39186 Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT CYCLES Technical Paper 4 Part of the Joint Evaluation of the GEF Activity Cycle and Modalities, conducted by the GEF Evaluation Office. Evaluation Component 4: Assessment of project cycles Not edited November 2006 By: Hemamala Hettige (team leader), Frederick Swartzendruber (international consultant), Carmencita Balbosa (domestic consultant), Operations Evaluation Department, Asian Development Bank Task Manager for the Joint Evaluation: Siv Tokle, GEF Evaluation Office Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction And Background 1 2. Methodology 1 3. Evolution Of The Current GEF Activity Cycle 3 A. The Cycle From The GEF Perspective 3 B. The Cycle From An Executing Agency Perspective--The Case Of ADB 11 C. Recent Developments 13 4. The GEF As A Networked Organization: Cycle Implications 14 5. Mapping Of Agency Steps 15 6. DurationOf GEF Activity Cycle Phases 25 7. Application Of GEF Operational Principles In The Project Cycle 32 8. Conclusions And Recommendations 36 Bibliography 38 List Of Tables 1. Summary Mapping of Agency Steps in FSP Processing Cycle 18 2. Elapsed Time for Processing under GEF-2 and GEF-3, Average for All Agencies 27 3a. Elapsed Time for Processing FSPs, All GEF Periods 28 3b. Elapsed Time for Processing MSPs, All GEF Periods 28 4. Comparison of Agency Standard Timeframes with Actual Elapsed Time per Cycle Phase 29 5. Summary of Agency Responses on Importance of GEF Operational Principles 33 List Of Figures 1. GEF Project Cycle (2000) 4 2. GEF Project Cycle (2003) 5 3. The GEF Project Cycle as a Timeline 6 4. Evolving Guidelines under the GEFSec Operations Manual, Draft as of February 2006 8 5. Governance and Reporting Structure of the GEF 15 6. IFAD Project Cycle for GEF Financing 20 7. IDB Project Cycle for GEF Financing 22 8. GEF and IFAD Processes in Parallel 23 9. GEF and IDB Processes in Parallel 24 List Of Boxes 1. GEF Joint Evaluation Components 1 2. Players in the GEF Projects and Their Roles 2 3. Quality Enhancement Reviews for the GEF 7 Appendices 1. Roles of the Implementing and Executing Agencies of the GEF 42 i 2. Terms of Reference for Component 4 of the Joint Evaluation 43 3. Development of Direct Access Policy for Executing Agencies 50 4. Phase Goals of GEF Implementing Agencies and Executing Agencies 53 4a GEF Activity Cycle 4a(i) GEF Secretariat Operations Manual--Full-Size Projects 56 4a(ii) GEF Secretariat Operations Manual--Medium-Size Projects 59 4a(iii) GEF Secretariat Operations Manual--Expedited Enabling Activities 61 4b African Development Bank Project Cycle 62 4c Asian Development Bank Project Cycle 68 4d EBRD Project Cycle 85 4e FAO Project Cycle 87 4f IDB Project Cycle 90 4g IFAD Project Cycle 94 4h UNDP Project Cycle 98 4i UNEP Project Cycle 106 4j UNIDO Project Cycle 107 4k WB Project Cycle 109 ii 5. Steps and Responsibilities under Agency Cycles in the GEF Network-- Full-Size Project 137 6. Specific Agency Responses on the Importance of Cycle Phases in Achieving GEF Operational Principles 156 7. Application of GEF Operational Principles in the Agency Project Cycle 158 ii 1. Introduction and Background This assessment forms one component of a Joint Evaluation of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Activity Cycle and Modalities undertaken by the 11 members of the GEF family1. The components are outlined in Box 1. The objective of this Component Box 1: GEF Joint of the Joint Evaluation is to provide a factual overview of the Evaluation Components programming processes in the concerned agencies and of GEF's decision 1. Desk review of the legislative points in these project cycles, focusing on quality at entry. This will framework provide the basis for a comparative analysis of any gaps and synergies 2. Desk review of evaluations between GEF requirements and procedures, on the one hand, and those of 3. Review of related initiatives the Implementing Agencies (IAs) or Executing Agencies (ExAs) for 4. Review of activity cycles GEF-cofinanced projects, on the other. 5. Exploratory review of delivery modalities 6. Review of project documentation This component report examines the longstanding request from GEF 7. Select field visits stakeholders to find ways to streamline project processing procedures for 8. Stakeholder survey work both full-size projects (FSPs) and medium-size projects (MSPs). It attempts to understand GEF's complex eligibility requirements and also Source: Joint Evaluation TOR. to identify ways of exploiting potential synergies arising from opportunities for joint implementation by multiple players. Box 2 presents the various actors in the cycle and their respective roles, as described in the 2003 GEF Project Cycle, which is useful in understanding the later discussions on processing steps and procedures. Appendix 1 outlines the distinct roles of the IAs and ExAs, also based on the 2003 policies under the Third Replenishment of the GEF Trust Fund (GEF-3). 2. Methodology The terms of reference (TOR) prepared by the joint evaluation partners provided the methodological background for this component (Appendix 2). This review of activity cycles seeks to document the project development and approval processes in each IA/ExA and how the GEF decision points fit into these cycles, with a view to identifying gaps and synergies in GEF and agency requirements, using efficiency and effectiveness assessments. The findings would then be used to propose measures leading to the simplification and streamlining of GEF processes. As such, the outputs of this component would include definition of cycle phases and their goals; tracking of key GEF and agency requirements for the cycle; steps and responsibilities in each phase; data on duration of phases/steps; and variations for modalities. This C4 report presents mainly the GEF cycle and how the agency cycles link to it. In addition, the project cycles of the different agencies are presented in Appendix 4. These outputs would serve to illustrate the various roles and responsibilities within the GEF network, particularly the work distribution at different cycle stages (a) within the agencies; and (b) between agencies and GEF partners like the GEF Secretariat (GEFSec), Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP), etc.2. The work distribution between agencies in the case of joint implementation is not presented; in general, this is on a case-by-case basis, with the same steps taking place sequentially or in parallel. 1 Box 2. Players in the GEF Projects and Their Roles The Recipient Countries Appoint their operational focal points, identify concepts that meet national priorities, endorse requests for projects and project preparation grants, help estimate incremental cost, and organize country dialogue. GEF Council Approves GEF policies and procedures and the work programs. GEF CEO Approves PDF-B and PDF-C grants, medium-size projects, and enabling activities under expedited procedures; determines the content of the work programs submitted for Council approval; endorses full-size projects for final approval by IA's/EA's internal board; and leads the Secretariat. The GEF Secretariat (GEFSec) Organizes Council meetings; manages the project review process up to CEO approval, including arranging bilateral review meetings with IAs/EAs; advises on GEF policy regarding proposals at the time of pipeline entry, work program inclusion or CEO approval, endorsement, and completion; chairs the GEF Operations Committee; maintains a project tracking system; organizes the annual program performance review; and facilitates partnership with recipient countries and among agencies. 2 The GEF Evaluation Office Improves the accountability of GEF projects and programs and promotes learning, feedback, and knowledge sharing. The Implementing Agencies (IAs)--UNDP, UNEP, and WB Assist countries with concept identification; actively expand opportunities for EAs in GEF work; manage project preparation; approve project documents according to internal procedures; and report progress quarterly and supervise, monitor, and report on project implementation, including project implementation review. Executing Agencies (EAs) under Expanded Opportunities Tier 1: ADB and IADB; Tier 2: AfDB and EBRD; Tier 3: UNIDO, FAO, and IFAD (see Appendix 1 for a description of their specific roles and functions). Assist countries in identifying concepts and managing the preparation of projects and share implementation responsibilities with IAs for selected projects. The Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) Maintains a roster of experts who can provide expert reviews of the scientific and technical aspects of project proposals; selectively reviews projects from a scientific and technical point of view; and (through its Chairman) participates in project review. Source: GEF/C.22/Inf.9 ­ Annex A: Players in the GEF Projects and their Roles. GEF Project Cycle: An Update, 5 November 2003, and GEF website. Cycle Efficiency. Each agency was requested to submit the goals, steps, responsibilities, and outputs per phase of their respective cycles3 for processing GEF-financed and/or regular projects, while documentation on GEF requirements and procedures was collected from GEF Council decisions and related GEFSec documents. A descriptive mapping was then prepared to allow for a qualitative assessment of effort and a gap/overlap analysis with GEF requirements. While some agencies differentiated their cycle submissions according to modalities,4 most of the agencies focused on FSPs. The agencies were also requested to submit their processing timeframe standards (for generic GEF- financed projects). This was compared with data on actual durations or elapsed time for activity cycle 2 activities collected under Component 6.5 However, findings from this exercise should be viewed as tentative rather than indicative because of some qualifiers regarding the databases: (i) only five of the 10 agencies6 were able to provide generic timeframes for their processing cycles; (ii) the timeslice from first submission of concept note to GEFSec and entry of the concept into the GEF pipeline was not possible to document under Component 6;7 and (iii) certain "irregularities' had been noted from the Component 6 data referring to two time slices.8 The TOR for Component 4 listed other indicators of cycle efficiency: effort (number of times concept papers were reformulated or documents submitted to management, number of times review comments were made, number of people involved in each step, number of person days needed to formulate or submit); and cost (project financial data, fees, staff costs, travel costs). When it became clear that detailed data on effort and costs for various stages of agency cycles were not available, the Joint Evaluation Management Team decided in January 2006 to amend the TOR in order to remove these deliverables. Cycle Effectiveness. The Component 4 TOR seeks to determine cycle effectiveness through a qualitative assessment of the value added at each cycle stage (defined as the application of the relevant GEF Operational Principles [OPs]),9 and how and when each phase is effective in addressing each OP as the projects move through the cycle, as well as the quality products produced by the various cycle phases. During the January 2006 Management Committee Meeting, a qualitative multistage analysis was adopted when it became apparent that collecting project-by-project information for this purpose would be too time-consuming. The GEF Evaluation Office (GEF EO) requested the GEF coordinators in each agency to submit a ranking of the cycle phases in terms of their value added in achieving the OPs. They were asked to rate the relative importance played by each phase in meeting the OP using a four-point scale: 1 is very important; 2 is somewhat important; 3 is not important; and 4 is no opinion/don't know. The numbers 1 to 4 may appear more than once in each column. The results will show which phases are most and least important in achieving the OPs. The agencies were also asked to identify the specific steps within their own procedures that address the OPs, with a view to ascribing some measure of effectiveness to the agency procedures in meeting GEF values. The findings may serve to illustrate certain "good practices" with which other agencies can benchmark in terms of the contribution of the cycle steps towards addressing the GEF OPs. 3. Evolution Of The Current GEF Activity Cycle 3.1. The Cycle from the GEF Perspective In this section, most of the description and analysis of the activity cycle focuses on provisions for FSPs, which account for the largest share of GEF financing and probably also a major source of delays in the cycle. Where relevant, variations relating to medium-size operations are also mentioned. Formally defined in a 1995 Council decision, the GEF activity cycle has undergone several modifications and efforts at streamlining. Figure 1, taken from a 2000 Council document, describes four major phases of the cycle plus three decision points for GEFSec review: concept approval, work program inclusion, and CEO endorsement. This graphic helped to clarify one area of occasional confusion, by illustrating an IA or ExA project cycle into which several GEF decision points are inserted, rather than speaking of a GEF project cycle per se. A minimum of three institutions are often involved during preparation--the IA or ExA, the relevant government (through its Focal Point) and the GEFSec--with the number of institutions involved even higher when an ExA had to work through an IA prior to the direct access mechanism. In 3 fact, it is probably this intermingling of the bureaucratic procedures of different institutions which has tended to generate many of the longstanding and persistent complaints about the processing of GEF projects despite numerous initiatives aimed at clarifying project review responsibilities and streamlining processing procedures. Figure 1: GEF Project Cycle (2000) 4 Source: GEF Project Cycle, 5 October 2000, GEF/c. 16/Inf. 7. Figure 2 reflects the updated project cycle as of November 2003, adding M&E as a fifth discrete phase for IAs and ExAs,10 inserting the PDF-B or PDF-C approval as the second GEF decision point11 and adding the GEF EO's review of the project terminal report as the sixth GEF review point. This is the formal cycle that governed GEF-3. The definition of cycle phases is given in Annex A of the C4 TOR (Appendix 2). 4 Figure 2: GEF Project Cycle (2003) Source: GEF Project Cycle: An Update, 5 November 2003, GEF/c. 22/Inf. 9. Figure 3 presents the information through another perspective by viewing the project cycle as a series of key events along a timeline. In this figure, the events are equally distributed for clarity, without trying to portray expected or actual processing times. Agency activities are shown above the timeline, while GEF activities are below the line. In order to highlight quality at entry and because of the elapsed time involved, the "Project Approval and Startup" stage was presented as a distinct phase, separate from "Implementation and Supervision," thus allowing the assessment to focus on steps 1 through 8 on the timeline below; step 9 and subsequent steps are not examined in this report because the issues here were already covered substantially in the GEF annual performance reports. 5 Figure 3: The GEF Activity Cycle as a Timeline The GEF Cycle for IA/EAs: Key Events The GEF Cycle for IA/ExAs: Key Events Agency's project preparation Agency project preparation Agency implementation & process process supervision Agency approval process Agency's project concept Agency project concept Agency's Project Terminal Agency Project development development Terminal Report Agency's project appraisal Agency project appraisal Report 1 2 3 4 5 6 7` 8 9 10 11 12 GEFSEC review for PDF B/C GEFSec review for PDF B/C GEFSEC & Council review for GEFSec & Council review for CEO Endorsement CEO Endorsement 6 GEF M&E Unit's review of GEFEO review of Project Project Terminal Report Terminal Report GEFSEC review for Concept GEFSec review for Concept Agreement Agreement GEFSEC review for Work GEFSec review for Work Program Inclusion Program Inclusion GEFSEC monitoring GEFSec monitoring Intervals shown not proportional to actual elapsed time In reality, even though the activity cycle has been updated and somewhat expanded over the years, this type of conceptualization inevitably oversimplifies the project process, as the GEF-specific steps (e.g., GEFSec review, Council review, CEO endorsement) are essentially time-specific decision points, while the IA or ExA "steps" are complex and time-consuming project development processes in and of themselves, which may also require substantial additional work, recruitment of specialized consultants, and complex negotiations with other partners in order to accommodate certain GEF-specific project eligibility aspects or design issues. In other words, the preparation process may be iterative and contingent in ways which are not adequately captured by a conventional project cycle or processing timeline. When the need for synchronizing certain time-bound processing steps is taken into account (Council meetings, Agency Board meetings, or even limited travel "windows" for appraisal or other missions), it is clear that even relatively modest "hiccups" in the process which result in missing a given time slot can lead to significant delays. The relative scarcity of consultants with the technical skills needed to address some GEF-specific issues (such as incremental costs), and the competing time demands on key government officials familiar with GEF requirements, may further complicate the process of assuring timely completion of processing stages. The detailed steps described in the draft pages of the GEF Secretariat Operations Manual(February 2006 version) currently under preparation12, have been converted into a flowchart (Figure 4) to give a clearer sequencing of steps from the GEF side, and the allocation of responsibilities related to the cycle. In the flowchart, GEF procedures are shown on the left in blue, and IA/ExA procedures are on the right, colored in yellow. Events which are specifically designated as joint responsibilities are in the middle, in violet color. In total, 17 steps are identified as GEF roles, 10 are IA/ExA steps, and two are identified as joint procedures. This GEF-centric flowchart, presents a very generic or simplified view of the process on the 6 IA/EA side. For example, the project approval (i.e., Board) step is absent the IA/ExA side and is subsumed under the box labeled "Full-Size Project Start-up" in Phase V (Project Implementation and Supervision) of the flowchart, instead of Phase IV (Project Approval and Start-up). It should also be noted that the step relating to country focal point endorsement of the project concept was not included in the February 2006 draft guidelines.13 From the GEF point of view, it is the agency's responsibility to secure such country approval, and under the Resource Allocation Framework (RAF), projects cannot enter the pipeline without it (though in the past, this was not mandatory for concept approval). Moreover, it is striking that there are very few processes which are considered to be joint activities: throughout the many steps and procedures of the six phases as presently defined, only six are explicitly described as joint procedures, and these mainly involved reviews. Possibly one avenue for exploration of better synergy between GEF and agency procedures would be to give more attention to defining joint procedures in such a way that project development could become a more collaborative activity. An example of a joint activity is given in Box 3. Box 3: Quality Enhancement Reviews for the GEF One mechanism which could be explored as a means of strengthening collaborative efforts in the project cycle would be to offer Quality Enhancement Review (QER) panels which would bring together members from the IA/EA, GEFSec, and (perhaps) a member of the STAP roster, to review key issues of project design. In the World Bank, QERs are driven by regions and task teams seeking to get constructive feedback early in the project preparation process, especially on complex operations. The intention is to provide timely and high quality input to the project preparation team at a stage when such input can be most beneficial; it is not a clearance function, and should not result in unexpected delays in the preparation process. Implementing a QER involving several institutions would present some challenges, and the key would be ensuring a collaborative and non-judgmental atmosphere in which the added value for the project is clear to all the parties. 7 Figure 4: Evolving Guidelines under the GEFSec Operations Manual, Draft as of February 2006 Receipt of concept/ PDF- A proposals 8 Concept document finalization 8 Receipt of PDF-B proposal 9 Full-size Project including Council comments Final full-size project appraisal document 10 Full-size project start-up Full-size project completion 10 3.2. The Cycle from an Executing Agency Perspective: The Case of ADB The GEF activity cycle has also been affected by the changing roles and responsibilities of the GEF family members, especially those of the Executing Agencies which initially had to work through IAs but are gradually gaining direct access to GEF funds. ADB was one such ExA which saw its status change and is currently quite active in processing GEF projects. Staff knowledgeable about the ADB history of processing GEF projects (Appendix 3) were interviewed to gain insights into lessons learned so far from ADB's interactions with GEF. Concerns prior to being granted direct access in 2002: a. Project Cycle . A proposal going through an ExA had to contend with four project cycles: (a) the Government's, (b) GEF's, the (c) IA's through which the ExA had to apply, and (d) the ExA's. This meant that layers of bureaucracy were added to the processing cycle, making it more tedious. b. Transaction Costs. There were substantial transactions costs because of lack of clarity as well as multiple interests and procedures of IAs. GEF operations had to be embedded in the ExAs and IAs country strategies, and this often involved substantial delays. In addition, IAs needed to iron out the fee base with the ExAs for accessing GEF through them. It would have been useful to have greater transparency and service standards. Remaining issues after expanded access: c. Clarity of Roles within the GEF Family. The distinction between the roles of the agency members of the GEF family has been murky. The processes facing the EAs have been evolving throughout the period due to the changes in accessibility and modifications to the process cycle. Direct access was granted in stages, first for PDF-B and then for MSPs and FSPs. At each stage, operationalizing the new arrangements took time, adding to processing delays. At times, there was a 2-year gap between approving the policy of changed status and implementing it, due to the drafting of administrative MOUs and financial agreements and ironing out details about fees, etc. At other times, it was not clear who was responsible for the review ­ there were instances where the Executive Coordinators of the IA undertook the review instead of GEFSec. The roles of IA, ExA, GEFSec can change on a case-by-case basis, depending on the specific project and/or focal area. There was no clear procedure. d. Timing of the Decision Points. The fixed times assigned to GEF decision points (depending on the holding of Council meetings) also have an impact on whether GEF grant financing is used in a normal operation of the ExA. If the timing of the GEF decision point does not coincide with the project schedule, the request for the GEF grant may be dropped to avoid delaying the client's needs. e. Complexity vs. Funding. At times, the complexity and anticipated/unanticipated delays in GEF processing is weighed against the benefits of securing grant funding. If the GEF process is likely to cause undue delays in project processing, then the project design sometimes separates the GEF component(s) such that other project components can proceed without the GEF funds (and GEF cofinancing may or may not be further pursued). f. GEF Incentives. Some agencies work on GEF projects as a separate channel, and rely on the GEF fees and funding to finance this process. Other agencies which have substantial lending and technical assistance capacity of their own have mainstreamed GEF cofinancing as part of normal operations and may proceed with the base project irrespective of the GEF funding, but they may also use the GEF funds to add project elements consistent with generating incremental global benefits while simultaneously reducing the overall cost of the project to the client. The GEF, therefore, provides different incentives to different agencies. g. GEF Fund Availability. While direct access is working better in terms of streamlining the project process, recent projects had been held up due to lack of GEF-3 funds, leaving project cofinancing decisions in limbo. 11 h. Processing Lag and Pipeline Congestion. There are concept papers in the GEF pipeline registered by various agencies at a very early stage in their conceptualization in order to bid for scarce resources allocated on a first-come first-served basis (prior to introduction of the RAF), even if the project proposal may not be ready (concept languishing) and the quality of preparation weak. As a result, the processing time for such a proposal tends to be long. i. Value Added from GEF Reviews. In general, there is value added from the GEF Secretariat upstream and final project review, with comments from focal area experts considered very useful, especially the informal upstream review. In addition, the STAP review often provides a fresh perspective on the project's design and anticipated results. Executing Agencies whose frustrations over the extra layer of IA decision-making14 and perceived conflict-of-interest first gained ground in the early 1990s (see Appendix 6). Discussions supporting a more active role for ExAs within the GEF system bogged down due to disagreements regarding its operationalization, until 1999 when the need to leverage GEF funds, stabilize its administrative costs and extend the IA delivery capacities became more evident. However, while the principle of expanded opportunities was approved in May 1999 direct access effectively began only in 2002, for certain ExAs and modalities based on their comparative advantages (presented in Appendix 1). Extensive discussions that contributed to the delay included those on establishing accountability for the GEF funds (financial 12 controls, disbursement and funds transfer), assuring project preparation quality, and in some cases, the sharing of the corporate budget and responsibilities. These concerns were evident at ADB, which mirrors those of the other ExAs. One of the recent issues involving ExAs relate to the blurring of pre-assigned roles as more projects feature integrated approaches. This has led to the assessment of GEF partners on a case-by-case basis depending on the structural and procedural conditions15 specific to the project proposal, which had placed an additional burden on the GEF activity cycle. Another concern is that ExAs still have not been effectively integrated into GEF project and policy work (with their participation accounting, thus far, for only 3% of GEF-3 funding), owing to "strong biases16 that continue to favor the IAs" and the narrow definition of comparative advantages with respect to IFAD (largely limited to the focal area of land degradation) and FAO and UNIDO (strictly limited in their direct access to the persistent organic pollutants focal area). In response, the GEF Council asked the GEFSec to draft a policy paper to clarify the roles and comparative advantages of the IAs and ExAs. The policy paper was not discussed during the 6-9 June 2006 GEF Council Meeting, but the donors to the GEF-4 replenishment requested that GEFSec prepare an action plan for strengthening the engagement of ExAs based, in part, on a GEF EO evaluation of ExAs' experience in GEF activities17. Until then, it is expected that the status quo will be preserved, wherein the primary role for policy development is maintained within the IAs, ExAs keep to their assigned comparative advantages for project development and delivery, and partnerships between IAs and ExAs are established with clear complementary roles for each. At the same time it is evident that ExAs are increasingly engaged with GEFSec and the IAs in broader strategic and policy development functions, providing comments on all related documents and participating in focal area task forces. Since the mandated evaluation had not yet started as GEF-4 programming was underway, the ExAs have expressed18 apprehension about possibly missing the opportunity to strengthen the involvement of ExAs before GEF-4 resources are committed under the Resource Allocation Framework (see next subsection). The seven ExAs proposed in a document tabled as a Conference Room Paper during the June 2006 Council Meeting that work on the action plan begin without awaiting the results of the GEFEO evaluation, and suggested steps that may be implemented right away to level the playing between IAs and ExAs, i.e., provide EAs the same access to policy and operational information as IAs, allow ExA representatives to participate in GEF operations meetings between the GEFSec and IAs' GEF Executive Coordinators, etc. 12 3.3. Recent Developments Resource Allocation Framework19. One of the policy recommendations agreed as part of the GEF-3 (FY2003­FY2006) was the development of a system to allocate scarce resources within and among focal areas, as well as among countries based on performance. The result was the GEF RAF, which was approved during the GEF Council meeting held in early September 2005. The RAF comprises two pillars: the first reflects a given country's potential to generate global environmental benefits within a given focal area, while the second represents a country's demonstrated record of performance with respect to policies and the enabling environment to successfully implement GEF projects (see GEF/C.27/Inf.8/Rev.1). Two indices had been developed as indicators of country ranking on each of these two pillars: the Global Benefits Index (GBI), which measures the potential to generate global environmental benefits within a focal area, and the GEF Performance Index (GPI), which measures a country's capacity and policies related to successful implementation of GEF programs and projects. Work is ongoing in the challenging technical area of developing specific indices for the various GEF focal areas, but initial results of calculations for biodiversity and climate change were used to cluster countries into groupings ranked according to their scores. Countries with the highest scores would receive individual allocations, and the highest priority for financing, while lower-ranked countries would be clustered into groups with lower priority for financing. It is important to note that these allocations are not considered entitlements (for which the countries automatically qualify), but are resource envelopes or indicative allocations. Thus, to benefit from these allocations, countries would still need to present project proposals which meet existing GEF processing standards and other requirements. According to the guidelines for the country focal points to manage GEF resources (GEF/C.28/12, 11 May 2006), the RAF does not change the technical review criteria during the GEF activity cycle. There is little question though that introducing this system will also introduce new dynamics into the processing of GEF project proposals. Until now, the system has operated essentially on a first-come, first-served basis in which any country could apply for projects in any focal area with a reasonable expectation of success, so long as eligibility requirements were met and funds remained available for that focal area. Project proposals with quality shortcomings were seldom rejected outright once in the GEF pipeline, though there were often long delays as a consequence of an iterative process of modification and resubmission. The implementation of the RAF will change the first-come, first-served dynamics by prioritizing countries and limiting the number of proposals, which will need country endorsement from the outset, and re-endorsement for projects currently in the pipeline. The additive nature of the multiple stages of GEF review when combined with those of the IA or ExA has already been discussed and has been an important factor in the many attempts to reform the GEF activity cycle. The involvement of the country focal point in prioritization will add another layer to the already prolonged process. Taking into consideration the complex network of stakeholders shown in Figure 5, it seems very likely that different institutional interests will be affected by the shift envisioned under RAF. In essence, after the number of EAs had been expanded under direct access, the RAF will probably result in a smaller pool of potential projects, thus fostering more competition among agencies for those projects. Quality at Entry. In recent years, there has been growing discussion within the GEF Council about the need to focus on quality at entry as an instrument for strengthening the GEF portfolio.20 The common perception is that the competition for scarce resources among agencies was driving the pressure to register concepts even before due diligence had been conducted. Because country focal point endorsement has not always been a requirement for pipeline entry, some observers believe that agencies have at times identified and begun developing projects on a rather speculative basis, on the assumption that the country will assent to the proposal once it is presented, with no harm being done by "keeping a foot in the programming door." There are also examples of projects being developed which appear outside the 13 expected technical area or comparative advantage of a particular agency, prompting the GEF Council to request a report on this point for the June 2006 Council21. The concern is that some agencies may be seeking to use GEF funds to help develop new areas of business, and that the system of agency fees may represent an incentive to identify and prepare as many GEF projects as possible. The agency competition and the fee incentive issues may partially account for the large number of projects in the pipeline which have lingered, sometimes for many years, without advancing to approval. 