Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel

The Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, administered by UNEP, advises the Global Environment Facility
(Version 5)
STAP Scientific and Technical screening of the Project Identification Form (PIF)
Date of screening: 10 March 2009

Screener: Guadalupe Duron

Panel member validation by: Meryl Williams
I. PIF Information (Paste here from the PIF)
Full size project
GEF Trust Fund
GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 3639
GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: PIMS NO. 4164
COUNTRY(IES): Global
PROJECT TITLE: GEF IW:LEARN: Portfolio Learning in International Waters with a Focus on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands
and Regional Asia/Pacific and Coral Triangle Learning Processes
GEF AGENCY(IES): UNDP, AsDB, (select)
OTHER EXECUTING PARTNER(S): UNOPS
GEF FOCAL AREA (S): International Waters,(select), (select)
GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(S): Strategic Objectives 1 and 2; cross-cutting across al 4 IW Strategic Priorities
NAME OF PARENT PROGRAM/UMBRELLA PROJECT: ASIA CORAL TRIANGLE

II. STAP Advisory Response (see table below for explanation)

1. Based on this PIF screening, STAP's advisory response to the GEF Secretariat and GEF Agency(ies):
Minor revision required


III. Further guidance from STAP

2. This FSP is a valuable contribution to the multi-level capacity building initiatives of IW:Learn, specifically
focusing on the sectoral/network level (ocean, freshwater, marine and coastal management).
Recognizing that capacity building occurs at the individual, organizational, sectoral/network and broader
system level, however, STAP questions whether sufficient attention is yet being paid to the broader
system level. Internationally, this level would equate to the global instruments, such as JPOI and the
MDGs and this is well catered for. Nationally and regionally, however, impediments to adoption of
integrated and ecosystem based management of aquatic system management abound, mainly due to
lack of conducive enabling environments. Specifically, the weak enabling environment is often due to a
lack of political national priority to aquatic environment issues and/or lack of relative priority of the
environment against growth of certain industries. The project brief should also address this key
implementation issue of how to achieve stronger enabling environments at the broader system level
nationally and regionally. In addition, section F (Indicate risks...) should acknowledge this lack of
attention/priority to the sector as a risk.
3. The project brief should address how the success of the FSP will be evaluated. Because this is a major
capacity building exercise at the sectoral level, many of the measures will be soft measures and will
require assessment of attendance numbers and quality/appropriateness of people attending the various
events and their structured views on how they have benefited from involvement. The project brief should
briefly address how the project will establish prior measures of success, such as appropriate target co-
sponsorship levels, numbers and types of experts attending the various events, and, to address the
point above, extent to which higher level bodies/decision makers in countries and regions give attention
to the aquatic resource conservation issues.


STAP advisory
Brief explanation of advisory response and action proposed
response
1.
Consent
STAP acknowledges that on scientific/technical grounds the concept has merit. However, STAP may state its views on the
concept emphasising any issues that could be improved and the proponent is invited to approach STAP for advice at any time
during the development of the project brief prior to submission for CEO endorsement.
2.
Minor revision
STAP has identified specific scientific/technical suggestions or opportunities that should be discussed with the proponent as
required.
early as possible during development of the project brief. One or more options that remain open to STAP include:
(i)
Opening a dialogue between STAP and the proponent to clarify issues

1

---

(i ) Setting a review point during early stage project development and agreeing terms of reference for an independent
expert to be appointed to conduct this review
The proponent should provide a report of the action agreed and taken, at the time of submission of the ful project brief for
CEO endorsement.
3.
Major revision
STAP proposes significant improvements or has concerns on the grounds of specified major scientific/technical omissions in
required
the concept. If STAP provides this advisory response, a ful explanation would also be provided. Normal y, a STAP approved
review wil be mandatory prior to submission of the project brief for CEO endorsement.
The proponent should provide a report of the action agreed and taken, at the time of submission of the ful project brief for
CEO endorsement.

2

---