PIF is over US $2 million inclusive of agency fees and PPG. Given current SFM funding availability, please revise tables A, B, D & E to reflect a reduced request for SFM resources that is no more than a combined total of US $1.5 million, and ensure consistency throughout the document.

Please also note that even with this revision, the demand for SFM resources exceed the funding available and may need to be re-checked and revised at work program stage.

Please see #4 above for question on carbon benefit calculation.

January 20, 2017
Tables have been revised to reflect a $1.5m allocation from SFM, which will need to be rechecked at the work program stage. 

Questions of the carbon calculation can be found in box 4 above.

February 17, 2017
Cleared	We take note of the advice on SFM resources. We would like to further add that based on prior advice, request for SFM resources has already been reduced to only US$ 1 million.

On the carbon sequestered we have now made reference to Annex 3.  Annex 3 shows the calculations carried out which led to the figure for carbon sequestration.

December 15, 2016
This advice has been noted and relevant tables revised accordingly to reflect total US$ 1.5 million allocation from SFM funds.

Please see above response [regarding carbon benefit calculation].	
Recommendations	8.	Is the PIF being recommended for clearance and PPG (if additional amount beyond the norm) justified?	Please address above comments

February 17, 2017
Yes, the PIF is recommended for Work Program Inclusion		
Review Date
	Review		October 25, 2016	
	Additional Review (as necessary)	November 15, 2016	December 15, 2016	
	Additional Review (as necessary)	January 20, 2017	February 02, 2017	

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)