4. The GEF as a Networked Organization: Cycle Implications The graphic shown in Figure 5, adapted from the 2005 GEF-3 evaluation,22 illustrates the institutional complexity of the GEF which has evolved since the pilot phase into a network of very diverse stakeholders. While the activity cycle is only one of the functions of this network, and therefore not all aspects of the graphic are directly relevant here, it is a useful reminder that the activity cycle serves as the financing and implementation mechanism of the Conventions and thereby serves a larger purpose. For this reason, project decisions (whether individually or cumulatively) are necessarily of interest to a broad range of stakeholders with very different institutional, technical, and operational perspectives. In one sense, therefore, the search for greater efficiency in the project review and approval process needs to be balanced with the principles of country ownership, disclosure, and public involvement in the activities of 14 the GEF (OPs 4, 6 and 7), as these may entail more time needed for discussion and reaching consensus among a larger set of stakeholders than would be needed if the project were being developed purely as an internal product of the agency involved. A significant omission from the GEF activity cycle as it is usually presented relates to the internal procedures on the recipient country side (shown in the upper-right corner of the GEF Network graphic), which are becoming more important with the introduction of the RAF. As countries take a more direct role in the setting of operational priorities for the national work program, more decision points and processing windows will come into play, further complicating the task of synchronizing the various partners' components of the GEF activity cycle. Some observers believe that permitting pipeline entry without endorsement from the national GEF Focal Point may have permitted some concepts to enter the pipeline at a premature stage, meaning that the "downstream" preparation stages could be encumbered by some of the basic project identification work, thereby lengthening the time needed to reach key decision points (CEO endorsement and IA/ExA approval). Another omission in the original graphic was the role of the GEF donor countries, which carry out direct discussions with the GEF Secretariat around issues such as replenishment, outside of the framework of the Council. A new box has been added at the bottom center of the graphic to illustrate this point. 14 Figure 5: Governance and Reporting Structure of the GEF Source: Interim Report ­ Third Overall Performance Study of the GEF, 2005. 5. Mapping Of Agency Steps A detailed listing of phase goals is given in Appendix 4, while the specific steps, and responsibilities within the activity cycle is given in Appendix 4a for GEFSec23 (representing portions of the GEFSec Operations Manual currently being prepared on FSPs, MSPs, and enabling activities) and Appendices 4b to 4k for the project cycles submitted by the different agencies. Appendix 5 attempts to lay out the various steps submitted by the different agencies, based on the phases defined by the GEF, with a view to highlighting the agency efforts that go into project processing and identifying possible gaps or synergies from the process. The limitations of this exercise are given below: a. The agency submissions contain various levels of detail on steps and procedures.24 b. Some of the agency processes provided were still in draft form or are being redrafted.25 c. Some of the steps "missing" in the submissions may, in fact, have been undertaken in the actual processing, but were not documented as the formal procedures. d. Some of the agencies categorized their steps under different phases.26 To resolve this, the GEF definition was followed. 15 Table 1 below presents a summary count of the steps under each phase, up until approval. The table was extended to include a programming phase, to reflect cases where agencies indicated in their submissions their use of strategy blueprints to guide the identification of project ideas. Concept Development. Under the concept development phase, most of the agencies seemed to have a majority of steps indicated from the concept identification step up to the step on technical review of draft concept papers, indicating the importance of GEF feedback and approval at this stage. However, few had documented steps after the GEFSec decision, such as notification of GEF decision, signing of the letter of agreement, etc. This may be due to the lack of symmetry in the data received: while some agencies may have submitted their regular cycle procedures, the others submitted cycle steps that incorporates GEF- related steps. Of the 10 agencies, two were able to provide average timeframes for the entire concept development phase, ranging from 2 to 6 months. UNDP reported two steps less than IFAD, and also estimated a relatively shorter processing period. Preparation. For the preparation phase, only the multilateral development banks and IFAD reported steps involving the conduct of full-blown studies to prepare the project appraisal document; UNDP identified this to be the responsibility of the proponent, while FAO undertakes this internally. UNIDO did not specify which institution prepares the initial draft of the project brief, but clarifies that the 16 finalization is done by the relevant IA. Another point is that the row on "Country Endorsement" was not filled in, as most agencies were silent about this GEF requirement under Phase 2. Aside from the possible asymmetry discussed in para. 34, one other explanation is that some agencies27 had already incorporated this under the "consultation" step in Phase 1, since the Country Focal Point endorsement of a PDF-B proposal can suffice as the endorsement of a proposal for work program inclusion. However, it is possible that some agencies defined country endorsement under Phase 1 as approval coming from the borrower's representative and not from the GEF Operational Focal Point. About half of the agencies28 did not mention a step relating to a GEF STAP expert review. Although the steps on focal point endorsement and STAP review are necessary elements of processing all the agency proposals, their conspicuous absence from most agency cycles could imply that GEF guidelines have not been integrated well into agency procedures. The average timeframes estimated by agencies for the preparation phase range from 7 to 31 months. Two of the regional development banks (ADB and AfDB) gave the higher duration estimates consistent with their high number of reported phase steps. In contrast, while IFAD provided eight steps,29 its preparation phase was slightly over half of the ADB and AfDB standard timeframes, suggesting a relative efficiency in preparing a project brief. Appraisal. The number of steps for this phase is quite varied, ranging from a high of 7­8 steps for ADB and WB, to a low of 2­3 steps for UNEP and EBRD. Consultation, country commitment, and negotiations with the borrower on project details do not appear to be integral to the appraisal phase of some of the UN agencies and RDBs. In terms of average timeframes, ADB reported a lower duration of 2 to 4 months despite having slightly more steps than IFAD and UNDP, whose appraisal steps take about 3 to 6 months. This may possibly indicate that extra preparation time invested under Phase 2 could lead to shorter appraisal time under Phase 3. Approval and Start of Implementation. WB and ADB reported a bit more steps leading to FSP approval and start-up compared to the other agencies, representing extra preparations prior to Board approval and signing, as well as notification of decision. Unfortunately, both agencies had not been able to provide standard timeframes for this particular phase, which could have offered hints on whether the extra steps also entailed significant additional time. EBRD clocked the shortest timeframe at 2 weeks, but 16 this is confined only to the approval steps. IFAD, UNDP, and AfDB recorded very similar durations of 3 to 6 months. Overall. Two IAs--UNDP and UNEP--documented the least number of steps for all the phases except appraisal. This suggests that the internal FSP cycles of these IAs may be more concise and require less requirements than the WB's and the ExAs', but not necessarily shorter. A more obvious explanation though is that these agencies, along with other agencies that also reported fewer steps like EBRD, FAO, and UNIDO, merely reported an abbreviation of their respective cycles. It would be quite interesting to pursue the subject by comparing the quality of the projects rolled out by the UNDP and UNEP "minimalist" processes and the WB's and ADB's "comprehensive" procedures, in order to find out if more cycle steps really contribute to improving the quality of the cycle product. This comparison will be seen in Section 7, discussing the agencies' application of the OPs in their respective project cycles. To present a more visual representation of what is actually required on the IA/ExA side to prepare an FSP, two examples of agency processing flowcharts are shown here. The IFAD flowchart (Figure 6) illustrates the somewhat different, though not less complex, process for a United Nations (UN) agency, in which the relationship with the host country government may take several forms, depending on whether the project is to be implemented through direct execution, national execution, or contracted though a cooperating agency. The IDB chart (Figure 7) provides a good illustration of the processing steps typically required for an RDB, in which a project is handled as a loan made to a sovereign government but including the GEF grant as a project component. Variations are found within the procedures of the various RDBs and the specialized UN agencies, but the general approaches are very similar in that project preparation entails multiple levels of review and clearance, as well as a substantial volume of staff work and documentation. The most significant point may be that the criteria, procedures, and reviews specific to the GEF are in each case additive--no case has been found in which a GEF procedure replaces an equivalent procedure of the IA or ExA, nor has there been a case where the GEF accepted an Agency processing step to replace a GEFSec procedure. 17 Table 1: Summary Mapping of Agency Steps in FSP Processing Cycle Phase and Steps UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO IDB IFAD UNIDO Phase 0: Programming Strategy document x x x x x Phase 1: Concept Development and/or PDF Processing Idea identification, team x x x x x x x x x formation First draft of the concept x x x x x x x x x x document Consultation x x x x x x x x Technical review x x x x x x x x x x Submission to GEFSec for x x x x x x x pipeline entry/PDF-B approval GEF decision-enabling actions x x x x Notification about GEF x x x decision 18 Subtotal of steps 4 4 6 5 4 5 5 6 6 6 1/2 month 1/4 to 1/2 Duration (in months) 3 for missionmonths for 2 to 6 alone team formation Phase 2: Preparation Consultant/ resource x x x x x x mobilization Fact-finding/ pre-appraisal x x x x x Consultation x x x x x x x Drafting of proposed project x x x x x x x x x document Technical review x x x x x x x x Country endorsement x x GEF STAP expert review x x x x x Management/Other review x x x x x x x x Submission to GEFSec for x x x x x x x Work Program Inclusion Subtotal of steps 3 2 6 7 7 5 5 7 8 7 Duration (in months) 12 15 to 31 7 to 30 9 to 18 18 Phase and Steps UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO IDB IFAD UNIDO Phase 3: Appraisal Preparation for appraisal x x x Consultation x x x x x Refinement of project appraisal x x x x x x document Review x x x x x x x x Finalization of project appraisal x x x x document Country commitment x x Preparation for negotiations x x x Negotiations x x x Post negotiations x x x x x x Submission to GEFSec for x x x x x x CEO endorsement Subtotal of steps 5 2 8 7 6 3 0 4 6 5 3 to 4 for Duration (in months) 3.5 to 6.5 mission 2 to 4 4 3 to 6 alone Phase 4: Approval and Start of Implementation 19 Preparation of Documents for x x x x x Board Approval Clearance of Board package x x x x x x Pre-Board Meeting x Presentation to Board and x x x x x Board Approval Post-Board Approval x x Pre-Signing x x x x x x Signing x x x x x x Effectiveness x x x x x x Notification x x GEF Action x Mobilization/Procurement (up to 1st year of Implementation) x x x x x Subtotal of steps 4 4 9 7 5 5 0 5 6 0 several 0.5 for Duration (in months) 3 to 6 months 4 to 6 approval 3 to 6 only 19 Figure 6: IFAD Project Cycle for GEF Financing Strategic Identification of GEF viable projects in line with IFAD (COSOP) & GEF Priorities PDT Meeting Review & Clearance of Concept Note AP, PMD Approval for Pipeline Submission IFAD Review of Sister GEF Agency Proposal Submissions for GEF Pipeline Entry Review Meeting 20 AP, PMD Approval for Cooperating Agency PDFB Submission (Institutional Contracts) Preparation of Institutional Contract Identification of Grant Funds Disbursement Arrangements Source: International Fund for Agricultural Development. Cooperating Agency (Institutional Contracts) President's Approval Preparation of Institutional Contract Contract Signature Grant Signature 20 PDT Meeting Review & Clearance of FP Brief Pre-TRC Meeting FPBriefReview&LeadAdvisorMemoPreparation TRC Meeting TRCIssuesPaperPreparation&ClearanceofFPBrief AP, PMD Approval for Work Programme Inclusion and CEO Approval Submission IFAD Review of Sister GEF Agency FP Brief Submissions for Work Programme Entry PDT Meeting Review & Clearance of FP Prodoc AP,PMD Approval for CEO Endorsement Submission President's Approval Grant Signature Start-Up Mission 21 Figure 7: IDB Project Cycle for GEF Financing* Figure 6: IDB Project Processing for GEF* Registration of Project Development Facility Grant Proposal (PDF-B)** for Project Development Up to $350K for Single, $700K for Multi Country Registration of Project Development Facility Grant Proposal (PDF-B)** for Project Development Up to $350K for Single, $700K for Division Chief Approval; ATN Multi Country Number Assigned *** Division Chief Approval; ATN Number Assigned*** Manager Approval of PDF-B; ATN Number Assigned *** * Project concept paper and PDF-B submitted jointly. Manager Approval of PDF-B; ATN ** Same process for PDF-C. Number Assigned*** *** Subject to renewed delegation of authority by the President for these operations. Source: Inter-American Development Bank. 22 Figures 8 and 9 below tries to superimpose the IFAD and IDB steps under Phases 2 to 4 (FSP preparation, appraisal, and approval procedures at the right-hand side) with main GEF decision points (at the left-hand side). The comparison serves to illustrate how the number of agency procedures could vary so dramatically, without necessarily making judgments about their effectiveness. Figure 8: GEF and IFAD Processes in Parallel 23 Figure 9: GEF and IDB Processes in Parallel 24 6. Duration Of GEF Activity Cycle Phases This section discusses the information available on (elapsed time) the duration of the activity cycle steps. A study commissioned by the GEF EO (W. Arensberg, April 2005 draft) quoted the amount of time required by each of the three IAs (UNDP, UNEP and WB) to prepare, process, and begin implementation of GEF FSPs and MSPs. This study sought to assess the factors behind the delays, addressing not only efficiency but also quality. For FSPs, the IAs overall took over 38 months on average from pipeline entry to effectiveness; UNDP had the longest elapsed time at 41 months, while the WB and UNEP were slightly faster, at 37.6 and 36 months respectively. In terms of performance by GEF focal area, climate change had the shortest elapsed times at 36 months on average; International Waters averaged 39.6 months, and biodiversity projects showed the longest times at 42 months. Overall, the study found that it took 3.2 years (38.4 months) for an IA to develop an FSP. Since multilateral development banks generally expect a 2-year total processing time for a typical investment or TA project, this suggests that processing a GEF projects adds more than 1year (14.4 months, or about 37.5% longer) to the total project processing time. Of this incremental processing time of over 14 months, the various internal review and approval procedures of the GEF (Secretariat, STAP, Council, and CEO) averaged 6­7 months, or half of the additional time, with the remaining half comprising other delays on the IA side or within the host country. The nominal processing time for an FSP, as stipulated in the GEF Program Management Bulletin, would total some 5 months due to the various stages of review and approval which are required: a. Review of concept documents for pipeline entry (by IAs and EAs, convention secretariats, and GEFSec staff) and concept review meeting: 1.5 months b. PDF-B processing where requested separately: 0.5 months c. Review for work program inclusion: 3 months d. CEO endorsement: 0.5 months. In some cases, proposals would be re-circulated to the Council before CEO endorsement, which would add another month to the process. Thus, given a nominal GEF processing time of 5­6 months for an FSP, the actual processing period on the GEF side of 6-7 months mentioned above is longer, but not remarkably so given the number of participants in the review process. The time consumed on the IA side of the process includes time taken to respond to questions or suggestions made during the review process, to make modifications to the project design, and the need to communicate with host country partners about proposed changes or additional information sought during the review process. Where this would entail detailed, field-based discussions or data gathering (such as field missions), the process would require more time and result in possible scheduling difficulties. Taken as a whole, none of these steps appear in their own right to be inordinately complex or time-consuming, yet it is not difficult to see that the process as a whole entails numerous opportunities for delay, especially when the time-bound processing windows mentioned earlier need to be accommodated (i.e., scheduling of missions, Board or Council dates). This suggests the need for a degree of skepticism concerning the potential time efficiencies to be gained by further refining existing procedures, in the absence of major changes in the way the process as a whole is designed. Such refinements have been attempted at numerous points in the past, as will be discussed later. The Arensberg study also examined GEF processing of MSPs, which are intended to be smaller (below $1 million) and substantially faster to process. Here, the report reported that on average MSPs take 27.6 months for processing, which is well beyond original expectations and has been fairly consistent despite past efforts toward streamlining. The GEF review process for MSPs was found to take on average 3 months rather than the 25 working days envisaged by the GEF procedures. Put in other terms, MSP take 25 about the same total processing time as a conventional size investment or TA project--without GEF financing--of one of the multilateral development banks. For this report, another evaluation component (Component 6) supplied data regarding the average elapsed time for processing FSPs and MSPs under the various GEF replenishment periods. The number of observations or projects noted for the different "time slices" differ as projects are at varying stages in the cycle. The "Concept to Pipeline Entry" time slice and those on implementation were not available from the Component 6 database, so these were not included in the tables. Since the more relevant periods for this report would be the recent GEF-2 and GEF-3 cohorts, the elapsed time results for these periods, given in terms of months, are highlighted in Table 2 below. The emerging pattern (under both GEF-2 and GEF-3) is that the average elapsed time for processing an MSP is less than half of the period for an FSP, except during the preparation phase (from Pipeline Entry to Work Program Inclusion) 30. This supports the (sometimes-contested) view that the expedited MSP processing system actually translates to relatively faster approval of MSPs. However, the finding that agencies still take about 12 months to prepare an MSP for Work Program Inclusion (or about 70% of the time it takes for FSPs) also validates certain agency complaints that GEF requirements for approving MSPs approximate those for FSPs', and therefore complying with them take about the same time. From Table 2, we observed a relative doubling in the preparation time (pipeline to work program) for FSPs and MSPs from GEF-2 to GEF-3, but offset by a big reduction in the approval phase timeframe. This could be the offshoot of previous initiatives to enhance quality-at-entry, leading to the frontloading of reviews. There may be little benefit in terms of time saved, though, because the total processing time (from PDF-B approval to effectiveness) was not reduced across the two periods. 26 Table 2: Elapsed Time for Processing under GEF-2 and GEF-3 Average for All Agencies Full-Size Projects Medium-Size Projects Time Slice Months No. of Months No. of Projects Projects GEF-2 Pipeline Entry to Work Program 17.0 121 12.0 56 Inclusion Work Program Inclusion to CEO 17.0 185 5.5 20 Endorsement CEO Endorsement to Agency 1.0 180 2.0 20 Approval Agency Approval to 5.5 143 2.5 100 Effectiveness PDF-A Approval to Effectiveness 49.7 15 26.0 64 PDF-B Approval to Effectiveness 40.7 100 NA NA GEF-3 Pipeline Entry to Work Program 30.1 241 31.8 12 Inclusion Work Program Inclusion to CEO 9.7 169 2.8 1 Endorsement CEO Endorsement to Agency 1.4 135 4.5 2 Approval Agency Approval to 2.4 109 0.9 61 Effectiveness PDF-A Approval to Effectiveness 65.9 12 36.0 50 PDF-B Approval to Effectiveness 44.1 100 NA NA Source of raw data: Component 6 database. Tables 3a (for FSPs) and 3b (for MSPs) present a glimpse into the relative processing efficiencies of IAs (vs. all agencies). Note that these tables would only capture projects meant for single-agency and not multi-agency implementation. The three IAs, on average, invest about 5 more months in FSP preparation than the average for all agencies. At first glance, this appears unusual considering that the IAs have had extensive experience with the GEF and should therefore present shorter preparation times compared to other agencies. However, a closer look at the dataset revealed that most of the EAs did have preparation times higher than 30 months, and that the average for "all agencies" had been pulled down by the shorter timeframes (ranging from 10 to 11 months) recorded for certain jointly-implemented FSPs. These "efficient" joint projects involve the IAs working together (UNDP-UNEP and UNDP-UNEP-WB), hinting at synergies that may arise from having great familiarity with GEF requirements. Although other factors may be influencing this result, it would be difficult at this point to speculate without further information. For MSPs, the processing times between IAs only and all agencies are not very different from each other. 27 Table 3a: Elapsed Time for Processing FSPs, All GEF Periods Time Slice All Agencies IAs only Months No. of Months No. of Projects Projects Pipeline Entry to Work Program 23.6 414 28.3 355 Inclusion Work Program Inclusion to CEO 14.5 480 13.8 404 Endorsement CEO Endorsement to Agency 1.5 435 1.7 364 Approval Agency Approval to Effectiveness 4.9 423 3.3 359 PDF-A Approval to Effectiveness 46.3 46 47.1 39 PDF-B Approval to Effectiveness 40.1 243 44.9 207 Source of raw data: Component 6 database. Table 3b: Elapsed Time for Processing MSPs, All GEF Periods Time Slice All Agencies IAs only Months No. of Months No. of Projects Projects Pipeline Entry to Work Program 15.0 71 14.6 68 Inclusion Work Program Inclusion to CEO 5.4 21 5.9 19 Endorsement CEO Endorsement to Agency 2.2 22 1.8 20 Approval Agency Approval to Effectiveness 1.9 166 1.9 152 PDF-A Approval to Effectiveness 30.2 115 30.4 110 PDF-B Approval to Effectiveness NA NA NA NA Source of raw data: Component 6 database. Table 4 was developed by taking the average generic timeframes per cycle phase submitted by the agencies and putting them next to the actual elapsed times derived under Component 6. This was done to benchmark the actual processing durations of GEF-cofinanced projects with their respective agency standards. It is important to note that Table 4 presented durations for projects managed solely by one agency (not jointly-implemented projects), referring therefore to projects approved under direct access arrangements for the ExAs. It follows then that the number of observations for the ExAs are quite limited considering that direct access was operationalized only in 2002. 