Panama Towards the Transboundar y Integrated Water ......work. Please ensur e that all co-nancing r esources indeed are grant/cash nancing, as indicated in the submission. 29th of

5/13/2019 Global Environment Facility (GEF) Operations

https://gefportal.worldbank.org/App/#/gefsecreview/pmreview/view/1706625e-4656-e911-a839-000d3a375321/view 1/18

Towards the Transboundary Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) of the Sixaola River Basin shared by Costa Rica andPanama

Basic Information

GEF ID10172

CountriesRegional (Costa Rica, Panama)

Project TitleTowards the Transboundary Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) of the Sixaola River Basin shared by Costa Rica and Panama

GEF Agency(ies)UNDP

Agency IDUNDP: 6373

GEF Focal Area(s)International Waters

Program ManagerChristian Severin

https://gefportal.worldbank.org/App/



PIF

Part I – Project Information

Focal area elements

1. Is the project/program aligned with the relevant GEF focal area elements in Table A, as de�ned by the GEF 7 ProgrammingDirections?

Secretariat Comment at PIF/Work Program Inclusion

10th of April 2019 (cseverin): Partly

1) output 1.1.2 mentions tha the SAP to be formulated will only be valid for the period 2022-2026. Considering the long term vision a SAPentails, this seems a very narrow timespan. Please increase the timespan for whcih the SAP will be providing priority setting, in line withother SAPs that have been funded by GEF.

2) Considering the importance of the scienti�c underpinning of the TDA. it seems that the �nancing to the TDA activities and the politicalprocess leading to the SAP endorsement may require more funding, especially when compared to the overall budget of component 2, that isconsideably larger.

3) Plastic Waste management issues will in GEF 7 be dealt with through a series of projects, that the GEFSEC believes will be providing themost transformative change to the plastic agenda. Under GEF IW there will not be funding seperate regional investments to deal with plasticwaste issues. Therefore, please remove GEF �nancing to the the proposed demonstration intervention marked D in under component 2, andensure that these activities are �nanced by co-�nancing resources.

29th of April 2019 (cseverin): Addressed. However, please note that the document under "Global Environmental Problems, root causes andbarries to be addressed" a SANDBOX river basin in Costa Rica. It seems this may be a mistake, please correct under PPG.

Agency Response

UNDP Response, 26 April 2019

1) Output 1.1.2 has been modi�ed to show that the long term vision that a SAP entails, the suggested SAP now will be valid for the period2022-2032 (10 year plan) in line with other TDA/SAP processes funded by GEF.

https://gefportal.worldbank.org/App/



( y p ) p y

2) The budget has been increased for Component 1 (from USD$1,758,881 to USD$ 2,078,042) to ensure the scienti�c studies required fora thorough TDA may be fully funded and completed with this project.

3) The GEF 7 priorities and forms of engagement of plastic waste management are well noted. However it is important to developdemonstration activities with tourism and agricultural sectors to reduce the impact of waste water and organic solid waste on binationalriverine ecosystems. For this reason the proposed demonstration intervention marked D under component 2 was modi�ed to highlight theseinterventions. The output now speci�es that interventions are centered on waste water and organic waste management. The Output nowreads: “d) Improved waste water treatment and organic solid waste management practices by tourism and agricultural sector stakeholdersand partners that reduce pollution of binational riverine and coastal ecosystems.” The description of this part of Component 2 wasmodi�ed in the PIF in this way:

“The fourth project entails the promotion of organic solid waste and waste water management and treatment practices by tourism andagricultural sector stakeholders and partners in order to reduce pollution of binational riverine and coastal ecosystems. This project willprovide technical assistance and up to 15 small grants to co-�nance the investments by private sector stakeholders from tourism andagricultural sectors of the bi-national river basin. The selected implementing partner will convene eligible partners who are willing to makeinvestments for treatment of waste water or reduce burden of the municipality to process organic waste. These investments may includefacilities to process organic waste to generate compost; waste water processing plants; or the development of internal procurementpolicies to purchase locally produced compost. The project will also improve knowledge about impacts on ecosystems but also increasingcommitment by local stakeholders to timely action on pollution prevention and adoption of best practices.”

Indicative project/program description summary

2. Are the components in Table B and as described in the PIF sound, appropriate, and su�ciently clear to achieve theproject/program objectives and the core indicators?


10th of April 2019 (cseverin): Please address comments under question 1

29th of April 2019 (cseverin): Addressed

Agency Response




Done

Co-�nancing

3. Are the indicative expected amounts, sources and types of co-�nancing adequately documented and consistent with therequirements of the Co-Financing Policy and Guidelines, with a description on how the breakdown of co-�nancing wasidenti�ed and meets the de�nition of investment mobilized?


