GEF SECRETARIAT REVIEW FOR FULL/MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECTS
Country/Region : Mexico
Project Title : Integrating Trade offs between Supply of Ecosystem Services and Land use
Options into Poverty Alleviation Efforts and Development Planning
GEFSEC Project ID : 3813
GEF Agenc(ies) : UNEP
GEF-4 Strategic Prog :
Anticipated project financing ($ million) :
PPG :
Co-Financing :
PIF Approval Date :
Program Manager : Mark Zimsky
At PIF/Work Program Inclusion
17.94
GEF Project Grant :
5.90
Total Project Cost :
23.84
Target Work Program Date :
GEF Agency Contact Person : Robert Erath
At CEO endorsement (FSP)/Approval (MSP)
A. Eligibility
1. Is the Participating Country eligible?
October 17, 2008
Yes.
2. Has the operational focal point endorsed the project?
October 17, 2008
Yes, in a letter dated January 21, 2008.
3. Which GEF Strategic Objective/Program does the project fit into?
October 17, 2008
Strategic Program Four, Strengthening the policy and
regulatory framework for mainstreaming biodiversity.
October 20, 2008
Page 1 of 9
At PIF/Work Program Inclusion
At CEO endorsement (FSP)/Approval (MSP)
4. Does the Agency have a comparative advantage for the project?
October 17, 2008
The project is aligned with UNEP's program on ecosystem
services.
Please clarify how UNEP is going to add value in terms of
coordination, collaboration, and cross-fertilization
amongst a number of GEF-supported projects on
ecosystem services that are promoting the development of
tools to analyze ES trade-offs and apply this information
to policy responses and land-use decisions. There appears
to be overlap between the projects and none of the PIFs
make any mention of how UNEP as the GEF IA will
facilitate cross-project learning through its program at
headquarters.
The PIF makes mention of UNEP's core competencies
being aligned with this project, but it is not clear how in
this project and the other GEF-projects on the same theme,
that this competency is being applied in practical terms.
B. Resource Availability
5. Is the proposed GEF Grant (including the Agency fee) within the resources available for (if appropriate):
- The RAF allocation?
October 17, 2008
Yes.
- The focal areas?
October 17, 2008
NA
October 20, 2008
Page 2 of 9
At PIF/Work Program Inclusion
At CEO endorsement (FSP)/Approval (MSP)
- Strategic objectives?
October 17, 2008
NA
- Strategic Program
October 17, 2008
NA
C. Project Design
6. Will the project deliver tangible global environment benefits?
October 17, 2008
Not Applicable at CEO Endorsement (FSP)/Approval (MSP)
The Mixteca region of northern Oaxaca is one of the
hardest hit by poverty and environmental degradation
(land and soil erosion) with the highest migration rate in
the entire state, thus, it is difficult to see how the project
would generate tangible global environmental benefits.
Please clarify the condition of the 100,000 hectares where
the project will intervene and make a more explicit case
for the generation of global environmental benefits
consistent with the size of the GEF investment. Given that
this is being submitted as a biodiversity project and not a
land degradation project, the global environmental benefits
should be expressed in terms of the biodiversity benefit.
7. Is the global environmental benefit measurable?
Not Applicable at PIF/Work Program Inclusion
8. Is the project design sound, its framework consistent sufficiently clear (in particular for the outputs)?
October 17, 2008
October 20, 2008
Page 3 of 9
At PIF/Work Program Inclusion
At CEO endorsement (FSP)/Approval (MSP)
Given the serious environmental degradation in Mixteca,
and the fact that the PIF does not identify exactly where
the area of intervention will be in the Mixteca region, it is
difficult to assess how biodiversity conservation will be
mainstreamed into natural resource use and development
planning, when recovering basic productive capacity of the
land and addressing chronic water shortages are
paramount.
Thus, the focus on trade-offs on ecosystem services
actually seems too sophisticated when the focus should
likely be on regenerating soil fertility, increasing
vegetation cover etc; that is, addressing serious problems
and repercussions of land degradation.
The PIF fails to demonstrate how the integration of ES
considerations into land-use decision making in Mixteca
will benefit biodiversity of global significance. Please
clarify in the PIF the exact area of the project intervention
in order to clarify the biological context of the intervention
and the value of the remaining biodiversity that the project
proposes to conserve through this mainstreaming
approach.
Under Component Four, please eliminate the funding and
activities designated to making the tools and
methodologies "available to the GEF portfolio". Please
focus this component on taking the lessons and capacities
developed from this intervention and extending them to
the parts of Mixteca that lie outside of Oaxaca (Puebla and
Guerrero) as this makes the most practical sense given that
these states share similar pressures on land and share
similar ecological constraints and challenges with regards
October 20, 2008
Page 4 of 9
At PIF/Work Program Inclusion
At CEO endorsement (FSP)/Approval (MSP)
to soil and water conservation.
Please note in Table B, that the PPG amounts should not
be included. Please delete and recalculate the budget
tables.