28 Table 4. Comparison of Agency Standard Timeframes with Actual Elapsed Time* per Cycle Phase, in Months Cycle Phase UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB IDB IFAD Preparation Phase/ Pipeline Entry to Work Program Approval Standard Duration 12 ND ND 15 to 31 7 to 30 ND 9 to 18 Actual Elapsed Time 33 34.5 17.5 39 ND 41 30.5 Number of FSPs 115 27 213 4 0 2 2 Appraisal Phase/ Work Program Approval to CEO Endorsement Standard Duration 3.5 to 6.5 ND ND 2 to 4 4 ND 3 to 6 Actual Elapsed Time 15 12.5 14 10 ND 3.5 16 Number of FSPs 177 38 189 3 0 2 2 Approval to Start-up Phase/ CEO Endorsement to IA Approval and IA Approval to Effectiveness Standard Duration 3 to 6 ND ND ND 4 to 6 ND 3 to 6 Actual Elapsed Time: CEO Endorsement to IA 1.5 2 1.5 2.5 ND 5 (0.5) Approval** Number of FSPs 153 29 182 3 0 2 2 Actual Elapsed Time: IA Approval to Effectiveness 3 0.5 6.5 6 ND 1 4.5 Number of FSPs 145 8 206 3 0 2 2 Actual Elapsed Time: CEO Endorsement to 4.5 2.5 8.0 8.5 ND 6.0 4.0 Effectiveness Number of FSPs 153 29 206 3 0 2 2 * Elapsed time data for all GEF periods, single-agency (excluding jointly-implemented projects), rounded off to the nearest 0.5 ** Negative number recorded for IFAD refers to 2 projects where the IFAD Board approval came before the GEF CEO endorsement ND = No data. No data was also reported for EBRD, FAO and UNIDO. Source: Agency submissions for standard durations, and Component 6 database for the actual timeframes Preparation Phase. Five agencies reported actual elapsed times for GEF FSPs that exceeded 2 ˝ years, which are closer to the upper bounds of the regular timeframes submitted by ADB and AfDB. Since the non-GEF and GEF preparation timeframes of ADB31 are nearer to each other (an 8-month difference) compared to those for the other agencies, its regular procedures under this phase may have complemented GEF requirements32 well enough to allow for easier adaptation to GEF processing. However, this may not be a robust point since only four ADB FSPs are involved. The WB registered a 1 ˝ year period between GEF pipeline entry to Work Program inclusion, almost a full year less than the next shortest time (30.5 months for IFAD). This abbreviated preparation time is 29 notable because it represents the average for 213 FSP proposals (the highest number of agency FSPs across timeslices), possibly implying there could be economies of scale in preparing FSP proposals. Appraisal Phase. The elapsed times of most agencies in appraising GEF projects ranged from 1 year to 1 year and 4 months, which are still more than twice the standard times they observe for projects overall (from 2 months to 6 months). This suggests that agencies need a lot more additional time to finalize FSPs for GEF CEO endorsement relative to finalizing the document for internal approval. This extra time may have been spent on firming up the incremental cost calculations and the cofinancing arrangements. IDB posted the shorter elapsed time of less than 4 months, although this was based on only four FSPs. Project Approval and Start-Up. Two timeslices fall under this phase: GEF CEO endorsement up to IA approval, and IA approval up to effectiveness. The elapsed time results for these two periods should be added to become comparable to the standard durations for the entire phase. Data for UNDP and IFAD showed that their actual elapsed times were within the range for their overall projects, between 3 and 6 months. WB and ADB chalked the longest elapsed times of 8 to 8.5 months, due perhaps to procedures specific to the borrowing country since 75% of this time was posted from IA approval to effectiveness (para. 73 shows that, as early as the project preparation phase, WB staff already undertakes facilitation measures to minimize delays in loan effectiveness). UNEP had the shortest elapsed time of 2.5 months, even more notable if we consider that its loans (only eight though in the sample) could be declared effective 2 weeks after UNEP approval. An important distinction needs to be made between the processing time which may be stipulated for a specific task (i.e., review of a concept paper) and the actual elapsed time for a given phase of the activity cycle (i.e., project concept development) to be completed. The preparation process entails a series of interactive steps which may involve two or more partners, each of whom may be operating under different time constraints. The processing timelines published by the GEF for its various decision points, which are not long (ranging from 5 to 30 working days) if added together do not capture all of the time which may be needed for reformulation or resubmission of documentation as a result of feedback from a prior decision point (as well as internal discussion about how to handle a given comment or suggestion). In 2005,33 the WB did a detailed analysis of the length of time its GEF projects took at various stages of review (pipeline entry, work plan inclusion, CEO endorsement). The results showed that there were numerous occasions when review memos or other GEF notifications were received later than scheduled, typically in the range of one or two weeks later. The averages cited by the Bank were, however, significantly skewed by a small number of outliers with very long delays, especially in the case of new and multi-focal area projects where institutions were still learning the criteria applied to the operations. Using as an example the average delay in submitting the project review sheets34 during the concept development phase for WB FSPs, the overall result of 15 days tend to overstate the more typical period of 9 days it takes to review a WB concept document for entry into the GEF pipeline. The GEF Annual Performance Review for 2004 (which also included portions of the Arensberg study), identified another aspect of the GEF activity cycle which has tended to slow the process. Because there were no costs or consequences associated with submitting a project for GEF consideration, some projects have been entered into the system which for various reasons did not have strong support from the applicants, or had other underlying problems: "A recent review identified some 72 projects that had been in the pipeline for over 3 years without moving beyond the concept stage to work program inclusion. The projects had been held up for a variety of reasons ranging from difficult political, institutional, and technical issues to bureaucratic neglect. In order to address this problem, the GEF Secretariat instituted a more aggressive approach to pipeline management. This `use or lose' policy on the part of the GEF Secretariat should have a ripple effect that may do a 30 great deal to discipline and expedite the development and approval of GEF projects overall." (2004 Annual Performance Review (APR), p.12). The fact that, in the past, projects could be entered into the pipeline without the need for country endorsement has, according so some observers, tended to reinforce the temptation to submit project concepts on a more speculative basis than might otherwise be the case: should circumstances turn out well and the concept actually move forward then this would be a successful venture, whereas a stalled or failed concept would have no cost to the agency submitting the concept. Access to PDF-A resources might even make such a venture entirely free of cost to the applying agency, which otherwise would at least have to invest some staff time or consultant budget in preparation of a concept note. Under the new RAF this is no longer possible, and observers expect that this form of speculative concept submission will quickly disappear (though some worry that it could be replaced by other problems associated with the new gate- keeping function of country focal points). Whether the `use or lose' policy by itself would have been effective in curbing speculative applications for GEF resources is difficult to say. A review of previous efforts to reform and streamline the GEF activity cycle reveals that there had been many reforms whose results fell below expectations, such as those initiatives included in the 2000 GEF Project Cycle35 and 2003 GEF Project Cycle Update36. An instructive example of over-optimism can be seen in several aspects of the 1998 initiative "Streamlining the Project Cycle" (GEF/C.12/9). First, the introduction of the intersessional work program mechanism led to high hopes in several areas, with the claim that this had... "...not only streamlined the project cycle by facilitating timely entry of projects into the work program, but has also promoted better quality in preparation of proposals by easing the bunching of projects and reducing the `now or never' pressures on the GEF Secretariat and the Implementing Agencies which existed when work programs were only approved every six months."(GEF/C.12/9, p.2). Second, this 1998 document also claimed that expedited the procedures for processing MSPs, which were approved in October 1996, had already "significantly reduced the time from concept to final approval."37 Third, a set of "effective, time-bound systems for consultation and coordination" were expected to bring new efficiency to the project development and review process, and fourth, an information kit clarifying incremental cost concepts and tools was to be disseminated to country stakeholders, to simplify and standardize the GEF's approach to incremental costs, and reduce delays and concerns associated with this concept. Fifth, the logframe methodology was to be promoted "as a means to streamline GEF project cycle management, since its full value may best be realized where it is applied systematically as a design, management and evaluation tool." UNDP's strong support for logframe training for decentralized staff was expected to be a significant effort (with some basis, as it turns out; see para. 87). The WB's introduction of new "project processing systems" (more accurately, new document formats, namely the Project Concept Document and the Project Appraisal Document,the latter replacing the earlier Staff Appraisal Report) were described as innovations with significant potential to streamline project processing, as were the new Learning and Innovation Loans (LILs) which were intended to greatly simplify smaller projects (below $5 million) that would be oriented toward pilot-tests and applied research. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that most of these claims were overly optimistic, and did not sufficiently probe the underlying reasons for the bureaucratic delays and complexity they tried to address. As we have already seen, MSPs remain disproportionately complex and slow to bring to approval despite the reform efforts, and on average an MSP takes about the same time to prepare as a non-GEF FSP in the IAs. Incremental cost concepts and criteria remain mysterious to many stakeholders. While there has been much discussion, in the GEF Council and elsewhere, of applying strict time limits and giving more 31 attention to coordination, it is not clear that this has resulted in a faster or more efficient cycle. The results of the elapsed time analysis show the changes have not effectively reduced the overall processing time for GEF proposals. As discussed in para. 49, while the average elapsed time for the approval phase was reduced from GEF-2 to GEF-3, the preparation time increased somewhat proportionally. On the other hand, the problems described here are not purely a function of GEF requirements and procedures. Indeed, the example of the WB LILs, mentioned above, illustrates a larger trend which is relevant here. LILs were intended to give task teams a new tool for rapidly testing innovative ideas, which could then be replicated on a larger scale once their essential elements had been successfully demonstrated. But in practice, there were at least two problems with the LIL mechanism as it was implemented. The first problem relates to the tendency to misuse the LIL instrument. In several quality at entry and quality of supervision reviews, the WB's Quality Assurance Group found that some weak project concepts had been submitted as LILs, or larger concepts were repackaged in order to meet the $5 million threshold, with insufficient attention being given to the learning objectives that were the original purpose of this instrument. Secondly, and ironically, in many cases it turned out that the actual processing time for a LIL was far longer than initially envisaged (very much in line with the experience of the GEF's MSPs), and were requiring nearly as much preparation effort as an FSP. In part, the slower-than-expected processing appears to be related to reluctance to dispense with the regular review and clearance procedures (and this point is very relevant to the GEF as well). While in principle everyone may have agreed that it would make sense for LILs to be handled on an expedited basis, in practice there was great reluctance to dispense with standard review and clearance procedures, with few individuals being willing to relinquish their oversight responsibilities. In each case, legitimate concerns could be cited: it would not be prudent to dispense with fiduciary or safeguard oversight, to risk shortcuts on procurement regulations, technical standards, and so forth. But the aggregate results of individual caution are almost inevitably a slower process than initially expected. These developments have led to a recent initiative by the WB to reengineer the LIL instrument to better focus on the learning objective as well as to ensure more timely processing (though it is still too early to know the results of this reform). This experience points to the need for more realism in developing new project modalities or refining existing ones, and for a better understanding of the institutional incentive systems which influence the way agency staff actually function within the GEF activity cycle, which may differ from the initial expectations. 7. Application Of GEF Operational Principles In The Project Cycle As described under methodology, the IAs and ExAs were asked to complete a survey questionnaire38 ranking the relative importance of each of the six phases of the GEF activity cycle (concept development, preparation, appraisal, approval and start-up, implementation and supervision, and completion and evaluation) in achieving the relevant GEF OPs. It is expected that the effectiveness of the GEF cycle can be seen from how the OPs are applied in the cycle. The results of the survey are presented in the table below. The 1-rated responses are shown with an `X", to indicate those areas on which agencies clearly feel that the GEF OPs most directly apply. Cells filled with a "0" are those where 3-rated responses indicated a view that the OP was clearly not important in that case. The 2-rated responses ("somewhat important") are not shown here, in order to capture the most salient views, both positive and negative. The responses indicate strong support for the public involvement OP throughout the cycle (all six phases), and nearly as strong for country ownership, catalytic role/leveraging, and M&E (five phases rated "1"). Four negative responses at the concept stage are worth noting: for incremental costs, cost-effectiveness, disclosure and M&E. This simply suggests that for most respondents, these are factors which would come into play later in the development of the project. 32 Table 5: Summary of Agency Responses on Importance of GEF Operational Principles (X=most important; 0=least important) Principle Incre- Cost- Country Flexibi- Disclo- Public Catalytic M&E Phase mental Effec- Owner- lity sure Involve Role Costs tiveness ship ment Concept 0=3 0=4 X=9 0=2 X=4 X=6 0=4 Preparation X=9 X=5 X=8 X=9 X=9 X=6 Appraisal X=7 X=5 X=6 X=6 X=3 X=3 X=7 X=5 Approval and X=5 X=4 X=5 X=5 X=5 Startup Implementation 0=5 X=4 X=7 X=6 X=7 X=5 X=8 and Supervision Completion and X=4 X=6 X=8 Evaluation Source: Agency survey conducted by GEF Evaluation Office. The rather weak support for the flexibility OP (being shown as important only in two phases) is also interesting, though the data does not permit us to delve more deeply into its meaning. Given the subjectivity of the data collected for Table 3, a more extensive analysis of such data may not be warranted. Nevertheless, the specific agency rankings are presented in Appendix 6. Instead, the proceeding discussion will focus on the agencies' submission of information relating to which OPs are specifically supported in their own organizational procedures, presented in Appendix 739. The purpose would be to compare the relative efficiency of the agency cycles (as discussed in Section 5 on the mapping of steps) with the effectiveness of the phase steps in terms of supporting the GEF OPs. This will draw attention to possible "best practices" within an agency cycle that enhance the achievement of the GEF OPs. Incremental cost (OP2). It was logical for the agencies (AfDB, ADB, UNDP and WB) to identify the project preparation, appraisal and approval phases as the most critical for this OP. The incremental cost analysis is drafted during the preparation period either as an output of the PDF or as part of the requirements for GEF Work Program Inclusion, while the incremental cost evaluation is finalized for GEF and IA approval during the appraisal and approval phases. Within these three phases, WB subjects incremental cost issues to several reviews: the Quality Enhancement Review (QER), the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) Review, the (optional) Appraisal Mission, official negotiations and consideration by the Board of Executive Directors. ADB addresses this OP during the preparation of its project financing plan and the financial and economic analyses, while AfDB reviews the cost calculations for technical soundness. Some of the agencies felt that incremental cost analysis is equally important during the concept development stage. For instance, WB subjects its draft concept paper to a GEF eligibility review from the WB GEF Regional Coordinator and technical specialists, possibly touching on the incremental costs and benefits. AfDB considers the analysis during its meeting with different stakeholders under this early phase as well. Cost-Effectiveness (OP3). WB and ADB, and UNDP to a lesser extent, affirmed the important opportunities offered by most phases in realizing cost-effectiveness, implying that their internal reviewers may be quite conscious of cost-benefit options through most of the cycle. Their deliberations on cost- effectiveness may sometimes coincide with the reviews conducted for incremental cost, except that WB 33 reviews extend up to the completion and evaluation phase40. AfDB develops several technical and institutional alternatives achieving the set objectives and compares these for cost-effectiveness at the preparation phase, while EBRD addresses cost-effectiveness at the concept development phase when it makes a preliminary assessment of the project's feasibility. Country Ownership (OP4). WB has steps that enhance country ownership in the five phases, indicating the utmost importance of meeting this OP in its project cycle (monitoring and evaluation is the only other OP that WB incorporated in all five phases). For instance, the WB explicitly requires the endorsement of the GEF Operational Focal Point before a concept is submitted for Pipeline Entry, which is more stringent than the GEFSec's former requirement. During the appraisal phase, the WB spends three to four weeks in the client country to reach an agreement with both government and borrower on all aspects of the project. Early into the project preparation phase, WB staff also address any special country requirements pertaining to effectiveness, thereby allowing the borrower to approve legal opinions in advance of the date set for effectiveness41. ADB also has very similar measures, like devoting two to four weeks to an appraisal mission where ADB discusses the details of the proposed project with the borrower and the directly-affected agencies. ADB coordinates extensively with the borrower during the start-up stage, in terms of finalizing the project administration memorandum and getting agreement on counterpart funding and special financial procedures. The borrower also co-signs all Memoranda of Understanding resulting from ADB review missions. Unlike the WB42, however, ADB did not identify the completion and evaluation phase as vital to enhancing country ownership. AfDB has adopted as a key goal its role of encouraging the borrower to be in the driver's seat, with respect to the identification of investment operations (phase 1) and the negotiation the loan agreement (phase 4). In the case of UNDP, OP 4 is supported mainly through the formal endorsement letter from the GEF Operational Focal Point at the preparation phase, and the review of the final project document at the fourth phase. EBRD is more categorical in stating that it has to receive first a request (either formal or informal) from the promoter or government to provide a loan before undertaking any concept development. After entry into the GEF pipeline, EBRD also signs a mandate letter with the borrower, describing the project plan, the development expenses and the responsibilities. After the approval phase, EBRD stresses that the project sponsor will be primarily responsible for implementation. Flexibility (OP5). The agencies seemed more polarized about flexibility, with UNDP and AfDB having only one or no phase at all where it is pursued. EBRD indicated that the early phases from Concept Development up to Appraisal offer more room for flexibility rather than the last three phases, while ADB and the WB perceive almost all phases to be material to flexibly respond to changing circumstance. Again, the multiple reviews carried out by both banks give opportunities to revise approaches, consider new policies, assess action on loan covenants, provide supplementary financing or extend the project closing dates. Full Disclosure (OP6). This principle is the least integrated into the agency cycles, with not much similarity between agencies in terms of relevant phases. EBRD authorizes the release of draft project documents 30 to 60 days before Board review, and the release of environmental impact assessments, 60 to 120 days prior to Board consideration. WB uploads the GEF Project Brief to its Operations Portal during the preparation stage, and GEFSec posts the project document on its website upon approval. ADB already uploads the project document in its website prior to signing by the Board. Public Involvement and Participation (OP7). UNDP identified all the phases (except completion and evaluation) as crucial in strengthening public participation. Similarly, AfDB already meets with different stakeholders before drafting the project brief at the concept development stage, as well as during the preparation and appraisal missions. In the case of ADB, the project framework is discussed with prospective beneficiaries and interested NGOs at the concept development phase to ensure common 34 understanding by all parties. This is followed up in an inception workshop held during the PPTA stage to reach agreement on the best project design. EBRD notifies affected people and interested NGOs about the project during the preparation phase, conducting consultations and documenting public comments for presentation to the Board. Curiously, WB did not name a specific phase that enhances this OP although there are references within the procedures that involve public participation. For instance, stakeholder consultation was claimed to be critical in the Midterm Review stage, such that the planning of the reviews should be fully coordinated with the Borrower and stakeholders. GEF's Catalytic Role and Financial Leverage (OP9). WB has learned how to leverage the GEF's reputation and resources in the four earlier phases, but did not specify which particular steps enhance these. In ADB, these coincide with the client discussions during the preparation and appraisal phases and during the finalization of the cofinancing arrangements at the approval phase. It is not so clear though why UNDP indicated the implementation and completion phases as supportive of GEF's catalytic role, without a specific phase step to provide the context. AfDB relates the preparation of the financial analysis and the review of the quality and technical soundness of the appraisal report as steps that take advantage of the GEF's clout. Monitoring and Evaluation (OP10). WB builds into all the phases the procedures that promote this OP, similar to ADB but excluding the concept development phase. The major ones include: a. ADB's formulation of the project framework, where the project's objectives, inputs and activities, expected outputs and key indicators facilitates the monitoring implementation later on; b. WB's oversight of the project financial management, including periodically audited financial statements; c. WB-wide reporting standard of once a year as a minimum, wherein a supervision mission visits the project sites or representative subprojects and prepares an Implementation Status Report that will serve as the key internal reporting tool for project progress. The ADB-counterpart is the Project Performance Report that uses inputs review missions and is discussed quarterly. The review includes not only overall implementation, but actions taken to reduce poverty, comply with loan covenants (including social safeguards); d. WB Regional Coordinators provide feedback on the quality of the Implementation Status Report, especially the use of monitoring and evaluation in supervision; e. ADB assesses at the project completion review whether the borrower, the executing agency and ADB monitored the project's progress effectively against targets, in addition to their management and implementation of the project. AfDB identified the appraisal and implementation phases as crucial for monitoring and evaluation, the former because it delineates accountability and the latter by naming the Task Manager as having primary responsibility for monitoring progress towards the achievement of project objectives and development impact. Both EBRD and UNDP highlighted the only last two phases. UNDP tasks the Project Coordinator to oversee the conduct of studies that will verify project purpose indicators, while the GEF Technical Advisor and the Project Coordinator will oversee the field offices' and supervising agencies' monitoring (annual) of project progress and performance. It also conducts a final external evaluation, a terminal report and a documentation of lessons learned. EBRD fields semiannual monitoring missions and an expanded mission every 3 years, to monitor the project's implementation in relation to agreed schedules, loan agreements and the use of project outputs by the borrower and the beneficiaries. EBRD also prepares a Project Completion Report and possible Operation Performance Evaluation Review. Overall. The analysis shows that, of the five agencies that submitted OP data, the WB and ADB have more procedures that support the achievement of the GEF OPs, a possible indication of effectiveness within the GEF context. While having different procedures, both agencies have them in place for almost the same OPs (mainly country ownership, M&E, cost-effectiveness, and flexibility) and phases 35 (particularly in the preparation, appraisal, and approval). The only divergences deal with their mode of informing stakeholders: WB has more procedures on full disclosure while ADB incorporates more steps on public participation. Comparing these to the findings from Section 5 that WB and ADB tend to have more comprehensive procedures, there is basis for stating that the quantity of their phase steps is balanced by the higher quality of each phase product, as represented by the wide array of GEF OPs supported in each phase. UNDP also indicated OP data for most phases but did not identify specific procedures that address the OPs. The OP that had the highest count of UNDP phase steps is public involvement, followed by incremental cost and country ownership. While data from Section 5 showed that it has a concise project cycle with relatively minimal procedures, UNDP still managed to include a good number of OPs in its phases, closer in number to those of WB's and ADB's. It would have been more enlightening though if UNDP had reflected the specific procedures in its submission, to offer insights to other agencies on how it has addressed the OPs with less requirements. AfDB and EBRD indicated the least number of phases that support the GEF OPs, but this should not be seen as imputing judgment on quality, especially because these agencies may have submitted their regular cycles instead of the ones that incorporate the GEF. For instance, EBRD did not reflect any procedure that includes incremental cost and GEF's catalytic role, OPs that are unique to the GEF. 8. Conclusions And Recommendations This review of the GEF activity cycle has found that there has been little change in the duration of review processes despite numerous attempts at streamlining and reforming procedures, dating back as far as 1998. Although evidence is mainly indirect, the preponderance of this evidence points to underlying institutional incentive issues and behaviors which have been resistant to change. And while some of the complicating factors are specific to the GEF (i.e., incremental costs as a condition for financing), there is also evidence of the importance of factors internal to the IAs (i.e., the experience of LILs in the WB, which in some ways parallels the case of MSPs in the GEF). Moreover, it is probably not the case that there is a single factor which is responsible for delays in project processing. If this were the case, then administrative measures to enforce strict turn-around times for review procedures would be a reasonable avenue for mitigating the problem. While there is some evidence that these service standards are sometimes violated, by themselves they do not account for the long delays which have characterized GEF processing over the years. A more plausible explanation is the complex interaction of activities by different partners, which frequently includes the need for substantial rework, which may also throw rather tight processing schedules out of sync with rigid timing windows such as Board dates. Another complicating factor is that the timing of certain GEF decision points may not "mesh" well with agency processing schedules, but nevertheless must be complied with, resulting in additional time pressures on project preparation staff. The specialized nature of GEF projects also plays a role. By their nature these projects are complex, and involve technical issues for which there may be limited numbers of staff or consultants with relevant qualifications as well as institutional experience. When a GEF review raises an issue of eligibility, or requires additional information to be collected, it may not be possible for this to be quickly resolved through desk work alone, but may require mission travel, recruitment of a consultant, and meetings with national counterparts who themselves are often overstretched (especially those most familiar with GEF criteria and procedures). As one observer has noted, "as designed, the GEF project cycle can work only if everything goes smoothly." 