10th of April 2019 (cseverin): the amount of grant co�nancing is remarkably high, compared to historical trends for such early TDA/SAPwork. Please ensure that all co-�nancing resources indeed are grant/cash �nancing, as indicated in the submission.


Agency Response


Co-�nance reviewed and modi�ed to consider only grant/cash �nancing. Reductions found from involved Municipalities and governmentinstitutions. Co-�nance total reduced to 18,600,000 (Ratio 4:1).

GEF Resource Availability



4. Is the proposed GEF �nancing in Table D (including the Agency fee) in line with GEF policies and guidelines? Are they withinthe resources available from (mark all that apply):

The STAR allocation?


10th of April 2019 (cseverin): Yes

Agency Response


Agency Response

The focal area allocation?





Agency Response

The LDCF under the principle of equitable access


Agency Response

The SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?


Agency Response

Focal area set-aside?


Agency Response



Impact Program Incentive?


Agency Response

Project Preparation Grant

5. Is PPG requested in Table E within the allowable cap? Has an exception (e.g. for regional projects) been su�cientlysubstantiated? (not applicable to PFD)



Agency Response

Core indicators

6. Are the identi�ed core indicators in Table F calculated using the methodology included in the correspondent Guidelines?(GEF/C.54/11/Rev.01)



Part II – Project Justi�cation


10th of April 2019 (cseverin):yes

Agency Response

Project/Program taxonomy

7. Is the project/ program properly tagged with the appropriate keywords as requested in Table G?



Agency Response

1. Has the project/program described the global environmental / adaptation problems, including the root causes and barriersthat need to be addressed?



Agency Response



2. Is the baseline scenario or any associated baseline projects appropriately described?


18th of April (cseverin): Yes

Agency Response

3. Does the proposed alternative scenario describe the expected outcomes and components of the project/program?


18th of April (cseverin):Yes

Agency Response

4. Is the project/program aligned with focal area and/or Impact Program strategies?



Agency Response



5. Is the incremental / additional cost reasoning properly described as per the Guidelines provided in GEF/C.31/12?



Agency Response

6. Are the project’s/program’s indicative targeted contributions to global environmental bene�ts (measured through coreindicators) reasonable and achievable? Or for adaptation bene�ts?



Agency Response

7. Is there potential for innovation, sustainability and scaling up in this project?


18th of April (cseverin):Yes, the process leading to the TDA and the SAP may be conducive innovation and a more sustainable strategy formanaging the shared water resources.



Agency Response

Project/Program Map and Coordinates

Is there a preliminary geo-reference to the project’s/program’s intended location?


18th of April (cseverin):Yes, map included. No coordiantes for the speci�c interventions as this stage.

Agency Response

Stakeholders

Does the PIF/PFD include indicative information on Stakeholders engagement to date? If not, is the justi�cation providedappropriate? Does the PIF/PFD include information about the proposed means of future engagement?


18th of April (cseverin):Yes, the PIF includes a matrix of stakeholders that have been participating in the PIF formulation process.

Agency Response

Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment



Is the articulation of gender context and indicative information on the importance and need to promote gender equality andthe empowerment of women, adequate?


18th of April (cseverin):Partly even though, Gender perspectives will be a central part of the process leading to the TDA and SAP, pleasemake sure to also respond to the questions in the Gender section of the PIF.

3rd of May 2019 (cseverin) Addressed

Agency Response

Private Sector Engagement

Is the case made for private sector engagement consistent with the proposed approach?


18th of April (cseverin): No, Please elaborate on how the private sector will be engaged from the initial steps fo the project. interactions inthe initial stages of the TDA?SAP process has proved to be essential for private sector interest in supporting implementation of SAPpriorities.




Agency Response


The PIF has been expanded to include explanation of forms of engagement of the private sector. Two sections have been expanded:

On the description of Component 1, a new paragraph (43) added:

The TDA will be developed with active collaboration of relevant private sector stakeholders. The PMU and Binational commission of theSixaola River Basin (CBCRS) will ensure that the technical staff and decision makers from key local businesses, producers associations,local chambers of commerce and trade, and staff from multinational corporations with presence in the basin, send representatives whoparticipate actively in committees, workshops and meetings aiming to describe binational problems. The project will also take stock ofrelevant studies private stakeholders have invested on recently that provide valuable information about socioeconomic and environmentalindicators for the TDA (i.e. EIA studies, productivity surveys etc). The project will also review existing local business strategies, and nationalor regional strategies aiming to attract foreign direct investment with speci�c targets for the binational river basin in order to align these toTDA/SAP process.


