GEF SECRETARIAT REVIEW FOR FULL/MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECTS1
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Country/Region:
Regional (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines)
Project Title: Regional (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines): CTI Sulu-Celebes Sea Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SCS)
GEFSEC Project ID:
3524
GEF Agency Project ID:
4063 (UNDP)
GEF Agency:
UNDP
GEF Focal Area (s):
International Waters
GEF-4 Strategic Program (s):
Anticipated Project Financing ($): PPG:$85,000GEF Project Allocation: $2,890,000
Co-financing:$3,230,000
Total Project Cost:$6,205,000
PIF Approval Date:
November 16, 2007
Anticipated Work Program Inclusion:
April 24, 2008
Program Manager:
Christian Severin
GEF Agency Contact Person:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Secretariat Comment at PIF/Work
Secretariat Comment At CEO
Review Criteria
Questions
Program Inclusion 2
Endorsement(FSP)/Approval (MSP)
1. Is the participating country eligible?
Yes
2. If there is a non-grant instrument in the
3rd of September 2009 (cseverin): NA
project, check if project document
includes a calendar of reflows and
provide comments, if any.
3. Has the operational focal point
Partly. Endorsement letters received from
3rd of September 2009 (cseverin): all three
endorsed the project?
Indonesia and Philippines. Endorsement from
endorsement letters linked.
Malaysia expected at the latest by PPG
Eligibility
request (to be a pre-condition for PPG
approval).
4. Which GEF Strategic Objective/
IW-SO1 (To foster international, multi-state
Program does the project fit into?
cooperation on priority transboundary water
concerns. IW-SP1 (Restoring and sustaining
coastal and marine fish stocks and associated
biological diversity)
5. Does the Agency have a comparative
Yes
advantage for the project?
6. Is the proposed GEF Grant (including
Resource
the Agency fee) within the resources
1 Some questions here are to be answered only at PIF or CEO endorsement. Please do not answer if the field is blocked with gray.
2 Work Program Inclusion (WPI) applies to FSPs only. Submission of PIF of FSPs will simultaneously be considered for WPI. For MSPs, once the PIF is approved by CEO,
next step will be to continue project preparation until the project is ready for CEO approval.
Review date: October 07, 2009
1

---

Availability
available for (if appropriate):
The RAF allocation?
The focal areas?
Yes
Strategic objectives?
Strategic program?
7. Will the project deliver tangible global
Yes. Joint ecosystem based management is a
environmental benefits?
prerequisite for protection of living resources
and biodiversity in the Sulu and Celebes Seas.
Pilot implementation activities based on the
TDA/SAP included as components 2 and 3 of
the project.
8. Is the global environmental benefit
3rd of september 2009 (cseverin): Yes, even
measurable?
though this project primarily will work
towards achieving qualitative results, the
output indicators from the IW tracking tool
has been incorporated into the Project
framework and will enable project
management to measure the impact of the
project.
9. Is the project design sound, its
Yes. The TDA/SAP approach supplemented
3rd of September 2009 (cseverin): Yes, as
framework consistent & sufficiently
by pilot implementation activities and
mentioned above the outputs are in line with
clear (in particular for the outputs)?
institutional strengthening is well tested from
the indicators included in the IW tracking
Project Design
other areas and consistent with IW/SP-1.
tool.
10.Is the project consistent with the
Yes. The protection of living resources and
recipient country's national priorities
biodiversity in the Sulu and Celebes Seas is a
and policies?
priority for the three countries.
11.Is the project consistent and properly
Yes. This project will, together with the
coordinated with other related
ATSEA project (Arafura and Timor Seas
initiatives in the country or in the
Ecosystem Action Programme) form an
region?
essential part of the Coral Triangle Initiative.
Reference is made in the PIF to other related
initiatives. It is recommended that the
preparation phase should consider an
inclusion of areas immediately East of the
SCS in view of these areas importance for
migrating tuna.
12.Is the proposed project likely to be
Yes. The TDA/SAP approach has proved to
cost-effective?
be a cost-effective methodology for improving
environmental governance in large marine
Review date: October 07, 2009
2