36 This point also has relevance for the value-added of GEF review processes. A frequently-heard complaint concerns the duplication of review processes, when one considers the various review and approval steps within the IA or EA, as well as those of GEFSec and Council. It is understandable that task teams within IAs and EAs would be in favor of reducing the scope for GEF review in order to expedite the preparation and approval process. From their point of view, the IAs and EAs should be considered responsible for preparing project designs that meet professional standards, but are also fully consistent with the GEF's specific criteria (such as incremental costs) and so, therefore, GEF reviews should only focus on the latter elements, and not scrutinize all aspects of project design. On the other hand, the GEF Council had often expressed concern that the quality of project proposals had been inconsistent, which does not argue in favor of reducing the intensity of the review process. Evidence for this viewpoint is provided in the 2005 APR, which examined the quality of monitoring and evaluation arrangements at entry, for some 74 projects receiving GEF CEO endorsement during FY05. The results showed that about 42% of the projects were not compliant in certain M&E parameters, in spite of the prevailing multiple review procedures (see 2005 APR,). Interestingly, the results for UNDP were significantly better (only 32% do not meet overall expectations), which indicates that there has been some measurable improvement as a result of that agency's strong focus on the logframe as a key element of design. The role of quality assurance procedures probably needs to be given more attention, therefore. The quality at entry review of M&E carried out in the 2005 APR represents a useful start, which could be expanded in future years to include broader aspects of project design (as well as supervision). Based on the experience of past revisions of the cycle, it would probably be a mistake to count on further streamlining initiatives which are not backed by strong management support within the GEF and the agencies, and verified by independent quality assurance reviews. The positive aspect of this point is that some streamlining may be possible, if overall quality at entry is strengthened and accountability systems provide reasonable assurance that quality standards will be maintained. With the application of direct access and the increasing importance of integrated approaches, the distinctions between agencies and the comparative advantages discussed in Appendix 1 has become blurred. Therefore there is a need to really promote cooperation between agencies, and between IAs and EAs. The factors leading to the competition among agencies to access the pipeline and the allegations of poaching need to be addressed carefully. The incentive systems created by the fee base has to be considered in this context. This competition will, however, take a different form with the advent of RAF. 37 Bibliography GEF Evaluation Office. April 2005. "Review of factors affecting the length of time required to prepare, process, and begin implementation of GEF projects." Consultant draft report by W. Arensberg. GEF Secretariat. Approach Paper for Discussion with the Agencies, March 16, 2006. Comparative Advantages and Complementary Roles of the Implementing and Executing Agencies of the GEF. ______. GEF Secretariat Operations Manual, Full-Sized Project Procedure. February 1, 2006 (draft). Table "Full-sized Project Cycle." ______. GEF Secretariat Operations Manual, Medium-Sized Project Procedure. February 1, 2006 (draft). Table "Medium-sized Project Cycle." ______. GEF Secretariat Operations Manual, Expedited Enabling Activity Procedure. February 1, 2006 (draft). Table "Expedited Enabling Activity Project Cycle." ______. Projects Timeline. Multiple-Focal Areas. Annex S to the "GEF Project Cycle; An Update." November 5, 2003. GEF/C22/MFA. ______. Operations Manual, Working Draft. August 2005. ______. Discussion Note on the Resource Allocation Framework. Consultations on the Resource Allocation Framework, Paris, France, March 2005. ______. Non-paper towards a draft decision on RAF by interested parties. March 3, 2005. ______. Council Decisions Affecting the Project Cycle (November 2000 ­ May 2003). November 5, 2003. (Attachment 1 to GEF/C.22/Inf.9) ______. Roles of Players/Agencies Involved in GEF Projects. November 5, 2003. (Attachment 1 to GEF/C.22/Inf.9) GEF/C.28/CRP.5. June 20, 2006. Joint Response of the GEF Executing Agencies to the Paper Prepared by the GEF Secretariat on Comparative Advantages and Complementary Roles of the Implementing Agencies and Executing Agencies of the GEF. GEF/C.28/15. May 9, 2006. Comparative Advantages and Complementary Roles of the Implementing Agencies and Executing Agencies of the GEF. GEF/C.28/12. May 11, 2006. Progress Report on Implementing the Resource Allocation Framework. GEF/C.27/Inf.8/Rev.1. October 17, 2005. The GEF Resource Allocation Framework. GEF/C.25/10. April 29, 2005. Clarification of Procedures for Council Review and Approval of the Work Program. GEF/C.24/8. October 26, 2004. GEF Resource Allocation Framework. GEF/C.24/Inf.5. October 19, 2004. GEF Project Cycle Update: Clarification of Policies and Procedures for Project Amendments and Drops/Cancellations. 38 GEF/C.22/Inf.9. Nov.5, 2003. GEF Project Cycle: an Update. GEF/C.22/12. October 24, 2003. Review of Experience with Executing Agencies under Expanded Opportunities. GEF/C.16/5. Nov. 2000. Driving for Results in the GEF: Streamlining and Balancing Project Cycle Management. GEF/C.16/Inf.7. Oct. 5, 2000. GEF Project Cycle. GEF/C/15/4. May 2000. Review of Progress in Expanded Opportunities for Executing Agencies. GEF/C.13/3. May 5-7, 1999. Expanded Opportunities for Executing Agencies: Recent Efforts and Current Proposals to Expand Opportunities for Regional Development Banks GEF/C.12/9. Sept. 11, 1998. Streamlining the Project Cycle. GEF/ME/C.28/2/Rev.1. May 11, 2006. GEF Annual Performance Report (2005). GEF/ME/C.15/1. May 5, 2005.GEF Annual Performance Review (2004). US Office of Management and Budget. 2005. Program Assessment: Global Environment Facility. www.ExpectMore.gov. World Bank. Committee on Development Effectiveness. Quality at Entry in FY04-05 (QEA7). Quality Assurance Group, Feb. 22, 2006. 1These include the GEF, Asian Development Bank (ADB), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), World Bank (WB), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), African Development Bank (AfDB), and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). 2Other ideas of assessing the different operational systems; possible comparative advantages; current capacities and skills and organizational incentives to GEF project management; and the GEF's use of such agency systems, capacities, and processes were not followed through due to lack of detailed information. 3Some of the agency submissions were in draft form as revisions were being undertaken (i.e., AfDB, FAO). 4ADB, IDB, and UNDP provided their cycles for FSPs and MSPs, while WB and GEFSec submitted for all FSPs, MSPs, and enabling activities. 5Originally covering projects processed during the second and third GEF replenishment cycles (GEF-2 and GEF- 3), the Component 6 study was eventually extended to include the analysis of all projects since the GEF pilot phase in the early 1990s. However, this report will dwell only on GEF -2 and GEF-3 periods because these possibly represent the most efficient process cycles, having benefited from streamlining initiatives since 1996. 6AfDB, ADB, EBRD, FAO, IFAD, UNDP, and WB. 7From the GEF perspective, the project cycle begins once a concept proposal has been submitted by an IA or EA, but in reality considerable identification work may have been done by the agency before submission of a concept note. Therefore, the precise moment at which a project idea becomes formally a "concept" is not always clear. After an initial review of a sample of GEF concept papers submitted by the WB, GEFSec discovered that there were often multiple versions with different dates, giving little indication of which version should be considered the "official" starting point. Presumably, within an agency, there would have been some internal action taken at which point a project officer or team is given the go-ahead to begin exploring a potential GEF operation and spending staff time in the process, but investigating this was beyond the scope of the present study. 39 8 For instance, negative durations were noted for some projects under the "CEO Endorsement to IA Approval" and "IA Approval to Effectiveness" timeslices. These were clarified to refer to cases where the agency approval came ahead of GEF endorsement, and where the project effectiveness preceded agency approval. 9 There are 10 GEF OPs but only eight were deemed relevant: incremental cost, cost-effectiveness, country ownership, flexibility, full disclosure, public involvement and participation, country eligibility, GEF's catalytic role, and financial leverage and monitoring and evaluation. 10The 2000 project cycle document did not elaborate whether the terminal evaluation report would be prepared by the IA/EA or the GEF, so this was incorporated in the 2003 project cycle. 11The PDF-A was already mentioned in the 2000 project cycle document, but was not explicitly identified as GEF decision point, possibly because the "GEF Secretariat reviews (such) proposals ex-post for conformity with the purposes of the PDF xxx." (para 14, GEF/C.16/Inf.7) 12These steps were submitted to the joint evaluation by the GEF Sec. 13This step is also not specifically mentioned in most of the agency submissions concerning the steps involved in processing of GEF operations, as discussed in the next section. Similarly, agency cycles do not refer explicitly to all GEF steps. 14 Along with the duplication of review procedures and documentation, thus increasing the cost of coordination and communication. Another EA disadvantage referred to the relative lack of understanding of GEF policies and procedures, a barrier that the IAs had overcome through the corporate biannual GEF Staff Familiarization Seminars and frequent interaction with the GEF Secretariat. 15These may include the EA's mainstream programs, staff skills, scope and size of country assistance programs, sector strategies, cofinancing, etc. 16Relates to a) the flow of information within the GEF family, e.g., actions of the focal area task forces, RAF preparations, etc.; and b) the distribution of resources, i.e., the three IAs receive payments for staff time, travel and other costs for participating in GEF policy or strategic functions while EAs finance their contributions through their own budgets. 17Comparative Advantages and Complementary Roles of the Implementing Agencies and Executing Agencies of the GEF, 9 May 2006, GEF/C.28/15 18Through the "Joint Response of the GEF Executing Agencies to the Paper Prepared by the GEF Secretariat on Comparative Advantages and Complementary Roles of the Implementing Agencies and Executing Agencies of the GEF, 20 June 2006, GEF/C.28/CRP.5 (Conference Room Paper) 19Some of the material in this section has been prepared by Frederick Swartzendruber for a parallel report to the GEFSec in planning for a Results-Management Framework for the GEF. 20An assessment of quality of M&E arrangements at entry was conducted by the GEF EO for the FY2005 Annual Portfolio Review, but the projects being assessed had already received CEO endorsement by that time, and the review had no direct operational bearing on the projects. 21GEF/C.28/15. 22GEF/C.25/12/Rev. 2 "Third Overall Study of the Global Environment Facility," August 2005. 23The GEFSec provided the draft process cycles to the Joint Evaluation in February 2006. 24For instance, UNEP submitted a 1-page schematic, while UNIDO gave a 2-page table. 25Referring to FAO and AfDB. 26For instance, while the GEF considers the process of GEF CEO endorsement to fall under the appraisal phase, most of the agencies grouped these steps under the approval phase. UNDP and AfDB also placed their appraisal and negotiation steps under the approval phase. 27WB, IDB, and IFAD explicitly mentioned an endorsement from the country focal point in their procedures. 28Referring to UNEP, AfDB, EBRD, FAO, and IDB. 29Although this could be linked to recent efforts at IFAD to simplify some of its processes. 30A minor case involves the approval period (from CEO endorsement to IA approval), where the MSP average was greater than the FSP timeframe, owing to three MSPs jointly financed by WB and IFC that unduly raised the average timeframes for that timeslice under both GEF-2 and GEF-3. 31AfDB data on actual elapsed times was not available, unfortunately. 32Drafting, review and finalization of the FSP proposal for GEF work program inclusion. ADB usually absorbs the cost of the preparatory work through its project preparatory technical assistance (PPTA), so it is possible that bypassing the PDF route at GEF may have translated to shorter preparation elapsed time. 33Reference to be provided by Siv Tokle. 40 34The project review sheet is the template used by the GEFSec, other IAs, relevant EAs and convention secretariats to evaluate the concept document using the GEF review criteria, and is used as the basis for the bilateral discussion between the GEFSec and the IA. 35 GEF/C.16/Inf.7 36 GEF/C.22/Inf.9 37GEF/C.12/9 "Streamlining the Project Cycle," September 11, 1998, footnote 23. 38EBRD was not able to participate in the survey. 39Since fewer agencies submitted data for Appendix 7 relative to Appendix 6, only the cases of the five agencies common to both appendices will be discussed here. 40Including the annual WB implementation status reports, WB Midterm Review, annual GEF project implementation reviews, WB Implementation Completion Report, and WB IEG Project Performance Assessment Report. 41Thus, the elapsed time after WB approval will effectively represent the time it takes for the client country to ratify the loan or credit agreements. 42The WB did not identify an explicit procedure under this phase that supports OP4; there is a reference though to the sending of the project closing notification letter to the client. 41 Appendix 1 Appendix 1: Roles Of The Implementing Agencies And Executing Agencies Of The GEF1 A. Roles of Implementing Agencies as Stipulated in the GEF Instrument2 1. United Nations Development Programme a. Primary Role. Ensure the development and management of capacity building programs and technical assistance projects; b. Assist countries in promoting, designing, and implementing activities consistent with the purpose of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and national sustainable development strategies; and c. Contribute to the development of regional and global projects within the GEF work program in cooperation with other implementing agencies. 2. United Nations Environment Programme a. Primary Role: Catalyze the development of scientific and technical analysis and advance environmental management; b. Provide guidance on relating the GEF-financed activities to global, regional, and national environmental agreements; and c. Establish and support the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) as an advisory body to the GEF. 3. World Bank a. Primary Role: Ensure the development and management of investment projects; and b. Mobilize private sector resources that are consistent with GEF objectives and national sustainable development strategies. B. Roles of Executing Agencies as Described in the GEF Business Plan FY2003­FY20053 4. Regional development banks (African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and Inter-American Development Bank) a. Develop and manage investment projects at the country or multicountry level; and b. Mobilize private sector resources within their respective regions. 5. Food and Agriculture Organization: Focus on persistent organic pollutants in the agriculture sector. 6. International Fund for Agriculture Development: Focus on land degradation, with emphasis on smaller countries such as those in Africa. 7. United Nations Industrial Development Organization: Focus on persistent organic pollutants in the industrial sector. 1 Based on GEF/C.28/15 dated 9 May 2006: Comparative Advantages and Complementary Roles of the Implementing Agencies and Executing Agencies of the GEF. 2 Instrument for the Establishment of the Restructured Global Environment Facility, May 2004. 3 GEF/C.19/10. 42 Appendix 2 Appendix 2: Terms Of Reference For Component 4-Review Of Activity Cycles A. Background The Global Environment Facility (GEF) provides new and additional funding to meet the agreed incremental costs of measures to achieve agreed global environmental benefits in six focal areas. The GEF functions as a mechanism for international cooperation, with three implementing agencies (IAs) (United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], World Bank); seven executing agencies (EAs) (African Development Bank [AfDB], Asian Development Bank [ADB], European Bank for Reconstruction and Development [EBRD], Inter-American Development Bank [IADB], International Fund for Agricultural Development [IFAD], Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], United Nations Industrial Development Organization [UNIDO]); and a Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP). In June 2005, the GEF Council approved, as a special initiative, a Joint Evaluation of the GEF Activity Cycle and Modalities. The need for this joint evaluation was identified during a process of consultation with GEF partners on monitoring and evaluation (M&E) within the GEF. The objective of the evaluation is to review the experience in the programming and management of GEF activities and recommend improvements, with a view to supporting further simplification and standardization in GEF operations. Specifically, the evaluation will: (a) Demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses in the GEF activity cycle and modalities and identify the contributing factors; (b) Identify and analyze the constraints which need to be addressed to improve the efficiency in GEF operations, including possible changes in procedures and systems; and (c) Provide Box 1: Evaluation Components: 1: Desk review of the legislative recommendations to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of GEF framework operations and modalities. 2: Desk review of evaluations 3: Review of related initiatives As per the overall Terms of Reference (TOR) and Evaluation Matrix (see 4: Review of activity cycles separate papers), the evaluation would address the following five key 5: Exploratory review of delivery questions : (a) Is the GEF activity cycle efficient?; (b) Is the GEF activity modalities cycle effective?; (c) Are the GEF modalities efficient?; (d) Are the GEF 6: Review of project modalities effective?; and (e) Are the GEF modalities relevant? The documentation evaluation will be undertaken through specific components (see Box 1). 7: Select field visits 8: Stakeholder survey work These TOR relate to Component 4: Review of activity cycles. The evaluation will be undertaken through eight specific components. This terms of reference (TOR) relate to Component 4 on the Review of Activity Cycles. B. Goal and Scope of the Review of Activity Cycles The review of Agency activity cycles aims to provide a factual overview of the programming processes in the concerned agencies and of GEF's decisions points in these project cycles. The evaluation will cover all Phases of the project cycle. It will focus on quality-at-entry, namely Phases I: Concept Development, II: Preparation, III: Appraisal, and IV: Approval/Implementation Start (of first year of project). For Phase V: Implementation Supervision and VI: Completion and Evaluation, issues are covered by the GEF Annual Performance Report, and the evaluation will therefore limit itself to gathering existing data. Specific issues in implementation should be addressed, such as joint Agency implementation and evaluation of medium- sized projects (MSPs). Where parameters for cycle/modalities have changed notably over time, the effect of these may be identified. 43 Appendix 2 This assessment will focus on the cycle for instruments used for GEF programming (equivalent of full-sized projects [FSPs]), to be defined for each agency. To provide comparability, the assessment will be based on the evaluation matrix. The evaluation will research basic data and statistics for GEF projects with regard to cycle phases, such as timelags, etc., in Component 6. This Component 4 on activity cycles will provide the building block for analyzing such data. C. Expected Outputs Main expected products from this component are (i) a paper on the GEF cycle, and (ii) papers on agency cycles. These will contain, at a minimum: · Definition of cycle phases, their goals (if any); · Tracking of key GEF and agency requirements for the cycle (possibly in table format); · Steps and responsibilities in each phase; · Data on duration of phases/steps; and · Variations for modalities (if any). The outputs will be used as a contribution to the main evaluation report (chapter on the activity cycle); and as further input to the Evaluation Matrix (norms and indicators). The review would allow a comparative analysis of gaps and synergies with the GEF requirements and the GEF steps in the project cycles. It will also be used to guide the work of other components such as Component 6 on documentation review and statistics. D. Tasks Identify and compile documentation, including relevant legislative body documents and decisions, as well as other corporate guidance. The review would be based on manuals, operational guides, as well as interviews and/or studies on actual experience where available. For the GEF, this would include Council and Convention decisions, and the recent Operational Manual and the key legislative documents on cycle issues: · The GEF instrument; · The GEF operational strategy; · Proposed GEF Project Cycle (GEF/C.2/3); · GEF Project Cycle (GEF/C.4/7); · Staff Recommendations for Selective Review of Projects (GEF/C.5/7); · STAP Recommendations for Selective Review of Projects by STAP (GEF/C.6/Inf.8); · Proposal for Approval of GEF Work Program (GEF/C.7/7); · Streamlining the Project Cycle (GEF/C.12/9); · Driving for Results in the GEF: Streamlining and Balancing Project Cycle Management (GEF/C.16/5); · GEF Project Cycle (GEF/C.16/Inf.7); · Progress Report on the Project Management Information System (GEF/C.17/Inf.12); · Overall Structure, Processes and Procedures of the GEF (GEF/C.18/8); · Format for the Executive Summaries of GEF Project Proposals (GEF/C.20/Inf.4); · GEF Project Cycle: An Update (GEF/C.22/Inf.9); · Project Cycle Update: Clarification of Policies and Procedures for Project Amendments and Drops/Cancellations (GEF/C.24/Inf.5); 44 Appendix 2 · A Conceptual Design Tool for Exploiting Interlinkages between the Focal Areas of the GEF (GEF/C.24/Inf.10); · Clarification of Procedures for Council Review and Approval of the Work Program (GEF/C.25/10). Corporate GEF evaluations that specifically address cycle issues include: · Evaluation of experience with conservation trust funds (1998); · Study of impacts of GEF activities on phase-out of ozone depleting substances (2000); · Review of GEF engagement with the private sector (2004); · Local benefits study (2005); and · Project performance reports (PPRs), all program studies, and all three overall performance studies. For the agencies, these include the UNEP Project Manual; the UNDP Programming Manual; the FAO Project Cycle Management Technical Guide (2001), the UNIDO Manual for the Preparation of Industrial Feasibility Studies, Manual for the Evaluation of Industrial Projects and Guide to Practical Project Appraisal; the IFAD Managing for Impact in Rural Development: A Practical Guide for M&E, Loans and grants Administration: Operational Manual; and the World Bank Operational Manual (list not exhaustive). Analyze and review documentation by summarizing and codifying phase steps, including: · identification of terminology used by the agencies (see preliminary list below), · definition of cycle phases and their goals (if any), · tracking of key GEF and agency requirements for the cycle, · identify steps and responsibilities in each phase (using format in Annex B), · obtain data on duration of phases/steps, · analyze application of GEF norms/criteria , · specify any variations for modalities (if any) or joint implementation, and · draft paper with above items. Consult and interview relevant resource persons, as necessary, such as GEF Secretariat (GEFSec) management and staff, agency operational policy units, GEF coordinators, and task managers. Identification of staff to interview will be done when tasks (i) and (ii) are completed, and items needing clarification are identified. Aggregate and analyze the various inputs by a comparative analysis of gaps and synergies with the GEF requirements and the GEF steps in the project cycles. E. Methodology Definition. An activity cycle (also called "project cycle") represents a fundamental process of development interventions, irrespective of the nature of the activity or the actors. This evaluation uses the term `activity cycle' to denote that GEF provides support in different forms, all of which follow a specific process. The dominant form of support is the project. The definition of concepts (terminology) of each cycle phase varies among stakeholders and would be clarified by the evaluation. The evaluation aims to analyze (i) the efficiency of the GEF activity cycle, by looking at the time, effort, and money it takes to develop and implement a project; and (ii) its effectiveness, in terms of value added at each cycle stage, and the quality products produced. Ultimately, the evaluation looks at the extent to which the cycle (and phases) does what it is intended to do, with timely and successful completion of each phase with optimal use of resources. It should also bring out any focal-area specific issues or requirements or practices. Key Question 1 ­ "Is the GEF activity cycle efficient?" As a first step, the terms, goals, steps, and responsibilities will be mapped for each agency. This will allow for assessment of effort, and aggregation and 45 Appendix 2 gap/overlap analysis with GEF requirements. The mapping will be descriptive and summarized in a template in Annex B, according to the following generic cycle phases: (i) Phase I: Concept Development; (ii) Phase II: Preparation; (iii) Phase III: Appraisal; (iv) Phase IV: Approval and Start (1st year); (v) Phase V: Implementation and Supervision; and (vi) Phase VI: Completion and Evaluation. As a second step, data will be identified for time, effort, and costs in general for the agency cycle and for the GEF projects in particular. This will provide information for assessment against external practice. (The IAs already have data on elapsed time for GEF projects and for their own regular projects.) This will be complemented by assessment of processing timeframe standards for GEF projects (from the GEF Operational Manual) of technical reviews, processing, CEO approval/endorsement, Council review/approval, etc. (from Component 6 on project review). Indicators concern time (timelag/elapsed time for phases and steps, project actual duration vs. intended); effort (number of reformulations concept papers, number of project resubmissions to Council, number of review comments made, number of people involved each step, number of steps involved each phase, number of person- days needed to formulate/submit, reformulate/submit); and cost (project financial data, fees, staff costs). As a third step, the application of GEF norms/criteria (relevant operational principles) will be assessed for the agency cycle (and subsequently for GEF-specific decision points). The basic issue is what time, effort, and costs it takes for agencies to address these principles in their own cycles (if at all); and what extra is added by GEF requirements,1 for the following relevant criteria: · Flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. What elements of flexibility are built into the cycle procedures? What are the implications of (non)flexibility on time, effort, and efficiency? Examples of ability to manage activities flexibly within that system (adaptive management). · Full disclosure of non-confidential information. What are disclosure policies? How is disclosure addressed in the cycle (of what, by whom, to whom)? What are the implications of (non)disclosure on time, effort and efficiency? Examples of trade-offs with transparency vs. efficiency? · Catalytic role and financial leverage. How is catalytic role and leverage addressed at each phase? What are the implications of leverage requirements (incremental cost calculations, cofinancing requirement) on time, effort, and efficiency? Examples of trade-offs with efficiency? · Regular monitoring and evaluation. How is M&E addressed in the cycle? What are the implications of (non)disclosure on time, effort and efficiency? Examples of trade-offs with transparency vs. efficiency? (Note: This aspect will not be studied in-depth as it is covered by PPRs, APRs). Key Question 2 ­ "Is the GEF activity cycle effective?" looks at cycle phase effectiveness, in terms of value added at each cycle stage and the quality products produced. The basic data for GEF projects will be provided by Component 6 on documentation review, including qualitative assessment of products resulting from its effectiveness, in terms of value added at each cycle stage, and the quality products produced by the various cycle phases/steps. The `value added' will be defined in terms of application of the relevant operational principles, and how and when each phase is effective in addressing each principle as the projects move through the cycle. (Component 6 will provide project statistics on value added; this component will address this in terms of organizational procedures/requirements). Table 1 provides a format for summarizing findings. 1 However, given the absence of more detailed procedures specific to the GEF operational principles, this assessment of the agencies' application of the GEF norms or criteria in their respective cycles could not be carried out. 46 Appendix 2 Table 1: Application of GEF Principles in the Project Cyclea 2 ­ 3 ­ 4 ­ 5 ­ 6 ­ 7 ­ 9 ­ Cata- 10 ­ Incre- Cost Coun-try Flexi- Dis- Public lytic M&E mental Effect- Driven bility closure Involve- Leve- Cost tive ment rage Phase I: Concept Development Phase II: Preparation Phase III: Appraisal Phase IV: Approval and Start (1st year) Phase V: Implementation and Supervision Phase VI: Completion and Evaluation a Principle 1-COP mainly applies to relevance and effectiveness of modalities (Q4 and Q5); Principle 8-Country eligibility mainly applies to relevance (Q5), but is an underlying parameter and not a main focus of the evaluation. This component is linked to the review of possible delivery modalities, in the sense that cycles may differ depending on modality. The assessment will highlight such differences (if any), complemented with Component 5 on whether other modalities address GEF criteria equally well. Finally, aggregation will analyze the roles and responsibilities in project cycle implementation within the GEF network. The combined assessment of cycles will help to assess: · The work distribution at different stages of the activity cycle within agencies, between agencies (for jointly implemented projects); between agencies and partners (governments, GEF Secretariat, STAP, ...). · The operational systems; comparative advantages; capacities and skills, organizational incentives to GEF project management. · The GEF use of agency systems, capacities, and processes. F. Key Responsibilities and Process This task requires good knowledge of agency systems and procedures, and is best undertaken through self- assessments, possibly with the support of consultants. For GEF-specific cycle requirements, the GEF Secretariat will provide input to the GEF Evaluation Office who will review and consolidate a paper. GEF Agency evaluation offices will take the lead on their own agency cycles, to be undertaken by evaluation unit and/or operational unit. The ADB Operations Evaluation Department (Ms. Mala Hettige) will take the lead in coordinating and consolidating the inputs from this component. Estimated time for GEF cycle review: 1 week for description, 1­2 weeks for analysis, and consolidation. Suggested timeline: · Compile and analyze GEF cycle documentation (task a and b): By end year 2005, share products with partners; · Compile and analyze agency documentation (task a and b): By 15 January 2006, share products with partners; · Determination by core evaluation group of complementary information: end January 2006, with possible interviews January­February 2006; and · Aggregation and comparison of the cycles: January­February 2006. 47 Annex B: Table on Agency Cycle Phases and Steps Generic Phase I: Concept Phase II: Phase III: Phase IV: Phase IV: Phase VI: phase Development Preparation Appraisal. Approval and Implementation Completio Start Supervision n and Modality Evaluation Term of phase: Term of phase: Etc. Project (full- Goal of phase: Goal of phase: sized) Normal/average Normal/average duration: duration: Steps/responsibilities: Steps/responsibilities: · · · · Project Etc. (medium- sized) PDFs 48 Other Appendix 2 49 Appendix 2 G. Terminology for Agency Cycle Phases 1. World Bank · Poverty Reduction and Country Assistance Strategies, · The Identification Phase, · The Preparation Phase, · The Appraisal Phase, · The Negotiation and Approval Phase, · The Implementation and Supervision Phase, and · The Evaluation Phase. 