9. Is the project consistent with the recipient country’s national priorities and policies?
October 17, 2008
The project is consistent with national development
strategies, but the linkage to the NBSAP is not clear.
Please be more explicit in demonstrating the linkage of the
project to the priorities expressed in the NBSAP.
10. Is the project consistent and properly coordinated with other related initiatives in the country or in the region?
October 17, 2008
The project is not yet coordinated with other related
initiatives but a list of potential projects is listed. Please
review this list as all are not operational.
Please provide more details on coordination with the
following projects given the overlap in Agencies
implementing the projects and the subject matter: WB
Environmental Services Project, and WB Sustainable
Slope Management Project.
11. Is the proposed project likely to be cost-effective?
October 17, 2008
Not Applicable at CEO Endorsement (FSP)/Approval (MSP)
The argument for cost-effectiveness is not convincing.
The project outcome of improving land-use protocols for
100,000 hectares at the cost of 24$ million is very
expensive. Please strengthen the argument.
October 20, 2008
Page 5 of 9
At PIF/Work Program Inclusion
At CEO endorsement (FSP)/Approval (MSP)
12. Has the cost-effectiveness sufficiently been demonstrated in project design?
Not Applicable at PIF/Work Program Inclusion
13. Is the project structure sufficiently close to what was presented at PIF?
Not Applicable at PIF/Work Program Inclusion
14. Does the project take into account potential major risks, including the consequences of climate change and includes sufficient
risk mitigation measures?
October 17, 2008
Risks are identified and mitigation measures proposed.
Please clarify why a "work-force" will be needed for the
project and what activities they will implement.
Given the region's aridity, soil ersion and water shortage
problems, please discuss the climate change risks.
D. Justification for GEF Grant
15. Is the value-added of GEF involvement in the project clearly demonstrated through incremental reasoning?
October 17, 2008
Please improve this section and try to more clearly present
the incremental reasoning. This will be easier when the
area of the intervention is more carefully described with
regards to its importance from a biodiversity perspective.
Please remember that the GEF increment should generate
global environmental benefits and as presented in the PIF,
the predominant benefits will be local.
Ecosystem goods and services that may be conserved or
more sustainably used as a result of the project are not
globally significant, per se, unless the "good" is the
existence of biodiversity of global importance, which has
October 20, 2008
Page 6 of 9
At PIF/Work Program Inclusion
At CEO endorsement (FSP)/Approval (MSP)
not been clearly justified and described in the PIF. Please
clarify.
16. How would the proposed project outcomes and global environmental benefits be affected if GEF does not invest?
Not Applicable at PIF/Work Program Inclusion
17. Is the GEF funding level of project management budget appropriate?
18. Is the GEF funding level of other cost items (consultants, travel, etc.) appropriate?
Not Applicable at PIF/Work Program Inclusion
19. Is the indicative co-financing adequate for the project?
October 17, 2008
Not Applicable at CEO Endorsement (FSP)/Approval (MSP)
The cash cofinancing is far less than a 1:1 match. Given
that this is a mainstreaming project that will generate
considerable local and national benefits, this is surprising.
Please clarify why the cash cofinancing ratio is so weak.
Please explain how a $10 million in-kind donation from
CONAFOR was calculated given that this is very large
amount of in-kind cofinancing.
Please clarify how much cofinancing UNEP is providing
as the GEF agency that has an institutional focus on
Ecosystem Services.
20. Are the confirmed co-financing amounts adequate for each project component?
Not Applicable at PIF/Work Program Inclusion
21. Does the proposal include a budgeted ME Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?
Not Applicable at PIF/Work Program Inclusion
E. Secretariat's Response to various comments from:
- STAP
October 20, 2008
Page 7 of 9
At PIF/Work Program Inclusion
At CEO endorsement (FSP)/Approval (MSP)
- Convention Secretariat
- Agencies’ response to GEFSEC comments
Not Applicable at PIF/Work Program Inclusion
- Agencies’ response to Council comments
Not Applicable at PIF/Work Program Inclusion
F. Secretariat Decisions
22. Is PIF clearance being recommended?
October 17, 2008
Not Applicable at CEO Endorsement (FSP)/Approval (MSP)
No. The PIF requires considerable revisions to address the
eligibility issues referenced above and to complete
sections that are not adequate.
Please also edit the document and remove terms like
"encino" and replace with "Oak" and eliminate acronyms
like BAU (business as usual), etc. In other words, please
conduct a copy edit of the document before submission.
23. Items to consider at time of CEO Endorsement.
Not Applicable at CEO Endorsement (FSP)/Approval (MSP)
24. Is CEO Endorsement being recommended?
Not Applicable at PIF/Work Program Inclusion
REQUEST FOR PPG APPROVAL
1. Are the proposed activities for project preparation appropriate?
October 20, 2008
Page 8 of 9
At PIF/Work Program Inclusion
At CEO endorsement (FSP)/Approval (MSP)
2. Is itemized budget justified?
3. Is the consultant cost reasonable?
4. Is PPG being recommended?
5. Other Comments
October 20, 2008
Page 9 of 9