---

ecosystems around the World.
13.Has the cost-effectiveness sufficiently
3rd of September 2009 (cseverin): Yes, it is
been demonstrated in project design?
demonstrated through the project design (eg
building on existing insittutions), further the
project document includes a section
describing the cost-effectiveness issue.
14.Is the project structure sufficiently
3rd of September 2009 (cseverin): Yes, the
close to what was presented at PIF?
project structure is close to the concept
presented at PIF. A minor difference is
present in the co-financing amount,
outlining a co-financig amount approx
$200K lower that at PIF stage, the reason
for this is that Conservation International's
co-funding policy only allows their
contribution in the first year to be counted
at this stage, although their co-financing
letter states that there will be renewed
commitments in project years two to four.
UNDP will therefore instead report these
â~new' contributions in its annual PIR
report to GEFSEC. Total co-funding to the
project by its completion date is therefore
expected to exceed the original target in the
PIF.
15.Does the project take into account
3rd of September 2009 (cseverin): Yes, the
potential major risks, including the
proposal includes a detialed matrix
consequences of climate change and
outlining the different risks and assumptions
includes sufficient risk mitigation
leading to these risks. Climate Change is
measures?
also mentioned.
16.Is the value-added of GEF
Yes. GEF's involvement provides neutral
3rd of September 2009 (cseverin): Yes, it is
involvement in the project clearly
facilitation and knowledge on the TDA/SAP
clearly described.
demonstrated through incremental
process.
reasoning?
Justification for
17.Is the type of financing provided by
Yes
3rd of September 2009 (cseverin): Yes, the
GEF Grant
GEF, as well as its level of
funding seems to be adequate to carry out
concessionality, appropriate?
the project activities as suggested.
18.How would the proposed project
3rd of September 2009 (cseverin): Without
outcomes and global environmental
GEF catalytic support, the three countries
Review date: October 07, 2009
3

---

benefits be affected if GEF does not
will not, be able to determine and agree on
invest?
joint priorities in the SCS. Among these are
the critical fish species which need
immediate management measures and the
identification of fisheries hot spots and
corresponding actions to take. Hence,
without GEF assistance critical fish species
will continue to be depleted or lost and joint
actions at hotspots will not take place in the
foreseeable future.
19.Is the GEF funding level of project
Yes
3rd of September 2009 (cseverin): Yes, the
management budget appropriate?
Project Management costs are in line with
the GEF guidance and hence below the 10%
of the overall GEF budget.
20.Is the GEF funding level of other cost
3rd of September 2009 (cseverin): Yes, the
items (consultants, travel, etc.)
GEF funding level of consultants etc is in
appropriate?
line with the GEF guidance.
21.Is the indicative co-financing adequate
The co-financing ratio is presently at 1.2:1.
for the project?
While this is acceptable for the components
on TDA, SAP and institutional strengthening,
a higher ratio could be sought for the pilot
projects. UNDP should be encouraged to seek
partnership with e.g. ADB on a possible
strengthened leverage.
22.Are the confirmed co-financing
3rd of September 2009 (cseverin): Yes, the
amounts adequate for each project
confirmed co-financing is appropriate to
component?
carry out the activities in each component.
23.Has the Tracking Tool3 been included
3rd of September 2009 (cseverin): The
with information for all relevant
Project framework includes output
indicators?
indicators which are in line with the output
indicators in the IW tracking tool. Further,
since all GEF 4 IW project will report to
GEF using the IW tracking tool (and this
has been fully adopted by the agencies
having IW projects) there is no actual need
to include the IW tracking tool in this
submission.
3 At present, Tracking Tools apply to Biodiversity projects only. Tracking Tools for other focal areas are currently being developed.
Review date: October 07, 2009
4

---

24.Does the proposal include a budgeted
3rd of september 2009 (cseverin): Yes, a
M&E Plan that monitors and measures
budgetted M&E plan is included.
results with indicators and targets?
STAP
not received yet
3rd of September 2009 (cseverin): STAP
Secretariat's
review linked and commented on as
Response to various
appropriate in the request for CEO
comments from:
Endorsement.
Convention Secretariat
Agencies' response to GEFSEC
comments
Agencies' response to Council comments
Secretariat Decisions
25. Is PIF clearance being
Yes
Recommenations at
recommended?
PIF
26.Items worth noting at CEO
Endorsement.
Recommendation at
27. Is CEO Endorsement being
3th of September 2009 (cseverin): Yes CEO
CEO Endorsement
recommended?
endorsement is being recommended.
1st review
September 03, 2009
Review Date
2nd review
3rd review
REQUEST FOR PPG APPROVAL
Review Criteria
Decision Points
Program Manager Comments
1. Are the proposed activities for project
preparation appropriate?
2. Is itemized budget justified?
3. Is the proposed GEF PPG Grant
PPG Budget
(including the Agency fee) within the
resources available under the RAF/Focal
Area allocation?
4. Is the consultant cost reasonable?
Review date: October 07, 2009
5

---

Recommendation
5. Is PPG being recommended?
Other comments
1st review
Review Date
2nd review
3rd review
wb21049
C:\Users\wb21049\Documents\Visual Studio 2008\WebSites\WebSite9\LetterTemplates\ReviewSheetforGEFProject.rtf
8/28/2009 4:16:00 PM
Review date: October 07, 2009
6

---