2. International Finance Corporation (IFC) · Application for IFC Financing, · Project Appraisal, · Public Notification, · Board Review and Approval, · Resource Mobilization, · Legal Commitment, · Disbursement of Funds, · Project Supervision, and · Closing. 3. IFAD · Inception, · Formulation, · Appraisal, · Negotiation and approval, · Implementation, and · Evaluation. 4. ADB · Country Strategy and Program, · Preparation, · Project Identification/Preparation, · Project Examination, · Appraisal/Approval, · Appraisal, · Loan Negotiation, · Board Approval, · Loan Signing, · Loan Effectiveness, · Implementation, and · Evaluation. 5. AfDB (not accessible on website) 6. IADB · Preparation, · Approval, and · Implementation. 49 Appendix 3 Appendix 3: Development Of Direct Access Policy For Executing Agencies Date Milestone Source Jun 1992 ADB, AfDB, and IDB suggested a meeting with WB to discuss the role of 24 September 1993 ADB memo RDBs in GEF, particularly in the allocation and management of GEF on Bank participation in GEF resources Oct 1992 RDBs and WB met and agreed to propose to GEF (i) RDB autonomy to ADB notes for November 1998 identify, appraise, supervise, monitor, and evaluate GEF operations GEF Council meeting according to their own procedures but following GEF technical review standards and project design criteria; (ii) RDB representation in the STAP Implementing Committee, including charging of all administrative costs; and (iii) encouragement of joint programming exercise. Dec 1992 The GEF Participants' Assembly encouraged IAs to work with RDBs on 9 September 1998 memo Framework Agreements to enable them to act as EAs in the restructured suggesting material for s speech GEF. However, the Assembly emphasized that the implementation by Chief OESD function should continue with the three established IAs, and that they were not in favor of earmarking resources to the RDBs/UN agencies. May 1993 ADB restated during the Participants' Assembly in Beijing that RDBs are 9 September 1998 memo prepared to take part in its planning, programming, and implementation in suggesting material for s speech accordance with acceptable regulations and procedures. The Assembly by Chief OESD noted that the question is not of RDBs' participation in GEF operations per se but how. Jul 1995 The GEF Council did not advise the RDBs and WB to enter into 9 September 1998 memo framework agreements, but instead, urged that such collaboration may be suggesting material for s speech pursued on a "project-by-project" basis, with collaboration taking the form by Chief OESD of project-specific EA agreements. Mar 1998 The IAs have been expanding, deepening, and diversifying their Para. 19, page 9, Council collaboration with capable EAs for project execution and building Document, 10 Sep 1998 continuously on their experience. Oct 1998 GEF/C.12/10 on "Expanded Opportunities for Executing Agencies" was Para. 4, page 2, 10 Feb 1999 discussed during the GEF Council session, arguing that the projected ADB Back-to-Office-Report growth in GEF business will need to come from increased involvement (BTOR) from EAs, especially given the need to stabilize GEF administrative costs and the fact that the three IAs are already approaching their delivery capacity. The paper proposed three options: (i) business as usual, (ii) expanding shared implementation with EAs, and (iii) introducing full responsibility by EAs. The second option has been applied in the case of the Bangladesh Sundarbans, where ADB and WB share implementation tasks but where WB remains accountable to the GEF Council. This option remains untested for other RDBs. Some countries and IAs were not comfortable with Option 3, and the Secretariat was requested to revise the approach by May 1999. Jan 1999 According to GEFSec, any medium term increased role for EAs should not Para. 6, page 2, 10 Feb 1999 require an amendment to the Instrument for the Restructured GEF, since ADB BTOR this would need the decision of the GEF Assembly (which would not convene in 3 years). Thus, any proposal to present RDBs with full IA status was not on the table. May 1999 The Council granted the four RDBs (AfDB, ADB, EBRD, IDB) direct Page 5, Council Document, 19­ access to GEFSec for determinations on project eligibility and for approval 21 Nov 2003 (Review of of PDF-B grants, without having to pass through an IA, provided an IA Experience with EAs Under agreed to remain fully accountable to the Council for the project's Expanded Opportunities) implementation. The Council limited the IA's accountability for EA GEF/C.13/3 activities under expanded opportunities to conducting the due diligence review to ensure compliance of the EAs with the policies and procedures of the GEF. Once such compliance was assured, the EA would be solely accountable for fulfilling the policies and procedures and assuring the 50 Appendix 3 Date Milestone Source quality, implementation, and financial integrity of their GEF projects. May 2000 The Council raised concerns over the complex arrangements and division Para. 13, page 6, Council of labor between EAs and IAs and stressed the need to develop a clearer Document, 1­3 Nov 2000 definition of "accountability". The Council suggested the following to be (Driving for Results in the GEF: the responsibilities of the IA: (i) assessment of whether the EA can comply Streamlining and Balancing with the policies and standards of GEF; (ii) an assurance of quality at entry Project Cycle Management) of project proposal in the work program based on project preparation; and (iii) a defined role for the IA in the evaluation process at project completion. May 2001 The Council approved the criteria for selecting new EAs, based on Page 1, 9­11 May 2001, Council strategic match with the GEF corporate plan, capacity, and Document (Criteria for the complementarity. Expansion of Opportunities for EAs) Oct 2002 The Council expanded the access of ADB and IDB for PDF-A, PDF-B, Page 6, Council Document, 19­ MSP, and FSP, in response to the policy recommendations of the Third 21 Nov 2003 (Review of Replenishment. Other EAs (EBRD, AfDB, IFAD, UNIDO, and FAO) Experience with EAs Under were given access to PDF-B only, although the last two EAs could also Expanded Opportunities) access enabling activities for POPs. Nov 2003 The Council approved direct access for IFAD, EBRD, AfDB, UNIDO, and Page 7, 31 Aug to 1 Sep 2005 FAO acting within their agreed scope for GEF operations. GEFSec, EAs, (Review of Action Plan to and Trustee were asked to aim for the necessary legal agreements by May Respond to Recommendations 2004. for Improving GEF's Performance) Jun 2004 Memorandum of Understanding and Financial Procedures Agreement for ADB files direct access to GEF full project resources was finalized for ADB Oct 2004 Memoranda of Understanding and Financial Procedures Agreements for Page 5, para 10, Council direct access to GEF full project resources were finalized for IDB and Document, 17-19 Nov 2004 UNIDO (Trustee Report) Apr 2005 Memoranda of Understanding and Financial Procedures Agreements for Page 5, para 10, Council direct access to GEF full project resources were finalized for FAO and Document, 3-8 June 2005 AfDB (Trustee Report) Aug 2005 Memorandum of Understanding and Financial Procedures Agreement for Page 9, Council Document, 9-11 direct access to GEF full project resources was finalized for IFAD Nov 2005 (Review of Action Plan to Respond to Recommendations for Improving GEF's Performance 2005 GEFSec will prepare an annual review of experience of EAs designated Page 7, 31 Aug to 1 Sep 2005 under expanded opportunities. Based on these reports, the Council will (Review of Action Plan to consider whether additional agencies should benefit from direct access for Respond to Recommendations GEF financing. for Improving GEF's Performance) Jun 2006 The OPS3 found that the roles and responsibilities of IAs and EAs are not Page 5, para. 20, Council always clear, especially with regard to collaboration and competition. Document, 6­9 Jun 2006 While majority of projects in the pipeline are well aligned with (Comparative Advantages and comparative advantages, a number apparently cross over into the Complementary Roles of the IAs comparative advantage of other agencies, as projects move towards more and EAs of the GEF) integrated approaches. It also noted that EAs have "uncertain" mandates and that some still face a steep learning curve to climb in order to function competitively in the GEF market. Jun 2006 Council supported the conduct of a review of the engagement of EAs by Page i, Council Document, 6­9 the GEF Evaluation Office, leading to the preparation of an action plan to Jun 2006 (Comparative strengthen their engagement. Advantages and Complementary Roles of the IAs and EAs of the GEF) Jun 2006 EAs expressed concern that the action plan (see previous row) may be Pages 4­5, Council Document, delayed because it would be dependent on the outcomes of the evaluation. (Conference Room Paper reacting As a result, the GEF -4 resources could have been largely programmed by to Comparative Advantages and 51 Appendix 3 Date Milestone Source the time action plan is in place, implying that EAs need to wait for the Complementary Roles of the IAs GEF-5 cycle before meaningfully implementing expanded opportunities. and EAs of the GEF) June 2006 Memorandum of Understanding and the Financial Procedures Agreement Page 7, para 16, 5 June 2006 for direct access to GEF full project resources still being negotiated for (Trustee Report) EBRD. ADB = Asian Development Bank, AfDB = African Development Bank, BTOR = back-to-office report, EA = executing agency, EBRD = European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization, FPA = Financial Procedures Agreement, FSP = full-size project, GEF = Global Environment Facility, GEFSec = Global Environment Facility Secretariat, IA = implementing agency, IDB = Inter-American Development Bank, IFAD = International Fund for Agricultural Development, MOU = memorandum of understanding, OES D = Office of Environment and Social Development, OIC = officer- in-charge, OPS3 = Third Overall Performance Study of the GEF, PDF = project preparation and development facility, POP = persistent organic pollutant, RDB = regional development bank, STAP = Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, UN = United Nations, UNIDO = United Nations Industrial Development Organization, WB = World Bank. 52 Appendix 4: Phase Goals Of Gef Implementing Agencies And Executing Agencies AfDB ADB EBRD IDB IFAD UNDP WB Phase 1 ­ Concept Development Project Concept Initiation/ Identification/ PCN Stage/ GEF Identification Inception Concept/ PDF-B Identification Clearance/Project Identification: Pipeline Entry/ GEF Project Classification Preparation Grants Identify investment Establish the Identify if the project Determine whether Develop the concept Draft a concept or Identify projects that have a high operations that are in socioeconomic is potentially suitable the project idea is note and include this PDF-B for entry priority and advise on probable GEF conformity with the basis, strategic for EBRD financing aligned with the in IFAD/GEF into the GEF eligibility; determine concept's AfDB strategy, the focus, and priority policy and strategy pipeline and GEF pipeline conformity with GEF operational country strategy areas for ADB agreed upon with pipeline programs, priorities, and criteria. papers, and the intervention in a the borrowing regional member country; enable country during the country sectoral categories of programming 53 priorities (flexible, project mix to be process may go straight to analyzed preparation) Phase 2 ­ Preparation Fact-Finding/ Quality Enhancement Review/ Project Preparation Review Project Orientation Formulation Preparation GEF STAP Expert Review/ GEF (Interdepartmental Preparation Work Program Entry/ Project and Management) Appraisal Document Review Identify and compare Resolve outstanding Develop the final Define the medium- Implement Develop an FSP Improve the quality of project technical and issues after meeting review term objectives, preparatory grant proposal design; review scientific and institutional with stakeholders; memorandum, project components , and prepare full technical aspects; provide guidance alternatives for review all aspects of project structure, and concrete project brief on whether the project is sufficiently achieving overall project design (by terms and conditions activities for each well prepared or should be appraised ADB, Borrower, and project team, (through the FAO component project objectives; consultants, and investment center) ensure capacity of other ADB Borrower to prepare departments); senior projects (convert management to idea to reality) determine project's readiness for approval Appendix Phase 3 ­ Appraisal Project Appraisal (Second review) (Merged with Analysis Appraisal Technical and Appraisal/ Negotiation preparation phase) Financial 4 AfDB ADB EBRD IDB IFAD UNDP WB Clearance Provide value-added Review of Ensure the Develop full project Internal review and Assess the economic, technical, and delineate documents by feasibility of the document, clarifying clearance prior to institutional, financial, accountability; EBRD Operations project from an implementation GEF submission environmental, and social aspects; ensure consistent Committee for economic, technical, arrangements reach agreement with Borrower on quality and technical approval financial, measures to assure project success soundness (critical environmental, and terms and conditions of the loan assessment of legal, and relevance, feasibility, institutional and potential standpoint, and that effectiveness before a plans for its decision is made to implementation are undertake project) solid Phase 4 ­ Approval and Start 54 Negotiations/Board Signing/ Presentation/ Effectiveness/ Negotiation and Approval and GEF CEO Endorsement/WB Signing and Approval/Signing Approval and Start Project Inception Approval Negotiation Board Approval/ Signing Effectiveness Finalize agreement Enable smooth Give EBRD Prepare IFAD/ CEO approval and Obtain GEF CEO endorsement prior on project objectives project commitment to Beneficiary Grant project document to Board presentation; obtain and implementation, implementation by provide financing Agreement signature of FSP approval of WB Board of Executive the amount and terms having timely Directors of the loan, signing and conditions and fulfillment by the procedures for Borrower of disbursement and conditions necessary procurement, and for loan specific measures to effectiveness; achieve project ensure that objectives Borrower understand ADB procedures Phase 5 ­ Implementation Project Project Project Implementation Implementation Implementation Project Supervision/ Midterm Implementation and Performance Implementation/ and Supervision and Supervision Supervision Review/ Extensions AfDB ADB EBRD IDB IFAD UNDP WB Supervision Reviews Disbursement and Repayments Monitor progress Track progress and Disbursement of the Borrower is wholly Implement full Provide management Ensure that grant proceeds are used towards achievement deal with specific loan for project responsible for project grant and main for grant purposes, with regard for of project objectives project implementation, project execution. stakeholders economy, efficiency, and and development implementation construction and IDB only ensures information on effectiveness; conduct systematic impact matters subsequent that project stays in implementation assessment of implementation operation schedule and that progress experience; extend closing date, if IDB procurement necessary procedures are followed. Phase 6 ­ Completion and Evaluation Project Project Completion Completion Project Completion and Project Operational Project Closing/ Implementation 55 Reporting/ Review/ Completion Evaluation Completion Completion Completion Report (ICR)/ Evaluation Operations Evaluation Evaluation Review Certify completion of Assess the Financial Evaluation activities Project financial and Provide Identify accomplishment, problems implementation, performance and completion is built are incorporated operational closure management and and lessons learned, for submission assess project effects impacts of the into operations as into every phase of main stakeholders to WB Board of Executive and impact, and project the last the project cycle. an assessment of Directors; measure project outcome identify operational disbursement. achievement of against original objectives and lessons learnt for results, validate ICR ratings future operations sustainability and (ensure cofinancing accountability and lessons learnt) ADB = Asian Development Bank, AfDB = African Development Bank, EBRD = European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization, GEF = Global Environment Facility, IDB = Inter-American Development Bank, IFAD = International Fund for Agricultural Development, PCN = Project Concept Note, UNDP = United Nations Development Programme, WB = World Bank. Appendix 4 Appendix 4a(i) Appendix 4a: Global Environment Facility Project Cycle Table 4a(i): GEF Secretariat Operations Manual--Full-Sized Projects (Draft as of 1 February 2006) FULL-SIZED PROJECT CYCLE Phase Steps Responsibilities Outputs Phase I ­ PDF-A Development; · IAs · PDF-A proposal Concept Project Concept · EAs under the policy of expanded opportunities Development Development Concept Development · IAs · Project concept · EAs under the policy of expanded opportunities Receipt of Concept · PA logs project document in the GEF project database · Bluesheet Proposals · PA prepares blue cover sheeta and assigns to PM · Concept document with · Team Assistant distributes document to team members cover note from IA/EA Concept Proposal Review · PM reviews proposals through the GEF database within 10 · PRS workdays. · Other GEF staff provides comments, if any · PA flags comments from IAs, EAs, and Convention Secretariats, and forwards them to PM · PM/PA circulates CRS to teams for info/comments prior to pre-bilateral meeting Pre-Bilateral Discussions · TL presides over the discussions · PRS Among GEFSec Staff · PA compiles all CRS and sends them to IA/EA · Transmittal letter to IAs/EA Concept Review Meeting · Program Coordinator liaises with IA/EA on meeting · Telecon reservation with IA/EA arrangements (sequencing, timing, additional numbers for confirmation telecon, etc.) · Summary of · PA reserves room and arranges for teleconference recommendations to · TL presides over the meeting IAs/EA · PM incorporates results of discussion in the CRS under "Further Processing" · PA compiles updated CRS and prepares decision summaries · Program Coordinator transmits summary of recommendations to IA/EA once cleared by PMs, TLs, and HOBS Final Concept Document · PA logs revised project document and repeats steps 3 and 4 · Final electronic of Phase I document · PM reviews revised concept and updates GEF database for · Clearance sheet clearance recommendation. · PA routes project clearance/approval sheet (yellow)b to PM and TL (yellow sheet) Concept Approval · CEO approves project concepts for pipeline entry · Clearance (yellow) sheet · PA prepares and HOBS sends transmittal note of approval · HOBS transmittal letter to IA/EAs · PA creates/updates database Pipeline Entry/Update · Program Coordinator prepares list of new project concepts · Pipeline publication in entering the pipeline; pipeline posted in the web GEF website · PA provides electronic linkages and arranges with John Clyde for posting in the web Phase II ­ Stage I Project Preparation PDF-B/C Development · IAs · · EAs under the policy of expanded opportunities Receipt of PDF Proposals · PA logs project document in the project database · Bluesheet · PA prepares blue cover sheet and assigns to PM · PDF document with · PA distributes document to team members cover note from IA/ EA PDF Proposal Review · PM reviews proposals through the GEF database within 5 · PDFRS 56 Appendix 4a(i) Phase Steps Responsibilities Outputs days · Other GEF staff provides comments, if any · PA flags comments from IAs, EAs, and Convention Secretariats, and forwards them to PMs · PM/PA circulates PDFRS toteams for info/comments prior to pre-bilateral meeting Final PDF Document · PA logs revised PDF document and repeats steps 2 and 3 of · Final electronic Stage I document · PM reviews revised PDF and updates PRS for clearance · Clearance sheet recommendation · PA routes project clearance/approval sheet (yellow) to PM and TL (yellow sheet) PDF Approval · CEO approves PDF-B/C · Clearance sheet · PA prepares and HOBS sends transmittal note of approval · HOBS transmittal letter to IA/EA · PA updates GEF database Stage II Full-Sized Project · IAs · Project executive Development · EAs under the policy of expanded opportunities summary · Full-size project document Receipt of Full-Size Project · PA logs proposal in database, prepares blue cover sheet, · Bluesheet Proposals assigns to PM and distributes documents to team members · Project document with cover note from IA Full-Size Project Proposal · PA flags comments from IAs, EAs, and Convention · PRS Review Secretariats, and forwards to PMs · PM reviews project executive summary and project documents · Other GEF staff provides comments, if any · PM/PA circulates PRS to teams for info/comments prior to pre-bilateral meeting Pre-Bilateral Discussions · TL presides over the discussions · PRS Among GEFSec Staff · PA compiles all PRS and sends them to IA with cc to · Transmittal letter to Program Coordinator IAs/EAs Full-Size Project Review · Program Coordinator liaises with IAs on meeting · Telecon reservation Meeting with IA/EA arrangements (sequencing, timing, additional numbers for confirmation telecon, etc.) · Summary of · PA reserves room and arranges for teleconference recommendations to IAs · TL presides over the meeting · PM incorporates results of discussion in the PRS under "Further Processing" · Program Coordinator prepares and transmits bilateral review summary recommendations to IA/EA once cleared by PMs, TLs, and HOBS Work Program Cover Note · OCT prepares the Cover Note · Draft cover note · Focal area TLs and PMs provide inputs to cover note · Tables/annexes GEF Operations Meeting · Program Coordinator prepares notice of meeting/arranges · Agenda (GEFOP) teleconference · HOBS presides over the meeting · HOBS recommends work program to CEO Work Program · IAs/EAs revise project executive summary and/or project · Final electronic copies of document proposals 57 Appendix 4a(i) Phase Steps Responsibilities Outputs · OCT finalizes cover note · Final cover note · PA preparesproject clearance sheet (yellow) if project is · Web posting recommended for WP inclusion; updates database · CEO approval · Program Coordinator assembles final documentation for Council circulation/web posting Council Approval · Council approves WP subject to additional comments. · Joint summary of Chairs Council decisions and discussions reflected in the joint summary of Chairs Council Comments · Two weeks after Council meeting, Program Coordinator · Compilation of Council compiles all council comments and submits to IAs/EAs comments Phase III ­ Full-Sized Project as · IAs Project Appraisal Approved by Council · EAs under the policy of expanded opportunities Final Full-Size Project · PM reviews project appraisal document for consistency · Final full-sized project Appraisal Document with WP; updates the database appraisal document · PA prepares clearances from PM, TL, HOBS (yellow sheet) · PA prepares letter to Council Phase IV ­ CEO Endorsement · CEO endorses project for IA/EA final approval · CEO endorsement letter Project Approval · PA prepares and HOBS sends transmittal note of approval · Clearance sheet and Start Up to IA/EA · Web posting · PA arranges posting of document in the web for Council info/comments · PA files relevant documents and updates database Phase V ­ Full-Size Project Start Up · IAs · Project implementation Project · EAs under the policy of expanded opportunities review Implementation/ Supervision Phase VI ­ Full-Size Project · IA/EA · Completion report Project Completion Completion · Office of Evaluation · Evaluation report and Evaluation CEO = Chief Executive Officer; CRS = concept review sheet; EA = executing agency under the policy of expanded opportunities; GEF = Global Environment Facility; GEFOP = GEF Operations Committee; GEFSec = Global Environment Facility Secretariat; HOBS = Head, GEF Operations and Business Strategy; IA = implementing agency; OCT = Operations Cluster, GEF Operations and Business Strategy; PA = Program Assistant; PDF = project preparation and development facility; PDFRS = project preparation and development facility review sheet; PM = Program Manager; PRS = project review sheet; TL = Team Leader; WP = Work Program. a Blue cover sheet is created for Program Manager assigned to review the proposal. b Yellow sheet refers to GEFSec clearance/approval sheet. 58 Appendix 4a(ii) Table 4a(ii): GEFSec Operations Manual--Medium-Sized Projects (Draft as of 1 February 2006) MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECT CYCLE Phase Steps Responsibilities Outputs Phase I ­ PDF-A Development; · IAs · PDF-A proposal MSP Concept MSP Concept Development · EAs under the policy of expanded opportunities · MSP concept Development Phase II ­ MSP Proposal Development · IAs · MSP proposal MSP · EAs under the policy of expanded opportunities Preparation Phase III ­ Receipt of MSP Proposals · PA logs project document in the project database · Bluesheet MSP · PA prepares blue cover sheeta and assigns to PM · Project document with Appraisal cover note from IA/EXA MSP Proposal Review · PM reviews proposals through the GEF database within · PRS 15 working days. · Other GEF staff provides comments, if any · PA flags comments from IAs, EAs and Convention Secretariats, and forwards them to PMs · PM sends MSPRS to IA/EA (or alternatively, the PA) Optional · PA reserves room and arranges for teleconference · Telecon reservation Upstream Consultation with · PM presides over the meeting (normally one on one if confirmation IA (normally with Task single project is discussed) · Summary of Manager) and GEFSec · PM incorporates results of discussion in the MSPRS recommendations to under "Further Processing" IAs/EAs · PA sends updated MSPRS to IA/ EA Final MSP Document · IA/EA provides revised project document · Final electronic · PA logs revised project document and repeats step 1 of document Phase III · PM reviews revised project document and updates MSPRS for clearance recommendation Council Circulation · PM reviews revised project document and updates · Final electronic copy MSPRS for clearance recommendation of MSP brief · PA prepares project clearance/approval sheet (yellow)b · Clearance/approval · PA routes clearance form to PM and TL (yellow sheet) sheet · PA prepares letter to Council · CEO letter to Council · PA coordinates for Council circulation via GEF website · Web posting Phase IV ­ CEO Approval · If no Council comments received on due date (after 15 · Clearance/approval MSP workdays), PA routes clearance sheet (yellow) to PM sheet Approval and TL · HOBS transmittal · CEO approval letter · PA prepares and HOBS sends transmittal note of approval to IA/EA · PA files docs and updates portfolio database Phase V ­ Project Start Up · IAs · MSP implementation MSP · EAs review Implementatio n, Supervision Phase VI ­ Project Completion · IAs/EAs · MSP completion MSP report 59 Appendix 4a(ii) Phase Steps Responsibilities Outputs Completion · Office of Evaluation · MSP evaluation report and Evaluation CEO = Chief Executive Officer; EA = executing agency under the policy of expanded opportunities; GEF = Global Environment Facility; GEFSec = Global Environment Facility Secretariat; HOBS = Head, Operations and Business Strategy; IA = implementing agency; MSP = medium-sized project; MSPRS = medium-sized project review sheet; PA = Program Assistant; PDF = project preparation and development facility; PM = Program Manager; PRS = project review sheet; TL = Team Leader. a Blue cover sheet is created for Program Manager assigned to review the proposal. b Yellow sheet refers to GEFSec clearance/approval sheet. 60 Appendix 4a(iii) Table 4a(iii): GEFSec Operations Manual--Expedited Enabling Activities (1 February 2006 Draft) EXPEDITED ENABLING ACTIVITY PROJECT CYCLE Phase Steps Responsibilities Outputs Phase I ­ PDF-A development; · IAs · PDF-A proposal Concept Enabling Activity · EAs under the policy of expanded opportunities · Enabling activity Development Concept Development concept Phase II ­ Enabling Activity · IAs · EA proposal Enabling Activity Proposal Development · EAs under the policy of expanded opportunities Preparation Phase III ­ Receipt of Enabling · PA logs project document in the project database · Bluesheet Enabling Activity Activity Proposals · PA prepares blue cover sheeta and assigns to PM · Enabling activity Appraisal · PA distributes document to team members document with cover note from IA/ EA Enabling Activity · PM reviews proposals through the GEF database · Enabling activity Proposal Review within 8 working days review sheets · Other GEF staff provides comments, if any · PA flags comments from other IAs, relevant EAs, and Convention Secretariats, and forwards them to PM · PM sends comments to IA/EA (or alternatively, the PA) Optional · PA reserves room and arranges for teleconference · Telecon reservation Upstream consultation · PM presides over the meeting (normally one on one if confirmation with IA (normally with single project is discussed) · Summary of Task Manager), and recommendations to GEFSec IAs/EAs Final Enabling activity · IA/EA provides revised enabling activity project · Final electronic Document document document · PA logs revisedproject document and repeats step 1 of Phase III · PM reviews revised project document and updates GEF database for clearance recommendation Phase IV ­ CEO Approval · PA routes clearance sheet (yellow) to PM and CEO · Clearance/approval Enabling Activity · CEO approval sheet Approval · PA prepares and HOBS sends transmittal note of · HOBS transmittal approval to IA/EA letter · PA files docs and updates portfolio database Phase V ­ Enabling Activity Start · IAs · Enabling activity Enabling Activity Up · EAs implementation review Implementation, Supervision Phase VI ­ Enabling Activity · IA/EA · Enabling activity Enabling Activity Completion completion report Completion · GEF Office of Evaluation · Enabling activity evaluation report CEO = Chief Executive Officer; EA = executing agency under the policy of expanded opportunities; GEF = Global Environment Facility; GEFSec = Global Environment Facility Secretariat; HOBS = Head, Operations and Business Strategy; IA = implementing agency; PA = Program Assistant; PDF = project preparation and development facility; PM = Program Manager. aBlue cover sheet is created for Program Manager assigned to review the proposal. bYellow sheet refers to GEFSec clearance/approval sheet. 