To engage relevant private sector stakeholders from the banana sector, the project will liaise with the Green Commodities Programme(GCP), UNDP’s unit leading the development of methodologies for multi-stakeholder processes generating systemic change to achievesustainable agricultural commodities. Advisory services provided by GCP will improve the strategy and forms of engagement of the privatesector on the processes needed to address the root causes of environmental and social externalities of banana production. GCP will alsoprovide services of corporate engagement with banana buyers to ensure alignment between purchasing policies of banana in the binationalbasin and best practices promoted through the implementation of the SAP.

Risks

Does the project/program consider potential major risks, including the consequences of climate change, that might preventthe project objectives from being achieved or may be resulting from project/program implementation, and propose measuresthat address these risks to be further developed during the project design?




18th of April (cseverin):Yes, a risk matrix has been included.

Agency Response

Coordination

Is the institutional arrangement for project/program coordination including management, monitoring and evaluation outlined?Is there a description of possible coordination with relevant GEF-�nanced projects/programs and other bilateral/multilateralinitiatives in the project/program area?


18th of April (cseverin):Partly, please elaborate on how monitoring and evaluation will be part of the overall coordination. Further,considering that IADB have had a previous investment on the shared water resources, please include activities that coordination with IADBand its regional representatives will be taking place to ensure the most optimal implementation of the project and ultimately buy in to theSAP and its implementation. Especially for the latter, IADB may be a crucial partner for identifying �nancing for SAP implementation.


Agency Response


The PIF has been expanded to include explanation of forms of monitoring and evaluation as part of the coordination efforts of the PMU; anddescription of coordination activities of UNDP with IADB. Two sections have been expanded:




The project results as outlined in the results framework will be monitored annually and evaluated periodically during project implementationto ensure the project effectively achieves outcomes and outputs. The project coordinator will have overall responsibility of monitoringproject implementation and informing stakeholders of progress and setbacks. The PMU will also hire a monitoring and evaluation projecto�cer to support the reporting and to help widen the participatory nature of monitoring and evaluation of project progress. All project-levelmonitoring and evaluation (M&E) will be undertaken in compliance with UNDP requirements as outlined in the UNDP Programme andOperations Policies and Procedures and Evaluation policy. Other M&E activities deemed necessary to support project-level adaptivemanagement will be agreed during the Project Inception Workshop and will be detailed in the Inception Report. This will include the exactrole of project target groups and other stakeholders in project M&E activities including the GEF Operational Focal Point andnational/regional institutes assigned to undertake project monitoring. Follow-up and monitoring of the agreements will be done annuallyand progress reports on compliance will be drafted and included as part of the required monitoring and evaluation (M&E) reporting of theproject.


The project will take advantage of the extensive experience and knowledge of partners like IADB and IUCN who have previously worked onbinational river basin projects. During the PPG stage, IADB will be engaged actively on project design. The IADB will be invited to take part ofthe technical committee of the project to ensure that the bank is able to monitor progress and identify bankable opportunities that may helpfund SAP implementation after project closure. The project will also take advantage of existing partnerships between UNDP and IADB at aregional level; one example is the NDC Partnership that channels support to countries to implement Nationally Determined Contributionssubmitted to UNFCCC. Both the Costa Rican and Panamanian NDCs promote actions to tackle climate change impacts on river basins, thisproject will help advance action on that front. The PMU will liaise with the regional representatives of the NDC partnership to keep partnersinformed and avoid duplicated investments.

Consistency with National Priorities

Has the project/program cited alignment with any of the recipient country’s national strategies and plans or reports andassessments under relevant conventions?




Part III – Country Endorsements


Agency Response

Knowledge Management

Is the proposed “knowledge management (KM) approach” in line with GEF requirements to foster learning and sharing fromrelevant projects/programs, initiatives and evaluations; and contribute to the project’s/program’s overall impact andsustainability?


18th of April (cseverin):Yes. The PIF has actually indicated that it will be doubling its efforts under IWLEARN, which is considered a gooddevelopment.

Agency Response

Has the project/program been endorsed by the country’s GEF Operational Focal Point and has the name and position beenchecked against the GEF data base?





GEFSEC DECISION

Agency Response

RECOMMENDATION

Is the PIF/PFD recommended for technical clearance? Is the PPG (if requested) being recommended for clearance?


3rd of May 2019 (cseverin):Please address above comment and resubmit.

3rd fo May 2019 (cseverin): Yes, the PIF and associated PPG is recommended for Technical Clearance

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Additional recommendations to be considered by Agency at the time of CEO endorsement/approval.


Review Dates



PIF Review Agency Response

First Review 4/26/2019

Additional Review (as necessary)




Documents

Panama Towards the Transboundar y Integrated Water ......work. Please ensur e that all co-nancing r esources indeed are grant/cash nancing, as indicated in the submission. 29th of