61 Appendix 4b: African Development Bank Project Cycle Project Phases Concept/Term Key Goals and Ideas Key Tasks and Activities Outcomes Duration Responsibilities Definition 1.Identification · Identification · Goal: Identify A. Preparation of issues General, · Duration N/A Flexible phase covers both investment operations paper by ADB before sector, or · Identification sectors and that are in conformity departure to the field project mission to be B. Normally not projects with the AfDB strategy, (`TOR") identification carried out at for one project, but · Term: Project the country strategy B. Identification report regular for country or identification papers (CSPs),and Mission(s): intervals: annual sector Flexible: May go regional member county oFamiliarization of (Sometimes: meeting govt straight to (RMC) sectoral borrower with Bank Project brief) and county Identification can preparation priorities procedures and economist, be done by AfDB, · Bank should facilitate objectives CSP ­ with annual for each the government, borrower to be in the oMeeting with different assessment of operational others driver seat [OPr4] stakeholders [OPr7, 2] context, Bank complex (dept.) · Apply participatory oIdentifying social, strategy, and · CSP is CSP is approach [OPr7] environmental, poverty expected developed every responsibility of · Ensure first-hand issues program in 3 years (in country economist/ knowledge of sector oAssessing political and country future up to 5), country team. potential and underlying economic risks reviewed After the project is constraints · Internal ADB review of annually/at end incorporated into identification report lending program, · Incorporation of normally 1 or 2 identified project in years to project multi-year lending development framework 2. Preparation · The process that · Identification and · Preparation mission Preparation · Period from · Normally to be converts a comparison of technical (optional, if feasibility of report identification to carried out by project idea into and institutional study is good project can · Financing preparation can the borrower Appendix reality alternatives for go to appraisal phase) plan be long · Supported by · Term: Project achieving overall ADB, · Review preparation [OPr2,9] · Normal time of AfDB through: preparation borrower, and project report · Procurement feasibility study oTA 4b Project Phases Concept/Term Key Goals and Ideas Key Tasks and Activities Outcomes Duration Responsibilities Definition objectives [OPr3] oParticipatory approach requirements 6 months oFunding · Ensure capacity of used? [OPr7] · Sound · Time from feasibility study borrower to prepare oRealistic project accounting feasibility study oPreparation projects objectives and design? requirements to appraisal can with UN agency oTechnically sound cost · Realistic range from 1 oPreparation by calculation? [OPr2] implementat month to 2 years AfDB ion plan (if study weak) Development of project · Address · Goal: 4 months Feasibility studies feasibility study (normal environment, from preparation ­ managed by task AfDB practice), also gender, is finished to manager, normally termed preparation Report: cross- Board by consultants · Develop TOR cutting submission · Obtain financing issues (bottleneck) [OPr9] [OPr7] · Contract consultants and · Poverty launch mission analysis · Conduct mission · Financial, · Review by Task economic, 63 Manager (TM)/ sectoral and risk experts of report analysis to assess viability and sustainabilit y [OPr9] · Feasibility report 3. Appraisal · Definition: · Provide value-added and A. Conduct field · Appraisal A. Mission · Appraisal led by critical delineate accountability appraisal/appraisal mission Report duration 2­3 TM and team assessment of · Ensure consistent B. Preparation of appraisal · Aide- weeks · Main input from relevance, quality and technical report (incl. validation by memoire, Normal duration sectoral experts feasibility, and soundness (by TM, and classification of signed by 4­6 weeks after and `peer potential addressing that key project in categories) Govt at end mission: review' panels Appendix effectiveness of a requirements have been C. Review by IWG of of appraisal B.21 working days · Appraisal report project (or effectively carried out appraisal report (using the mission (wkds) after can be program) before during the project appraisal quality return, normally 2 developed from 4b Project Phases Concept/Term Key Goals and Ideas Key Tasks and Activities Outcomes Duration Responsibilities Definition a decision is development process assessment checklist) weeks preparation made by the (see list Annex) [OPr2, D. Second draft to IDWG C. 5 wkds after report Board of 7,9,10] E. IDWG meeting distribution of Directors to F. Third Draft to VP to report Quality at entry: undertake the sign and convene SMC D.5 wkds to revise 2005 assessment: project G. SMC/loans committee report after IWG 70% satisfactory · Finalization of meeting (resubmission can E.5wkds after all major project be needed) distribution of issues report · Term: Project F.10 wkds after appraisal IDWG meeting (incl.5 days for POPR clearance) G.5 wkds after distribution of report 4. Approval · Term: Negotiations are held · Two main documents · Summary Board presentation · Start-up is And Start-Up Negotiations (4th before Board presentation. are required for Record is continuous borrower (Negotiation, stage), and They aim at finalizing negotiations: · Outcome of (break Christmas responsibility Board Board agreement on: oDraft loan agreement Negotiation and August) Presentation, Presentation, · project objective and oAppraisal report s Loan Signature) Signing and implement; Total phase Effectiveness · amount and terms of Steps: estimate 4­6 (5th stage) loan, A. After SMC meeting · Loan weeks · conditions and (end of previous phase), Agreement, A.1 month procedures for invitation to country to signed by B.1 month disbursement and negotiate loan (only for President (translation, procurement ADB countries) distribution) · specific measures to B. After negotiation, achieve project prepare for Board Loan Agreement objectives submission (of project must be signed [OPr4] appraisal report, draft Loan within 180 days of Appendix Agreement, resolution approval signed by President) C. Board meeting and Goal is Approval, where ADB effectiveness 4b Project Phases Concept/Term Key Goals and Ideas Key Tasks and Activities Outcomes Duration Responsibilities Definition staff makes formal (start) within 12 presentation months D. Loan signing - After Board Approval borrower is informed and invited for loan signature E. Declaration of effectiveness (based of fulfillment of conditions by borrower, generally for loans only). Loan Agreement enters into force after fulfillment of all general and specific conditions precedent to effectiveness 65 5. · Continuous set of · ADB is responsible not · The first step is to · Quarterly Standard is 1.5 · Portfolio Implementation implementation only for providing conduct a launching borrower supervision monitoring by andSupervision related activities finance, but also for mission /workshop to progress missions per year Country taking place in monitoring progress familiarize the borrower reports; Department Bank towards achievement of with all aspects of the · Supervision Director (CDD) headquarters project objectives and project and its summaries; · TM has primary and during field development impact implementation · Midterm responsibility mission [OPr10] [OPr6,7] review · Matrix · Term: Project · Supervision reports: by · Various All supervision responsibility implementation TM to Country Team supervision reports: 15 country and and supervision Meeting, second draft to related working days sector divisions Director for approval mission (wkds)after return reports, to CTM · Supervision instruments audit include: reports, 1998 review: Appendix oQuarterly progress and reviews average cost of reports launch mission UA oField supervision 8.240, for supervision 4b Project Phases Concept/Term Key Goals and Ideas Key Tasks and Activities Outcomes Duration Responsibilities Definition missions mission UA oDesk supervision 19.430. For oDisbursement missions average time of oCountry procurement launch mission assessment review (5.36 budgeted oExternal audit reports days), for oADB audit missions supervision oMid-term review mission 11.72 oCountry portfolio budgeted days. review Average actual mission time 13 days. ??? 6. Completion The completion · Certify completion of A. Self-evaluation in the · Project A. After 6 month A. By borrower or and evaluation phase ensures implementation form of project completion completion of closing; report TM, or consultants, accountability and · Assess effects and reports (PCR) done by the reports after mission backlog. Closing lessons learned for impact of project and borrower in cooperation · Project return: 1st draft to date not clear (last the borrower and efficiency in resource with ADB for all projects; evaluation IWG/CTM in 15 disbursement?) ADB use B. IWG meeting notes days G. With Term: Project · Identify operational C. 2nd draft to IDWG (OPEV) B. 5 wkds after consultants completion lessons learned for D. IDWG meeting · Project distribution of reporting (8th future operations E. Final draft to Director performance report stage) and · Evaluation criteria for approval evaluation C.5 wkds to revise evaluation (9th and include F. Evaluation notes by reports report after IWG final stage) oRelevance ADB's independent (OPEV) D.5wkds after oEfficacy evaluation department distribution of oEfficiency (OPEV) report oInstitutional impact G. Independent evaluations E.5 wkds after oSustainability (project performance IDWG meeting oBorrower performance evaluation reports [PPER]) F. 3-5 days oADB performance for 1/4th of all completed G. 6-12 months projects (OPEV) after PCR Appendix 4b AfDB's key requirements for appraisal: · Knowledge assessment: · Relevant sector work · Lessons learnt (from Project Completion Reports and Annual Portfolio Performance Review) · Indigenous knowledge · M&E: · Are development objectives clearly defined? · Have good M&E indicators been identified? · Logical Framework? · Economic: · What is the potential contribution of the project to the country's development objective? · Assessment of best designs through cost-benefit analysis · Technical: Assure sound project design and engineering · Social and environmental: · Identify key stakeholders · Identify and describe social, cultural and institutional factors · Assess social and environmental impact · Fiduciary: Covers financial management/ procurement · Risk: · Critical assumptions for achieving outcomes? 67 · Constraints? · Mitigation measures? · Institutional: · Institutional arrangements and management adequate? · Utilization of local capabilities? · Need for policy or institutional changes? · Implementation: · Project implementation document · Supervision plan · Coordination mechanisms in place? · Responsibilities and relationships of experts and local staff · TA Appendix 4b Appendix 4c: Asian Development Bank Project Cycle Table 4c(i): ADB Project Cycle--Full-Sized Projects Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation Term of Phase A. Concept Clearance A. Preparation for PPTA fact- A. Appraisal Mission (optional) A. Signing and Effectiveness of A. PPR A. Project Completion Review finding Letter of Agreement Mission Goal of Phase To establish the To ascertain if existing To enable smooth project To assess, duirng To prepare the project socioeconomic basis, strategic information is adequate and to implementation by having a implementation, the likelihood completion report after the focus and priority areas for establish contact points within timely signing and subsequent that development objectives project is closed, within 12­24 ADB intervention in a country departments and networks and fulfilment by the borrower of will be achieved, by tracking months of completion as reflected in a CSP or receive advice on key issues conditions necessary for loan progress from the baseline through verified information that the PT should be effectiveness situation against the targets from borrower considering and indicators identified in the project framework Normal/ 1­5 weeks 2­4 weeks + 1­2 weeks for Average BTOR preparation Duration Normal/ 2­4 staff weeks 4­20 staff weeks + 1 staff Average Staff week for BTOR preparation Inputs Other 2­5 business trips Resources, on Average Steps/ 1. SD reviews if proposal is 1. PT identifies major sectoral 1. PT to discuss proposed 1. ML evaluates the processing Responsi- included in CSP "sector and thematic issues, major investment project with and design of the project, and bilities roadmaps." stakeholders, lessons learned borrower, EA, IA, and assesses whether borrower, and macroeconomic factors. stakeholders to prepare draft EA and ADB monitored [OPr5] loan documents. [OPrs progress effectively vs 2,3,4,5,9,10] monitoring targets [OPr 10] 2. If not, SD gets sufficient 2. PT assesses existing 1. President and borrower's 1. PTL prepares the initial PPR 2. ML assesses the borrower's information to establish information and the extent to representative sign the letter of using the project framework, and EA's performance in proposal's linkage with the which more data need to be agreement respectively. The within 1 month after loan managing and implementing development priorities of the collected during fact-finding OCD of the RD is responsible approval. SD or RM prepares the project , including financial borrower (through government mission. for prompt signing of the loan the subsequent PPRs and economic performance. concurrence) and ADB's by the borrower's periodically, using inputs from He will also assess the strategic focus for the country representative. review missions and EA/IA performance of consultants, (through Management reports (the content, format, contractors and suppliers with clearance). Such information and timing of which were respect to services, should enable the OVP to determined during loan construction, supply, delivery, make a prima facie judgment processing). and installation [OPrs 4,10] whether the project is to be included in the CSP, and loan processing started. [OPr4] 3. SD drafts concept clearance 2. PT finalizes any cofinancing 2. RDs hold PPR meetings at 3. ML reviews problems paper, including a summary arrangement and facilitates the least quarterly to review encountered and effectiveness project description. signing of cofinancing performance and discuss of measures to resolve them, agreements. [OPrs 2,3,9] specific project implementation and assesses future operation issues. [OPr 10] and steps to ensure sustainability. [OPrs 5,10] 4. RDG submits draft concept 3. OGC prepares loan clearance paper to OVP for effectiveness letter stipulating Appendix consideration all conditions the borrower must fulfill in order to have the loan declared effective. Letter should be signed by the SD. 4c(i) Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Implementation and Completion and Supervision Evaluation 4. SD ensures that any loan conditions have been met by the borrower. OGC renders opinion that borrower met all legal requirements. [OPr 4] 5. SD makes a formal loan effectiveness declaration and advises borrower and project EA, through OCD. Term of B. Team Formation B. PPTA Fact-Finding B. Second Interdepartmental B. Notification of ADB Approval B. Project Review Mission B. Operations Evaluation Phase Review to GEF and Request for Mission Funding Goal of Phase To secure agreement on roles To resolve outstanding issues To review the resolutions To conduct a detailed review of To assess the performance and responsibilities or analysis after completion of reached among the project the overall progress of the and development impacts of meetings with borrower and team, borrower, and project based on the PPR the project, if it is selected as beneficiaries. stakeholders concerning format and any other part of a sample, 3­5 years pending issues or analysis. information. after project completion, a project performance evaluation report is done by an independent party within ADB. Normal/ 1-2 weeks 2-3 weeks in the field + 1-2 2-4 weeks + 1-2 weeks for Average weeks for back to office report preparation of 3rd draft of RRP Duration (BTOR) preparation 69 Normal/ 1-2 staff weeks (team 2-15 staff weeks in the field; 0- 2-12 staff weeks + 1-4 staff Average Staff consultations, including 8 consultant weeks; 1-5 trips; 1 weeks for preparation of 3rd Inputs meeting times) staff week for BTOR draft of RRP preparation Other 1-5 business trips Resources, on Average Steps/ 1. SD designates a PTL. 1 To prepare an investment 1. PT to prepare and circulate the 1. ADB shall send to the GEF 1. ML reviews overall 1. OED representative assesses Responsi- project that meets the second draft of RRP and draft Trustee a notice of approvals implementation, examines planning and implementation bilities requirements for ADB loan agreement for by ADB of GEF project, within implementation problems and performance, the overall financing, PT seeks to forge interdepartmental comments. 30 days after the end of each how to resolve them, and project performance, and ADB agreement between ADB and [OPrs 3,5] quarter of the GEF Fiscal Year. assesses the need to extend and borrower performance. borrower on: the scope of the loan closing date. [OPrs [OPr 10] work, implementation 5,10] arrangements, financing arrangements, and time frame. [OPrs 2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10] 2. RDG endorses PTL and PT 2. PT consolidates comments into 2. GEF Trustee shall commit the 2. ML reviews actions required in 2. He also evaluates the members. comments matrix, showing funds to ADB on a monthly terms of poverty reduction, development impacts and how they will be addressed, basis, by means of a letter of environmental impact degree of achievement of and attaches this to issues commitment, but shall be assessment and resettlement project purpose. [OPr 10] paper. adjusted to reflect previously- plans, as well as the borrower's approved GEF projects that compliance with loan Appendix were subsequently dropped, covenants. [OPrs 4,10] cancelled, or amended. 4c(i) Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Implementation and Completion and Supervision Evaluation 3. PTL assigns responsibilities for 3. ADB shall submit a cash 3. ML checks on availability and 3. He identifies issues, lessons major tasks transfer request to the Trustee, timeliness of budgetary learned, and recommended who shall then transfer the allocations and counterpart follow-up actions. [OPr 10] appropriate amount based on funding, reviews project information verified by the expenditures, identifies likely Secretariat, its own review of cost overruns or savings, and undisbursed funds, and ADB's reviews progress with intentions for the undisbursed procurement and funds. disbursement. [OPrs 3,4,10] 4. PTL develops preliminary preparation and processing schedule, including individual work plans Term of Phase C. Project Classification C. PPTA Approval to C. Staff Review Committee or C. Project Inception Mission C. Special Administration Conclusion Second MRM Meeting Mission Goal of Phase To enable categories of project To allow Management to To ensure that the borrower To deal with specific project mix to be analyzed by number, review the resolutions reached and EA understand ADB implementation matters total project costs, loan among the project team, procedures, and to give copies (financial and disbursement amount, country, sector and borrower, and stakeholders of the loan documents, ADB problems in the case of the source of financing. concerning pending issues or guidelines and samples of loan disbursement mission) Classification may be tentative analysis standard bidding and contract that have not been covered by at this stage and can be documents to EA staff directly a project inception or review changed during processing involved. mission. Normal/ 43­80 weeks Included in B. Second Average interdepartmental review Duration Normal/ 19­47 staff weeks (excluding Included in B. Second Average Staff consultant time for the actual interdepartmental review Inputs PPTA) Other 3­15 business trips Included in B. 2nd Resources, on interdepartmental review Average Steps/ 1. RD classifies current year and 1. Consulting Services Division 1. RDG sends invitation and 1. PTL explains in detail ADB's 1. ML assists EAs, when Responsi- pipeline projects according to and PT prepare invitation chairs the SRC; RDG also requirements for recruiting requested, in evaluating bilities linkages to strategic documents, a shortlist of invites for second MRM but VP consultants, procuring goods consultants' proposals or development goals and to consultants; also schedule a or President chairs. and related services and conducting contract sectors. He sets up a record in CSC meeting. Consulting conducting disbursement, as negotiations with consultants. the PPIS. firms prepare and submit well as the project financing proposal. CSC selects plan. Also checks on consultant based on evaluation preparatory work done by EA. of proposal. SD issues notice [OPrs 3,4,10] to proceed. 2. RSES sents to RD an advice 2. Consultant team submits 2. Meeting confirms whether 2. PTL advises borrower and EA 2. ML reviews, discusses, and on classification with respect to inception report, holds issues from the first MRM had to establish a project resolves procurement-related environmental and social inception workshop, and been addressed and implementation unit, project issues such as local concerns. reaches agreement on course outstanding disagreements steering committee, competitive bidding of action to be taken. PTL had been resolved. independent project records, procedures, draft bidding submits BTOR. [OPrs 4,5,7] and accounting systems for the documents, and bid evaluation project and loan. [OPrs 3,4,10] problems. [OPr 10] Appendix 4c(i) Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Implementation and Completion and Supervision Evaluation 3. Consultant team submits 3. Chair gives decision to 3. PTL explains ADB's reporting 3. ML discusses specific midterm review report (with proceed and decision on requirements, the reporting implementation problems and draft project framework and summary procedures. format, allocation of issues arising from the design borrower EA or EA + ADB responsibility, and funding in and monitoring framework and comments), holds midterm line with project design and PPR. [OPrs 5,10] workshop, and reaches monitoring framework. [OPrs agreement on best design. 3,4,10] PTL submits BTOR. [OPrs 4,5,7,10] 4. Consultant team elaborates 4. PTL prepares and circulates 4. PTL gets agreement on budget 4. ML consults with the borrower design in draft final report. PT minutes. RDG approves SRC allocations, counterpart and EA on specific institutional, reviews and circulates it for minutes; VP approves second funding, withdrawal technical, or financial matters. interdepartment review. [OPrs MRM minutes. applications, and other special [OPr 10] 5,10] financial procedures. [OPrs 3,4,5,10] 5. Consultant team drafts detailed 5. PTL prepares third draft of 5. PTL finalizes with implementation plan and final RRP and loan agreement, implementing agencies the tripartite meeting held to agree incorporating all SRC/second PAM. [OPr 3,4,5,10] on project design. PTL MRM comments. submits MOU or Aide Memoire on proposed investment project. [OPrs 4,5,7,10] Term of Phase D. Project Framework D. First Interdepartmental D. Submission to GEF of D. Midterm Review Mission Development Review of Draft RRP Project Document, for 71 Approval Goal of Phase To enable the monitoring of To allow all aspects of the To seek the allocation of GEF To assess whether the project implementation and project design (technical, resources to ADB for projects project's immediate objectives provides indications on where financial, economic, that promote the achievement may still be attained. It is and when necessary remedial institutional, social, of GEF purposes. conducted for a project facing interventions need to be environmental, resettlement, major difficulties, and may be carried out. sector policy and legal) to be waived for a project provided reviewed in detail by the justification is supplied. project team, the consultants and other ADB departments. Normal/ 13­35 weeks Average Duration Normal/ 14­71 staff weeks (of PT and Average Staff reviewers) Inputs Other 2­10 business trips Resources, on Average Appendix 4c(i) Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Implementation and Completion and Supervision Evaluation Steps/ 1. PT discusses how to logically 1. PTL prepares and circulates 1. ADB drafts a project document 1. ML drafts a position paper that Responsi- link the project's goal, first draft of RRP for comments containing a description of the reviews the institutional, bilities objectives, inputs and to RDG and deputy, intra-RD activities to be funded by GEF, administrative, organizational, activities, expected outputs, directors, RM, OGC, RSDD, a specific budget for such technical, environmental, key indicators, risks and OED, Economics and activities and a proposed social, economic and financial assumptions, the analysis that Research Dept, Central allocation amount. [OPrs aspects of the project, as well needs to be undertaken, the Operations Services Office, 2,3,5,9] as a review of the relevance of manner in which data is Controller's Dept, Office of loan covenants. [OPr 10] collected, the expected Cofinancing Operations, beneficiaries and stakeholders. network contacts and VP's [OPrs 3,5] assistant. PTL consolidates comments into a Comments Matrix [OPrs 2,3,4,5,6,10] 2. PT to discuss project 2. PTL circulates SEIA for 120- 2. GEF Secretariat reviews the 2. ML assesses the need to framework in detail with EA, IA, day rule. [OPr 7] project document and forwards restructure or reformulate the consultants, prospective proposal for a full-sized project project. If there is, he updates beneficiaries, and interested to GEF Council. [OPrs 2,3,5,9] the project's design and NGOs to ensure common monitoring framework . These understanding by all parties. will be reflected in an MOU to [OPrs 4,6,7] be cosigned by the mission, the borrower/EA and authorities responsible for the recommendations. [OPrs 4,5,10] 3. PTL finalizes resettlement 3. After Council approval, ADB 3. If the project reformulation plan, if required. [OPr 7] submits a final project proposal would change the immediate to the GEF CEO for objectives, ML prepares an endorsement. [OPrs 2,3,5,9] issue paper and submits it to the SD for approval. 4. RSDD DG issues to the chair 4. SD decides if reappraisal of the of MRM a memoon project is necessary, which compliance with safeguard would require Management or policies and project quality. Board approval. 5. ML updates the PPR accordingly. [OPr 10] Term of Phase E. Management Review Meeting E. Loan Negotiations E. Project Reappraisal Mission Goal of Phase To enable senior management To obtain all the necessary (like the OVP) to encounter information to analyze the details of the project, and various aspects of the project, determine its readiness for which would form the basis of approval. the RRP and legal documents for a supplementary loan. Normal/ Included in D. first 1­4 weeks to conduct Average interdepartmental review of negotiations + 1­3 weeks for Duration draft RRP. other tasks. Appendix 4c(i) Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Implementation and Completion and Supervision Evaluation Normal/ Included in D. first 1­3 staff weeks to conduct Average Staff interdepartmental review of negotiations + 1­3 staff weeks Inputs draft RRP. for other tasks. Other Included in D. first Resources, on interdepartmental review of Average draft RRP. Steps/ 1. RDG issues invitation to MRM 1. RDG requests VP to authorize 1. ML examines the completed Responsi- 2-3 days before scheduled loan negotiations, with a memo and ongoing works of the bilities meeting. VP or President indicating SRC's decision on approved project and chairs. Meeting will focus on summary procedure. After determines whether getting approval for appraisal, approval, OSEC issues a supplementary financing of and management decision notice of loan negotiations to cost overruns could be regarding advance actions, the Board and draft loan considered, taking into account direct selection, variations in documents are sent to any new policies or revised percent financing or retroactive borrower with an invitation for policies approved by the financing. loan negotiations. Board. [OPrs 3,5,10] 2. For projects with no remaining 2. PTL leads negotiations. 2. ML should reach a written issues and well-prepared Project counsel prepares understanding with the documentation, MRM can minutes of loan negotiations borrower/EA in the form of an approve proceeding directly to for signature by both parties. MOU. [OPr 4] loan negotiations. 3. MRM minutes to be submited 3. SD and PT conduct final to President. quality check of documents and seek OGC clearance as well as OSEC clearance for printing. 73 4. RDG requests President's approval to circulate the final RRP and loan documents to the Board, through VP. 5. PTL arranges printing and sends memo to OSEC requesting circulation. Office of External Relations prepares press releases. [OPr 6] Term of Phase F. Board F. Loan Disbursement Mission Consideration/Approval Goal of Phase Normal/ 3 weeks Average Duration Normal/ 1­2 staff weeks Average Staff Inputs Appendix 4c(i) Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Implementation and Completion and Supervision Evaluation Other Resources, on Average Steps/ 1. Board consideration cannot be 1. A representative from the Responsi- given until more than 120 days Controller's Department bilities after posting the SEIA on ADB reviews the accounting and website. [OPr 6] budgetary systems, internal control and audit aspects of the borrower and EA, as well as banks that handle the letters of credit. 2. He explains ADB procedures and policies on loan service payments and follows up repayment of principal and interest. 3. He also advises the EA on its financial and accounting problems and assists it in resolving cash flow or withdrawal difficulties. Notes: Cells that are colored green correspond to procedures that are specific to GEF. Text that is colored blue refers to output, while red pertains to an operational principle. BTOR = back-to-office report, CSC = Consultant Selection Committee, CSP = country strategy and program, EA = executing agency, IA = implementing agency, ML = mission leader, MRM = management review meeting, MOU = memorandum of understanding, OCD = Operations Coordination Division, OED = Operations Evaluation Department, OGC = Office of the General Counsel, OSEC = Office of the Secretary, OVP = Operations Vice President, PAM = project administration memorandum, PDF-B = project preparation and development facility-B, PPIS = project processing information system, PPR = project performance report, PT = project team, PTL = project team leader, RD = regional department, RDG = regional director general, RM = resident mission, RRP = report and recommendation to the President, RSDD = Regional and Sustainable Development department, SD = Sector Division, SEIA = summary environmental impact assessment, SRC = Staff Review Committee. RSDD - Regional & Sustainable Development Department Appendix 4c(i) Table 4c(ii): ADB Project Cycle --Medium-Sized Projects Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation Term of A. Concept Clearance A. Preparation Mission A. TA Paper Drafting and A. TA Paper Editing and A. Implementation supervision A. TA Completion Phase Review Approval Goal of Phase To identify a competent To undertake a substantive To assist in the management external (in-country) reviewer review and conformity review of the TA portfolio and of the service output of the TA paper, the latter resources, including the review focusing on maintenance of historical policy/procedure only when records on major issues, there is deviation from the problems and actions taken standards and information on the TA framework meeded for TA evaluation. Normal/ 2 weeks 2-3 weeks 2 weeks TA-specific 1 week (because submission Average of consultant's final claim is Duration allowed within 60­90 days of completion). Normal/ Average Staff Inputs Other Resources, on Average Steps/ 1. Sector Div (SD) reviews if 1. TL meets with borrower, its 1. TL drafts TA paper, focusing 1. TASU decides when the Responsi- proposal is included in country Executing Agency (EA), other on detailed terms of reference. consultant has completed the bilities strategy and program (CSP) or donors, NGOs, and local [OPrs 2,3,4,5] assignment, usually when Subregional Cooperation experts to: [OPrs 3,4,5,6,7,10] TASU receives the final report. Strategy and Program (SCSP) TASU will send to the "sector roadmaps." [OPr 4] 75 consultant a notice of the deadline to submit his final claim and turnover/disposal of equipment/vehicles. 2. If not, SD prepares a separate 1.a Reconfirm the purpose or 2. TL also includes in the draft TA 1. TAPU head requests Office of 1. TASU monitors the 2. TASU also sends to ADB a concept paper, to be cleared expected outcome of the TA. paper a proposed plan for the Secretary (OSEC) to edit consultant's outputs against its memo to inform that it will by Vice-President (VP). [OPrs dissemination and the draft TA paper targets, particularly its close TA account as soon as it 2,3,7,10] output/outcome evaluation. deadlines for producing the processes the consultant's final [OPrs 6,10] required reports (inception, claim, with copies of the letter interim, draft final, and final sent to government, COCS reports). [OPr 10] and CTL. 1.b Define key inputs, costing, and 2. OSEC returns edited TA paper 2. TASU circulates copies of the 3. TL prepares TA completion financing. to TAPU head. consultant's report to the team report,focusing on the and relevant departments and effectiveness of TA offices for comments. [OPr 10] implementation in achieving the expected outcomes. It is usually prepared within 6­12 months of TA completion. [OPr 10] Appendix 4c(ii) Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Implementation and Completion and Supervision Evaluation 1.c Agree on broad terms of 3. For TA funding up to $500,000, 3. TASU arranges tripartite reference, including EA's the President may assign to meetings with the EA and the duties. Regional Vice President (RVP) consultant, shortly after the authority to approve the receiving each major report, to TA, but will report the TA's make sure they all have a approval to the Board. common understanding of the TA progress and to follow a participatory approach in reviewing the outputs. [OPrs 3,4,5,10] 1.d Plan for implementation and 4. For TA funding above 4. TASU fields review missions dissemination. $500,000 but less than $1 as required, to check the million, RDG sends memo to consultant's progress, President requesting the reassess the expected President's approval of the TA. completion date, and review the TA's finances. [OPr 3,5,10] 5. For TA funding above $1 5. TASU updates the TA million, RDG sends memo to performance report (TPR) to President requesting record the progress of circulation of the TA paper to implementation, at least the Board for approval on a no- quarterly. COPP summarizes objection basis. the TPRs in quarterly reports to Management and the Board. [OPr 10] Term of B. Pre-Mission Internal B. Post-Mission Steps B. (Optional) Staff Review B. Communication with B. Output Dissemination B. Feedback to CSP/SCSP Phase Consultation Committee (SRC) Meeting Government after TA Approval Goal of Phase To determine necessary support from relevant offices and for sector and thematic networks to provide experience and practices. Normal/ 1­2 weeks 2­3 weeks TA-specific Average Duration Normal/ Average Staff Inputs Other Resources, on Average Appendix 4c(ii) Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation Steps/ 1. TA Leader (TL), together with 1. TL sets up records in the 1. Regional Director General 1. In developing member 1. TL prepares synopsis of TA 1. CT addresses TA findings and Responsi- Country Team (CT), TA Project Processing Information (RDG) may decide to hold an countries (DMCs) which have output and outcomes, as well follow-up actions in the CSPU bilities Processing Unit (TAPU) head, System and ADB Business SRC meeting, based on the entered into a TA framework as manuscript for publication or SCSPU, prior to every Economics and Research Opportunities. [OPr 6] issues raised during the agreement with ADB, TAPU (for analytical and good CSPU or SCSPU exercise. Dept, Operations Evaluation interdepartmental review. prepares the TA letter, which is practice services). [OPr 10] Dept (OED) and Regional and [OPrs 3,4,5,10] then reviewed by Office of the Sustainable Devt Dept, reviews General Counsel (OGC). This concept paper and discuss key is then sent to the DMC issues, including plan for counterpart office, with a copy output dissemination and furnished to EA. outcome evaluation. [OPrs 3,6,7,10] 2. TL confirms TA funding [from 2. RDG confirms funding source 2. In DMCs which are yet to sign 2. Knowledge Management the Project Coordination and and amount. [OPrs 2,3,9] a TA framework agreement Committee secretariat Procurement Div, Office of with ADB, a standalone TA aggregates the TA synopsis Cofinancing Operations]. agreement will be prepared by into ADB annual compendium OGC. of knowledge dissemination while the Office of Information Systems and Technology inputs this into ADB knowledge depository. [OPr 6] 3. Authorized representatives of the DMC and ADB will sign the TA letter/agreement. 77 Effectivity is on the date the borrower signs the TA letter/agreement. [OPr 4] 4. For regional TAs (RETAs), effectiveness is on the date of approval (if ADB administers them) or on the date all the parties sign the RETA agreement (when third parties administer them). Appendix 4c(ii) Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Implementation and Completion and Supervision Evaluation Term of C. Submission to GEF of C. After TA Signing C. Operations Evaluation Phase Project Document, for Approval Goal of Phase To seek the allocation of GEF To have an independent resources to ADB for projects evaluation of a sample of that promote the achievement projects, which are fed back of GEF purposes. into CSP development and formulation of new projects. Normal/ Average Duration Normal/ Average Staff Inputs Other For TA Letter Resources, on Average Steps/ 1. ADB drafts a project document 1. DMC returns original TA letter 1. OED selects a TA for Responsi- containing a description of the to TL, who would forward it to evaluation, based on ADB-wide bilities activities to be funded by GEF, OSEC with a memo indicating priorities (including strategic a specific budget for such the date the TA letter was planning considerations) and activities and a proposed signed by government, and the relevance and allocation amount. [OPrs name and title of the appropriateness of lessons 2,3,5,9] authorized representative. learned for future design and implementation of TAs in a particular sector or country. [OPr 10] 2. GEF Secretariat reviews the 2. TL sends copy of the TA letter 2. Usually, several TAs are project document and forwards to the Consulting Services Div covered in the same TA medium-sized project proposal (COCS), Controller's Dept performance evaluation report to GEF CEO for approval. (CTL), and OGC. If there is to optimize evaluation [OPrs 2,3,5,9] any doubt whether the TA resources. [OPr 10] letter has been duly signed on behalf of the government, OGC should be consulted. [OPr 4] For TA Agreement 1. DMC delivers original TA agreement to OGC, who gives one original copy to the executive director of the concerned DMC and the other original to the OSEC, with a copy to other relevant departments and offices (similar to the process for loan agreement). Appendix 4c(ii) Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation Term of D. Notification of ADB Approval Phase to GEF and Request for Funding Goal of Phase Normal/ Average Duration Normal/ Average Staff Inputs Other Resources, on Average Steps/ 1. ADB shall send to the GEF Responsi- Trustee a notice of approvals bilities by ADB of GEF project, within 30 days after the end of each quarter of the GEF Fiscal Year. 2. GEF Trustee shall commit the funds to ADB on a monthly basis, by means of a Letter of Commitment, but shall be adjusted to reflect previously- 79 approved GEF projects that were subsequently dropped, cancelled, or amended. 3. ADB shall submit a Cash Transfer Request to the Trustee, who shall then transfer the appropriate amount based on information verified by the Secretariat, its own review of undisbursed funds and ADB's intentions for the undisbursed funds. Appendix 4c(ii) Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Implementation and Completion and Supervision Evaluation Term of E. Consultant Engagement Phase Goal of Phase Normal/ 10­15 weeks Average Duration Normal/ Average Staff Inputs Other Resources, on Average Steps/ Responsi- bilities 1. The TA Supervising Unit (TASU) recruits consultants, with assistance from COCS, following ADB guidelines (re - long- and shortlisting of consultants, invitation to bid, evaluation, and negotiation). COCS negotiates each contract within the TA budget. [OPr 3,5] 2. After negotiations, COCS director signs the consultant contract if the amount is $500,000 or less. The Central Operations Services Office principal director signs if the amount is greater than $500,000. 3. COCS sends copies of the signed contract to the consultant, TASU, CTL, and OGC, and enters contract details in the TA information system. 4. TASU sends a copy of the contract to the government and sends a notice to proceed to the consultant. Appendix 4c(ii) Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation Term of F. Preparation for Service Phase Commencement Goal of Phase Normal/ 1­2 weeks Average Duration Normal/ Average Staff Inputs Other Resources, on Average Steps/ 1. TL reconfirms staff assignment Responsi- (within TASU) for TA bilities supervision. [OPr 10] 2. TL firms up or revises supervision plan for TA implementation. [OPr 10] 81 Appendix 4c(ii) Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Implementation and Completion and Supervision Evaluation Term of G. Formal TA Start-Up Phase Goal of Phase Normal/ 1 week Average Duration Normal/ Average Staff Inputs Other Resources, on Average Steps/ 1. TL reviews the TA Responsi- implementation and bilities supervision plans with the EA, consultants, and selected external reviewers, and gets agreement. [OPrs 4,10] Notes: Cells that are colored green refer to GEF procedures while those that are colored yellow correspond to procedures that are specific to RETAs. Text that is colored blue refers to output while red pertains to an Operational Principle. COCS = Consulting Services Division, COPP = Project Coordination and Procurement Division, CSP = country strategy and program, CT = country team, CTL = Controller's Department, DMC = developing member country, EA = executing agency, IA = implementing agency, ML = mission leader, OED = Operations Evaluation Department, OGC = Office of the General Counsel, OSEC = Office of the Secretary, RDG = regional director general, RETA = regional technical assistance, SCSP = Subregional Cooperation Strategy and Program, SD = sector division, SRC = Staff Review Committee, TAPU = technical assistance processing unit, TASU = technical assistance supervising unit. Appendix 4c(ii) Definition of Terms Used in the ADB Project Cycle CSP: defines the ADB's medium-term strategy for the country, including the initial 3-year operational program. CSPU: updates of the CSP based on the President's annual planning directions, ADB's resource position, and the overall framework for lending and nonlending for the next 3 years. PPTA: prepares a project, program loan, or sector loan for financing by ADB and other external sources. It is utilized for developing a pipeline of projects suitable for financing, or in some cases, for preparing preliminary sectoral survey or a sectoral review to identify sectoral issues to be addressed by the project or a master plan. SSTA: used for TAs where ADB financing does not exceed $150,000 and does not require substantial logistic support from the recipient country. This is usually categorized further as a PPTA, ADTA, or RETA. Reconnaissance mission: exploratory mission. Sector loan: used where the policy and institutional framework of a developing country member can be improved through a sector project. Program loan: puts emphasis on understanding the existing policy framework in the sector and on assessing the need and scope for reform and development. It supports a government program for sector reform and development. PPIS: an internal system that tracks information on the pipeline projects. It enables the categories of project mix to be analyzed by number, total project costs, loan amount, DMC, sector, and source of financing. RRP: translates the feasibility report into project design per ADB requirements. The draft RRP at this stage allows for early feedback from support departments. BTOR: highlights the issues of project implementation and proposed remedial ctions to resolve the issues. DPL: a key document in program loan processing, which spells out details of medium- to long-term sector objectives, the measures already taken those 83 to be taken to achieve them, and various indicators to be used in monitoring program implementation and sector performance. Quality Assurance Panel: At least 1 governance specialist shall ensure that projects with major institutional development components are consistent with ADB's governance policy and priorities, as well as review project quality. MRM: forum for discussing interdepartmental comments on a proposed project, as well as potential problems that might need further confirmation with the borrower. It is the first stage at which Management encounters details of a project. It is chaired by the President (or RVP), and senior staff members from the programs, projects, and other departments. Issues Paper: states all substantive issues raised and how they have been dealth with, as well as unresolved issues requiring the President's guidance. No new issues should be raised at the MRM outside the Issues Paper, except as a result of more recent developments. Loan effectiveness: the loan takes effect after borrower's compliance with certain legal conditions to protect ADB's interest as a development financing institution: (i) standard conditions, which relate to the legal validity of the relevant loan documents like legal opinion, cross-effectiveness of cofinancing and execution of subsidiary loan agreements; and (ii) special or project specific conditions, which are critical to the effective implementation of the project. SRC:should focus on the quality and consistency of the RRP and loan documents. Chaired by the project directors and attended by key department representatives, it seeks to resolve all outstanding issues since the MRM. Unresolved issues will be brought to the attention of the President and the Appendix RVP through the SRC minutes, to lead possibly to convening of a 2nd MRM or a smaller management meeting. Threshold: in physical or financial terms; would be established based on the experience and capability of the borrower EA. 4c(ii) Category A project: Projects with significant adverse environmental impacts. EIA: A report prepared by the borrower, which includes a description of the project and the environment, anticipated environmental impacts and mitigation measures, alternatives, economic assessment, an environmental management plan, public consultation, and disclosure and conclusion. It is cleared by the regulatory agency of the borrowing country and ADB. IEE: has almost the same contents as an EIA, except that the adverse impacts has lesser degree, significance or probability/causality. SEIA/SIEE: highlights the main findings of the EIA/IEE. Cofinancing: categorized as parallel financing (used when cofinanciers stipulate procurement policies and procedures different from ADB, thus requiring specific identifiable components that can be separately financed), joint financing (cofinanciers fund a common list of goods and services in agreed upon proportions), or special arrangements. Special arrangements include (i) umbrella/standby financing, where initial ADB financing could be cancelled when cofinancing becomes available later; (ii) channel financing, where the cofinancier does not have any direct financial relationship with the country, channeling their funds through ADB instead. Framework agreement: minimize detailed negotiations with cofinancing sources through streamlined methods and practices concerning the exchange of information and simplified cofinancing modalities. PAM: contains project data and information that allows the borrower and ADB to monitor project implementation and evaluate project impact. It is an active document that is progressively updated and revised as necessary. PPR: a management tool for monitoring implementation progress and assessing the likelihood that public sector projects will achieve their development objectives. It tracks progress from the baseline situation against the targets and indicators in the project framework. PCR: self-evaluation of all completed projects and programs, prepared within 12­24 months of completion. An assessment of achievements against targets and using indicators established in the project framework, reflecting revisions made during implementation. PPAR: ensures the availability of adequate data relating to project/program benefits and costs, including operation and maintenance costs, thereby allowing for a more objective assessment of performance and sustainability. ADTA: used to finance institution building, plan formulation and implementation, operation and management of ADB-financed projects and sector-, policy-, and issues-oriented studies. RETA: ADTA that covers more than one developing member country and serves to further the common interests of benefiting countries or to provide a cost-effective means of assisting individual countries on a joint basis. RCSP: provides a clear rationale for proposed assistance at the subregional level, and is critically linked to relevant CSPs. It includes a subregional 3-year nonlending products and services work plan. ADBBO: a list that is intended to inform consultants, suppliers, and contractors of business opportunities likely to arise from ADB activities. TPR: a tool to assist management of the TA portfolio and resources, and expands the scope of TA monitoring to include the maintenance of historical records on major issues, problems, and actions taken and information on the TA framework. It has a performance rating methodology and guidelines similar to the PPR. TCR: assesses the TA's achievements against its objectives. TPAR: evaluates the design, implementation and performance of TA projects in terms of relevance, efficacy, efficiency, and sustainability criteria. Appendix 4c(ii) Appendix 4d: European Bank For Reconstruction And Development Project Cycle Generic Phase I: Concept Development Phase II: Preparation Phase III: Appraisal Phase IV: Approval Phase IV: Implementation Phase VI: phase (merged with and Start Completion and preparation phase; Evaluation Modality simultaneous) Term of phase: Initiation (or Term of phase: Final review: Final Term of phase: Term of phase: Term of phase: Project identification) Project Preparation Review Memorandum, Approval (also Project Implementation Project Completion (full-size) Goal of phase: Identify if the Development of Final Structure, terms and called signing) (also Disbursement, project is potentially suitable for Review Memorandum, conditions are Goal: EBRD's Repayments) Completion (financial) is Linked to: EBRD financing. project Structure, terms and presented to the Bank's commitment to Goal: Disbursement of the built into operations as Direct loan · Business development team conditions. Operations Committee provide financing. loan for project last disbursement. Indirect (periodic missions to For GEF projects, EBRD for approval. Contains implementation, construction Repayment of loan is loan countries) identity project contracted FAO investment more detailed terms The final review with and subsequent operation. much later. TC/TA ideas. center to develop proposal. and conditions for the President's · Receives request(formal or financing of the project, recommendation and Implementation is the Phase may also include informal) to provide a loan Structure review including signed term other loan documents responsibility of the project sale of equity, of final (from promoter - or govt) (optional): Only for projects sheet. are presented to the sponsor. EBRD articles of maturity (final loan [OPr4] with deal structure issues Board of Executive agreement require that the amount due for · Investigates the proposed Documents for the Directors. loan is used only for the repayment). business plan and decides to Environmental Review is Board of Directors are GEF focal point signs purposes for which it was further consider the project or undertaken to ensure that prepared. before the Board granted. [OPr4] Project Completion reject it. (Banking team): can the project is signs. Monitoring of project's Reports: [OPr10] 85 be electronic and/or by environmentally sound. Responsibilities: Signing loan implementation in relation to · by Banking Team mission (1-7 days visit) Environmental Impact EBRD staff are agreement by EBRD agreed schedules, loan · Certify completion · Analyzes information from Assessments (EIAs, responsible for most and client; loan agreements and use of of implementation Borrower of business duration 1 year): notify tasks of preparation. becomes legally project outputs, by project · Assess results of proposal with economic/ affected people and binding [often same beneficiaries, by borrower. project and commercial aspects and interested NGOs about Sponsor is responsible day as Board]. [OPr10] efficiency of their available environmental project, conduct public for making a public EBRD's role is to supervise achievement; information (permits, impact consultations. All public announcement of the project to ensure that · Identify operational assessments, policies). submissions are proposed project and Duration: projects achieve their lessons for future [OPr3] documented and presented completing · 2 weeks (max objectives by working with operations · Makes a preliminary to the Bank with the EIA Environmental Impact 10 days) sponsors to identify and deal assessment of the project's report. (see annex) [OPr7, Assessments, other between Final with any problems. Annual PCRs lay groundwork feasibility (technical, financial, 5] environmental reports. Review and monitoring (two missions/yr), for OPER (operation economic, environmental and [OPr5] Board mtg. expanded mission every 3 Performance evaluation institutional) [OPr3] Project Summary · Signature: often years. [OPr10] review). OPER by PED · Determines if project is Documents (2 pg) are same day as EBRD takes necessary of min. 50% of projects, Appendix complementary to the Bank's available before Board Board. action to ensure compliance. 1-2 years after final sectoral and country policies. consideration (on website) disbursement. · Prepares Concept Review consideration) (see below). For GEF: EBRD retains Memorandum (CRM) (=first [OPr5] control over funds and 4d Generic Phase I: Concept Development Phase II: Preparation Phase III: Appraisal Phase IV: Approval Phase IV: Implementation Phase VI: phase (merged with and Start Completion and preparation phase; Evaluation Modality simultaneous) approval process paper, not Overall average recruited local environment publicly available) with Responsibilities: Banking duration: expert for independent analyses conducted. team with promoter, · 3-4 months from monitoring. · Concept review. CRM is environment department in initial contact to presented to Operations review. signing Normal/average duration: Committee (OPSCOM) for (approval). From initiation to repayment: approval. Decision on project Normal/average duration: · Emergency 1 year for working capital, 15 category. projects 4-6 years sovereign · Project enters "pipeline". Release of documents weeks infrastructure projects. · EBRD signs mandate letter before Board: [OPr6] · larger natural Normal implementation with project plan, · private sector projects resource period for a loan is 5-7 years development expenses and at least 30 days projects around (private sector), for responsibilities. [OPr4] · public sector 60 days a year. municipalities up to 10 years. · EIAs private sector 60 Responsibilities: days · Banking Team, assisted by · EIA public sector network of EBRD regional projects 120 days offices Duration phase 1: Ideas can incubate with companies for 2-3 years, waiting for conditions to be met. [OPr4, 5] Annex: The Bank's Environmental Procedures requires an independent review of the environmental compliance of projects. The environmental review is based on the findings of the EIA. A summary of the environmental review is incorporated into the final review. The environmental section of the Final Review should contain: the current environmental status of the project; potential environmental impacts; environmental additionality; status of public consultations. Appendix 4e Appendix 4e: Food And Agriculture Organization Project Cycle GEF Project Cycle Phase FAO's Standard Project Lead FAO Responsible Unit FAO-GEF Project Cycle (in Lead FAO Responsible Estimated Level Percentage of Cycle Phase development)4 Unit of Effort (sw) Total Estimated LOE (%) Best Worse Best Worse Case2 Case3 Case2 Case3 Concept Development Project Identification Project Identification 5 20 5.7% 12.6% - Preparation of pre- - Identification - - Concept identification LTU/TCI feasibility studies - Project Idea - - Compliance with GEF TCAP GEF team - Preparation/submissi - Screening/Pre-feasibility LTU/DLU criteria LTU/TCI/TCAP GEF on of PDF request (if - Preparation of concept team applicable) - Project Outline LTU paper LTU/TCI/TCAP GEF - Preparation of - Consultation potential DLU, LTU, FAOR - Preparation of PCD/Block B team Project Concept donors Document (PCD) - FAO clearances - Submission of PCD - Official Request § technical LTU FAOR/RR, ADG/Technical Department for inter- § financial AFF (Pipeline Entry) - In-country Appraisal regional and global § operational TCO projects § budget PBE DLU - Compliance with § legal(ifnecessary) LEG Funding Criteria - PPRC TCAP - Submission to GEFSEC (or IA) TCAP Preparation Formulation Formulation 21 40 24.1% 25.2 % - Preparation of - Formulation LTU/PFTF - Formulation LTU/TCAP GEF team detailed project - Coordination with DLU - Clearance and approval as specified above design Donor process (repeat steps - Preparation/submissi followed in project on of Project Brief for: identification) (i) CEO approval (MSP/EA < $450 K), (ii) work program approval by Council (FSP) - Implementation Services Fee (CEO/Council Approval) Appraisal Approval Phase Appraisal 6 9 6.9% 5.7% Appendix 4e GEF Project Cycle Phase FAO's Standard Project Lead FAO Responsible Unit FAO-GEF Project Cycle (in Lead FAO Responsible Estimated Level Percentage of Cycle Phase development)4 Unit of Effort (sw) Total Estimated LOE (%) Best Worse Best Worse Case2 Case3 Case2 Case3 - Finalization of project - Appraisal LTU/PFTF design/budget/ § clearances: negotiations § technical LTU New procedures are under - Preparation of legal development documents § financial AFF - Preparation/submissi § operational TCO (ROB/TD) on of Final Project § budget PBE Document (FPD) § legal(ifnecessary) LEG - Agency internal project - PPRC TCAP review/approval - Government FAOR/RR (CEO Endorsement) - Approval TC - Signature TC - Designation of TC Operational and BH Responsibility - Receipt of Funds AFF Supervision Implementation and Supervision 50 (@ 84 (@ 57.5% 52.8% Supervision 10 12 sw/yr sw/yr x 5 x 7 yrs) 45 yrs) - Supervision of project - Implementation BH, LTU, TCAP GEF team New procedures are under implementation - Monitoring and -- discussion (project progress, Supervision (technical) procurement, LTU, TCAP GEF team (operational) disbursements) - Reporting (technical) - Preparation/submissi BH, AFFC on of interim reviews/ - Financial reporting reports and Project Implementation PBEE Review (PIR) - Midterm Evaluation BH, LTU, TCAP GEF team (Project Effectiveness) - Project/Budget Revision(s) Appendix 4e Evaluation Evaluation and Closure Evaluation and Closure 5 6 5.7% 3.8% - Preparation/submissi - Evaluation PBEE Same as FAO Project Cycle on of Project - Terminal Reporting BH/TCOM Completion Report (PCR) - Project Completion BH (Project Completion) - Operational Closure TCOM - Financial Closure AFF (Project Closure) Total LOE (sw) 87 159 100% 100% Total Estimated Costs (000') $513 $938 1 1Estimated at $5,900 per sw (fully loaded) 2Based on the following assumptions: a "simple" FSP in terms of size, complexity, difficulty of in-country working conditions, existence of parallel project which could defray travel expenses and a 5 year appraisal to completion period. 3Based on the following assumptions: a "problem" project in terms of size, complexity, difficulty of in-country working conditions including national execution, lack of parallel projects in country, and a 7 year appraisal to completion period. 4Refer to Steps 2&3 for more detail of FAO-GEF project cycle. Key Acronyms AFF = Finance Division ROB = Regional Operations Branch AFH = Human Resources Division SPFS = Special Programme for Food Security BH = Budget Holder TCAP = Field Programme Development Service DLU = Donor Liaison Unit TCI = Investment Centre Division LEG = Legal Office TCOM = Field Operation and Co-ordination Service LTU = Lead Technical Unit TCP = Technical Cooperation Programme PBE = Office of Programme Budget & Evaluation PBEE = Evaluation Service PFTF = Project Formulation Task Force PPRC = Programme and Project Review Committee Appendix 4e Appendix 4f: Inter-American Development Bank Project Cycle Phase 0: Phase I: Project Preparation Phase II: Negotiation Phase III: Phase IV: Programming Identification Orientation Analysis and Approval Implementation Completion and Process Supervision Evaluation Goal: Goal: To determine Goal: To define Goal: To ensure - Loan proposal is - Borrower is wholly - Evaluation activities To identify potential whether the project idea is medium-term feasibility of the project submitted to Loan responsible for are incorporated new initiatives by aligned with the policy and objectives, project from an economic, Committee project execution, into every phase of sector and financing strategy agreed upon with components, and technical, financial, - Negotiations are including any the project cycle, instrument and review the borrowing country concrete activities for environmental, legal, held before Board procurement it beginning with the existing IDB portfolio. during the programming each component. and institutional presentation entails, the Bank studies and impact Main product: country process. Main product: project standpoint, and that - Loan proposal is supervises the analyses carried out strategy. Main product: project concept document. plans for its presented to the process to ensure during the - Every 4-6 years outline. - Bank's Committee implementation are Board and that the project preparation process depending on the - An idea for a project on Environmental solid. Committee of the stays on schedule and continuing until country's political usually originates from and Social Impact Main product: Loan Whole and that Bank the project is cycle. a country's national devotes particular proposal. - Loan Signature procedures are completely - Conducted between plan or through importance to the - Loan proposals are and Loan followed in the implemented. government and dialogue with country direct and indirect released to the Effectiveness: procurement - After a project has IDB management authorities social and public after - After Board process. completed its - initial document environmental approval. They can Approval Bank - Launching implementation, the (project outline) is impacts of the be up to 45 pages informs Borrower mission to Bank's Country prepared and approved project. As such, in length. Loan of Board approval. familiarize Offices and by IDB management to the Bank requires proposals contain Borrower defines borrower with borrowers jointly be included in the studies on actions background signature date project execution. produce project pipeline. to mitigate any information on the - Loan agreement - Bank's Country completion reports - Project outline: expected adverse country, project enters into force Office in the within three months provides basic effects. implementing after fulfillment of borrowing country following the end of information on the - Preparation agency, donor all conditions will supervise the project project, including includes a coordination, and precedent to first project in implementation. relationship to the justification and the Bank's disbursement. accordance with - The purpose of Bank's Country comparison of strategies relating - After they have the instructions Project Completion Strategy, principal different technical to the project; a been signed and contained in the Reports (PCRs) is characteristics, and and institutional detailed description have entered into loan proposal and to assess and indicative funding options for of the project's effect, public the respective evaluate the project amounts. Normally less achieving the objectives, sector loan contract. The in order to improve than 2 pages in length. project's objectives activities and contracts, are contract may the effectiveness of - Bank conducts - Preparation budget; the made available to describe the form Bank-financed identification mission(s) requires feasibility project's the public. and frequency of operations. PCRs Appendix studies to identify implementation reviews. are prepared at the the preliminary plan and timetable; - Bank monitors end of each designs for and a section on progress towards project's 4f Phase 0: Phase I: Project Preparation Phase II: Negotiation Phase III: Phase IV: Programming Identification Orientation Analysis and Approval Implementation Completion and Process Supervision Evaluation technical and the project's achievement of implementation and institutional viability, risks and project objectives include information operations. Costs expected and development on outputs and and benefits are environmental and goals. outcomes, and compared. social impacts. - Bank conducts ratings on its - Project's budget - Project teams also administration performance, and procurement develop a logical missions and a sustainability and requirements are framework for the set of supervisory probability of also determined, as project. Logical activities. achieving are methods for framework details - Procurement development monitoring project the project's plans are updated objectives. They implementation and specific goals and annually by the also contain its impact. expected outcomes borrowers while provisions for the - the Bank's project and outputs, projects are in ex-post evaluation team produces a broken out by execution. and make second, more project component, General recommendations detailed document, as well as specifies procurement based on lessons called a project any assumptions notices and learned. concept document, the team has made specific - Ex post evaluations to communicate the and provides procurement may be also objectives and specific indicators notices are conducted at the activities of the for evaluating published on the request of the proposed project. outcomes and the IDB's borrower after the - Project Concept means for their Procurement project is Document(PCD): verification. Website, as completed. generally 10-15 - Environmental required by the However, the Bank pages in length, Impact Bank's can decide to excluding annexes, Assessments are procurement conduct its own and contain a made available procedures. project evaluation. project's principal locally and through characteristics, the Bank's public frame of reference, information description and centers. expected financing Environmental structure, assessments are preliminary produced for projects implementation plan that may pose Appendix and expected substantial development environmental risks 4f Phase 0: Phase I: Project Preparation Phase II: Negotiation Phase III: Phase IV: Programming Identification Orientation Analysis and Approval Implementation Completion and Process Supervision Evaluation impact, as well as and challenges, its status and any including large special aspects that infrastructure projects; require additional projects based on consideration. extractive use of - PCD is submitted to natural resources; an internal review projects with committee. transboundary - Bank conducts implications; projects orientation mission that may affect protected areas, critical cultural sites, or internationally recognized fragile or unique ecosystems; and projects that may pose health and physical vulnerability risks to people. They generally identify and assess potential environmental and social impacts from the project, contain measures to mitigate those impacts and propose alternative solutions for accomplishing project objectives. Procurement plans are prepared by the borrower and initially included as part of the loan proposal or plan of Appendix operations. They contain a brief description of the procurement foreseen 4f Appendix 4g Appendix 4g: International Fund For Agricultural Development Project Cycle 94 Appendix 4g 95 Appendix 4g 96 Appendix 4g 97 Appendix 4h Appendix 4h: United Nations Development Programme Project Cycle Generic Phase I: Concept Development phase Modality Term of phase: Concept/PDF B Full-size Goal of phase: Draft a Concept/PDF B for entry into the GEF pipeline project Normal/average duration: 3 months Operational Principles: 2, 4, 7 Steps/responsibilities: Proponent ·Finalizes concept and submits to UNDP Country Office for review and transmittal to GEF Regional Unit; ·Contributes to response to comments consolidated by UNDP Country Office and GEF Regional Unit. Government ·Reviews concept; ·Contributes to response to comments consolidated by UNDP Country Office and GEF Regional Unit. UNDP Country ·Assists Proponent with finalization of concept, recommending changes and ensuring Office comments from GEF Regional Unit, Headquarters Focal Area Team, GEF Secretariat (GEFSEC) and other GEF partners are satisfactorily addressed; ·Submits concept to GEF Regional Unit for clearance and transmittal to Headquarters Focal Area Team; ·Consolidates response to comments from Headquarters Focal Area Team, GEFSEC and/or other GEF partners, liaising with Proponent, and Government and submits to GEF Regional Unit for clearance and transmittal to Headquarters Focal Area Team; ·In case of regional project, refer to the UNDP Programming Manual for the selection of the Host Country. GEF Regional Unit·Assists UNDP Country Office(s) and Proponent with finalization of concept, overseeing technical quality, recommending changes and ensuring comments from Headquarters Focal Area Team, GEFSEC and/or other partners are satisfactorily addressed; ·Reviews and clears response to comments from Headquarters Focal Area Team, GEFSEC and/or other GEF partners, liaising with Proponent, Government and UNDP Country Office, overseeing technical quality and recommending changes prior to transmittal to Headquarters Focal Area Team; ·Clears and submits concept to Headquarters Focal Area Team, recommending formal technical and managerial clearances prior to submission to GEFSEC for approval. Headquarters ·Reviews concept and response to comments and recommends changes; Focal Area Team ·Provides formal technical clearance of concept and response to comments prior to submission to GEF Secretariat Deputy Executive ·Provides managerial clearance prior to submission to GEF Secretariat, ensuring Coordinator consistency with UNDP GEF Business Plan. UNDP-GEF ·Circulates concept to GEF Secretariat and GEF partners for comments; Registry ·Forwards comments from GEFSEC and other GEF Partners to GEF Regional Unit, copying Headquarters Focal Area Team and following-up on response due for transmittal within required timeframe ·Forwards to GEFSEC and other GEF Partners formal UNDP response to comments received. GEF Secretariat ·Provides Review Sheet conveying comments and recommending changes to be addressed (GEFSec) in a revised concept; ·CEO approves Pipeline entry of concept via formal memo to UNDP-GEF Executive Coordinator; ·Concept is included in GEF Pipeline on GEF website. Executive ·Formally notifies UNDP Resident Representative of Concept approval by GEF CEO via a Coordinator notification letter. Approval timeline: UNDP-GEF Registry submits/circulates Concept Paper: Day 1 Partners provide comments: Day 1 + 5 working days (approximately) 98 Appendix 4h GEFSEC issues review sheets: Day 1 + 8 working days (approximately) Review Meeting takes place: Day 1 + 15 working days (approximately) CEO approves Concept Paper: Day 1 + 25 working days (approximately) Concept Paper included in GEF Pipeline on GEF website: Day 1 + 25 working days (approximately) Outputs: Concept/PDF B Phase II: Preparation Term of phase: Preparation Goal ofphase: Develop an FSP proposal Normal/average duration: 12 months Operational Principles: 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 Steps/responsibilities: Proponent · Finalizes executive summary and project document and submits to UNDP Country Office for review and transmittal to GEF Regional Unit; · Contributes to response to comments consolidated by UNDP Country Office and GEF Regional Unit. Government · Reviews executive summary and project document and provides formal endorsement via letter from GEF Operational Focal Point to UNDP Resident Representative; · Contributes to response to comments consolidated by UNDP Country Office and GEF Regional Unit. UNDP Country · Assists Proponent with finalization of executive summary and project document, Office recommending changes and ensuring comments from GEF Regional Unit, Headquarters Focal Area Team, GEF Secretariat (GEFSEC) and other GEF partners are satisfactorily addressed; · Obtains government endorsement letter(s) signed by the GEF Operational Focal Point(s); · Submits executive summary and project document to GEF Regional Unit for clearance and transmittal to Headquarters Focal Area Team; · Consolidates response to comments from Headquarters Focal Area Team, GEFSEC and/or other GEF partners, liaising with Proponent, and Government and submits to GEF Regional Unit for clearance and transmittal to Headquarters Focal Area Team; · In case of regional project, refer to the UNDP Programming Manual for the selection of the Host Country. GEF Regional · Assists UNDP Country Office(s) and Proponent with finalization of executive summary and Unit project document, overseeing technical quality, recommending changes and ensuring comments from Headquarters Focal Area Team, GEFSEC and/or other partners are satisfactorily addressed; · Reviews and clears response to comments from Headquarters Focal Area Team, GEFSEC and/or other GEF partners, liaising with Proponent, Government and UNDP Country Office, overseeing technical quality and recommending changes prior to transmittal to Headquarters Focal Area Team. Outputs: FSP proposal Phase III: Appraisal Term of phase: Technical and financial clearance Goal of phase: Internal review and clearance prior to GEF submission Normal/average duration: 15 days Operational Principles: 2, 3, 4, 7 Steps/responsibilities: GEF Regional Unit · Clears and submits executive summary and project document to Headquarters Focal Area Team, recommending formal technical and managerial clearances prior to submission to GEFSEC for approval. Headquarters Focal · Reviews executive summary, project document and response to comments and Area Team recommends changes; · Provides formal technical clearance of executive summary, project document and response to comments prior to submission to the GEF Secretariat. Deputy Executive · Provides managerial clearance prior to submission to GEF Secretariat, ensuring Coordinator consistency with UNDP-GEF Business Plan. UNDP-GEF Registry · Circulates executive summary, project document and government endorsement letter(s) to GEF Secretariat and GEF partners for comments; · Forwards comments from GEFSEC and other GEF Partners to GEF Regional Unit, copying Headquarters Focal Area Team and following-up on response due for transmittal within required timeframe; · Forwards to GEFSEC and other GEF Partners formal UNDP response to comments received. Outputs: Submission of FSP to GEF for Work Program Inclusion 99 Appendix 4h Phase IV: Approval and Start Term of phase: Approval and Start Goal of phase: CEO approval and project document signature of FSP Normal/average duration: 3-6 months Operational Principles: 2, 3, 4, 7 Steps/responsibilities: GEF Secretariat· Provides a Review Sheet transmitting comments, recommending changes to be addressed in (GEFSec) a revised executive summary and project document and conveying decision on Work Programme entry; · Includes project in Work Programme and circulates to GEF Council Members via website; GEF Council · Reviews Work Programme, providing comments on individual projects to be addressed at the time of project document finalization within two weeks after the conclusion of the Council meeting (see para. (c) of Council Decisions affecting the Project Cycle); · Approves Work Programme. Proponent ·Attends Project Appraisal Committee (PAC) meeting; ·Finalizes project document including co-financing, implementation and Monitoring & Evaluation arrangements and ensuring PAC comments are satisfactorily addressed; ·Drafts UNDP response to GEF Council Comments; ·Obtains letter(s) of financial commitment. ·Submits project document to UNDP Country Office for clearance and transmittal to GEF Regional Unit. Government ·Attends Project Appraisal Review (PAC) meeting; ·Reviews and clears final project document. UNDP Country ·Organizes and attends Project Appraisal Committee (PAC) meeting; Office ·Finalizes and distributes PAC Minutes; ·Assists Proponent with project document finalization; ensuring availability of letters of financial commitment and completion of UNDP response to GEF Council comments; ·Clears final project document and submits to GEF Regional Unit for clearance and transmittal to UNDP-GEF Headquarters. GEF Regional ·Assists Proponent and UNDP Country Office(s) with project document finalization, overseeing Unit technical quality and reviewing co-financing, implementation and Monitoring & Evaluation arrangements; ·Finalizes UNDP response to GEF Council comments; ·Clears and submits final project document and attachments to UNDP-GEF Headquarters recommending technical and managerial clearances prior to transmittal to GEF Secretariat. Headquarters ·Reviews and recommends changes; Focal Area Team·Provides formal technical clearances prior to submission to GEF Secretariat. Programme ·Reviews budgetary, co-financing and implementation arrangements and recommends Operations changes; Support and ·Provides formal financial clearance prior to submission to GEF Secretariat Information Unit Deputy Executive ·Provides managerial clearance prior to submission to GEF Secretariat, ensuring consistency with UNDP-GEF Business Plan. Coordinator UNDP-GEF ·Submits project document and attachments to GEF Secretariat for endorsement by CEO. Registry GEF Secretariat ·Provides Review Sheet conveying comments and recommending changes to be addressed in (GEFSec) a revised project document; ·CEO endorses the project document via formal memo to the UNDP-GEF Executive Coordinator. UNDP-GEF ·Formally delegates authority to UNDP Resident Representative to sign project document on Executive behalf of UNDP and execute GEF-funded project. Coordinator 100 Appendix 4h Approval timeline: UNDP-GEF Registry submits/circulates Executive Summary and Project Document: Day 1 Partners provide comments: Day 1 + 5 working days GEFSEC issues review sheets: Day 1 + 8 working days Review Meeting takes place: Day 1 + 15 working days Project is included in Work Programme: Day 1 + 20 working days Outputs: Project document signature Phase V: Implementation Supervision Term of phase: Monitoring and Evaluation Goal of phase: To provide management and main stakeholders information on implementation progress Normal/average duration: 4-5 years Operational Principles: 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 Steps/responsibilities: Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties § Project Coordinator Inception Workshop § UNDP CO § UNDP GEF Inception Report § Project Team § UNDP CO Measurement of Means of § Project Coordinator will oversee the hiring of specific studies and Verification for Project Purpose institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members Indicators Measurement of Means of § Oversight by Project GEF Technical Advisor and Project Verification for Project Progress Coordinator and Performance (measured on § Measurements by regional field officers and local IAs an annual basis) APR and PIR § Project Team § UNDP-CO § UNDP-GEF TPR and TPR report § Government Counterparts § UNDP CO § Project team § UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit Steering Committee Meetings § Project Coordinator § UNDP CO Periodic status reports § Project team Technical reports § Project team § Hired consultants as needed Mid-term External Evaluation § Project team § UNDP- CO § UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit § External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) Outputs: Timely, accurate information on implementation progress Phase VI: Completion and Evaluation Term of phase: Operational Completion Goal of phase: To provide management and main stakeholders an assessment of achievement of results, sustainability and cofinancing Normal/average duration: 3 months Operational Principles: 6, 9, 10 Steps/responsibilities: Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Final External Evaluation § Project team § UNDP-CO § UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit § External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) Terminal Report § Project team § UNDP-CO § External Consultant Lessons learned § Project team § UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit (suggested formats for documenting best practices, etc) Outputs: Terminal evaluation report 101 Appendix 4h Modality Phase I: Concept Development Medium- Term of phase: PDF A size Goal of phase: Draft a PDF A for UNDP approval project Normal/average duration: 3 months Operational Principles: 2, 4, 7 Steps/responsibilities: Proponent · Finalizes PID and submits to UNDP Country Office for review and transmittal to GEF Regional Unit; · Contributes to response to Headquarters Focal Area Team comments consolidated by UNDP Country Office and GEF Regional Unit. Government · Reviews PID and provides formal endorsement via letter from GEF Operational Focal Point to UNDP Resident Representative; · Contributes to response to Headquarters Focal Area Team comments consolidated by UNDP Country Office and GEF Regional Unit. UNDP Country · Assists Proponent with finalization of PID, recommending changes and ensuring Office comments from GEF Regional Unit and Headquarters Focal Area Team are satisfactorily addressed; · Obtains government endorsement letter(s) signed by the GEF Operational Focal Point(s); · Submits PID to GEF Regional Unit for clearance and transmittal to Headquarters Focal Area Team; · Consolidates response to comments from Headquarters Focal Area Team, liaising with Proponent, and Government and submits to GEF Regional Unit for clearance and transmittal to Headquarters Focal Area Team; · In case of regional project, refer to the UNDP Programming Manual for the selection of the Host Country. GEF Regional Unit · Assists UNDP Country Office(s) and Proponent with finalization of PID, overseeing technical quality, recommending changes and ensuring comments from Headquarters Focal Area Team are satisfactorily addressed; · Reviews and clears response to comments from Headquarters Focal Area Team, liaising with Proponent, Government and UNDP Country Office, overseeing technical quality and recommending changes prior to transmittal to Headquarters Focal Area Team; · Clears and submits PID to Headquarters Focal Area Team, recommending (1) formal technical clearance to Principal Technical Adviser (PTA) and entry of final-type project into UNDP-GEF pipeline (2) financial clearance by POSI and (3) formal approval by Executive Coordinator; · Prompts Headquarters Focal Area to obtain signature of the Delegation of Authority letter (DOA) after completion of 5-day Headquarters review period, which includes POSI clearance and PID approval by Executive Coordinator. Headquarters · Reviews PID and recommends changes to GEF Regional Unit; Focal Area Team · Provides formal technical clearance of PID and entry of final-type project into UNDP-GEF pipeline via completion by PTA of PIMS box "First accepted into UNDP HQ Pipeline" in the Concept leaf; · Posts all relevant documentation in PIMS including the draft Delegation of Authority (DOA) letter. UNDP GEF · Approves PDF A PID/project document via signature of a Delegation of Authority letter. Executive Coordinator UNDP-GEF · Circulates PID and government endorsement letter(s) to GEF Secretariat and GEF Registry partners for information and comments; · In case of comments received from GEFSEC and/or other GEF Partners, forwards same to GEF Regional Unit copying Headquarters Focal Area Team; GEF Secretariat · Provides comments, via Review Sheet or other, recommending changes to be addressed (GEFSec) in final type proposal; Approval timeline: GEF Regional Unit submits final PID to Headquarters Focal Area Team for approval: Day 1 POSI clears PID and Executive Coordinator approves PID via DOA letter: Day 1 + 5 working days UNDP-GEF Registry circulates PID to GEFSEC and partners: Day 1 + 5 or 6 working days Outputs: PDF A Project Initiation Document (PID) 102 Appendix 4h Phase II: Preparation Term of phase: Preparation Goal of phase: Develop an MSP proposal Normal/average duration: 6 months Operational Principles: 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 Steps/responsibilities: Proponent · Finalizes proposal and submits to UNDP Country Office for review and transmittal to GEF Regional Unit; · Contributes to response to comments consolidated by UNDP Country Office and GEF Regional Unit. Government · Reviews proposal and provides formal endorsement via letter from GEF Operational Focal Point to UNDP Resident Representative; · Contributes to response to comments consolidated by UNDP Country Office and GEF Regional Unit. UNDP Country · Assists Proponent with finalization of proposal, recommending changes and ensuring Office comments from GEF Regional Unit, Headquarters Focal Area Team, GEF Secretariat (GEFSEC) and other GEF partners are satisfactorily addressed; · Obtains government endorsement letter(s) signed by the GEF Operational Focal Point(s); · Submits proposal to GEF Regional Unit for clearance and transmittal to Headquarters Focal Area Team; · Consolidates response to comments from Headquarters Focal Area Team, GEFSEC and/or other GEF partners, liaising with Proponent, and Government and submits to GEF Regional Unit for clearance and transmittal to Headquarters Focal Area Team; · In case of regional project, refer to the UNDP Programming Manual for selection of Host Country. GEF Regional · Assists UNDP Country Office(s) and Proponent with finalization of proposal, overseeing Unit technical quality, recommending changes and ensuring comments from Headquarters Focal Area Team, GEFSEC and/or other partners are satisfactorily addressed; · Reviews and clears response to comments from Headquarters Focal Area Team, GEFSEC and/or other GEF partners, liaising with Proponent, Government and UNDP Country Office, overseeing technical quality and recommending changes prior to transmittal to Headquarters Focal Area Team; Outputs: MSP proposal Phase III: Appraisal Term of phase: Technical and financial clearance Goal of phase: Internal review and clearance prior to GEF submission Normal/average duration: 15 days Operational Principles: 2, 3, 4, 7 Steps/responsibilities: GEF Regional Unit · Clears and submits proposal to Headquarters Focal Area Team, recommending formal technical and managerial clearances prior to submission to GEFSEC for approval. Headquarters Focal · Reviews proposal and recommends changes to GEF Regional Unit; Area Team · Provides formal technical clearance prior to submission to GEF Secretariat. Deputy Executive · Provides managerial clearance prior to submission to GEF Secretariat, ensuring Coordinator consistency with UNDP-GEF Business Plan. UNDP-GEF Registry · Circulates proposal and government endorsement letter(s) to GEF Secretariat and GEF partners for comments; · Forwards comments from GEFSEC and other GEF Partners to GEF Regional Unit, copying Headquarters Focal Area Team and following-up on response due for transmittal within required timeframe; · Forwards to GEFSEC and other GEF Partners formal UNDP response to comments received. GEF Secretariat · Provides Review Sheet conveying comments and recommending changes to be (GEFSec) addressed in a revised proposal; · CEO circulates MSP proposal to GEF Council Members via GEF website for comments, recommending approval; · Following review period by Council Members, CEO approves MSP funds via formal memo to UNDP-GEF Executive Coordinator. Outputs: Submission of MSP to GEF for CEO approval 103 Appendix 4h Phase IV: Approval and Start Term of phase: Approval and Start Goal of phase: CEO approval and project document signature of MSP Normal/average duration: 3-6 months Operational Principles: 2, 3, 4, 7 Steps/responsibilities: GEF Secretariat · Provides Review Sheet conveying comments and recommending changes to be (GEFSec) addressed in a revised proposal; · CEO circulates MSP proposal to GEF Council Members via GEF website for comments, recommending approval; · Following review period by Council Members, CEO approves MSP funds via formal memo to UNDP-GEF Executive Coordinator. Proponent ·Attends Project Appraisal Committee (PAC) meeting; ·Finalizes project document including co-financing, implementation and Monitoring & Evaluation arrangements and ensuring PAC comments are satisfactorily addressed; ·Submits project document to UNDP Country Office for clearance and transmittal to GEF Regional Unit. Government · Attends Project Appraisal Review (PAC) meeting; · Reviews and clears final project document. UNDP Country ·Organizes and attends Project Appraisal Committee (PAC) meeting; Office ·Finalizes and distributes PAC Minutes; ·Clears final project document and submits to GEF Regional Unit for clearance and transmittal to UNDP-GEF Headquarters. GEF Regional Unit ·Assists Proponent and UNDP Country Office(s) with project document finalization, overseeing technical quality and reviewing co-financing, implementation and Monitoring & Evaluation arrangements; ·Clears and submits final project document and attachments to UNDP-GEF Headquarters recommending technical and managerial clearances prior to transmittal to GEF Secretariat. Headquarters Focal ·Reviews and recommends changes; Area Team ·Provides formal technical clearances prior to submission to GEF Secretariat. Programme ·Reviews budgetary, co-financing and implementation arrangements and recommends Operations Support changes; and Information ·Provides formal financial clearance prior to submission to GEF Secretariat Unit UNDP-GEF ·Formally delegates authority to UNDP Resident Representative to sign project document Executive on behalf of UNDP and execute GEF-funded project. Coordinator Approval timeline: UNDP-GEF Registry submits/circulates MSP proposal: Day 1 GEFSEC provides comments: Day 1 + 15 working days GEF CEO recommends approval and circulates MSP proposal to GEF Council Members via GEF website: Day 1 + 25 working days GEF CEO approves MSP funds: Day 1 + 40 working days Outputs: Project document signature Phase V: Implementation Supervision Term of phase: Monitoring and Evaluation Goal of phase: To provide management and main stakeholders information on implementation progress Normal/average duration: 3-4 years Operational Principles: 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 Steps/responsibilities: Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties § Project Coordinator Inception Workshop § UNDP CO § UNDP GEF § Project Team Inception Report § UNDP CO 104 Appendix 4h Measurement of Means of § Project Coordinator will oversee the hiring of specific studies and Verification for Project Purpose institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members Indicators Measurement of Means of § Oversight by Project GEF Technical Advisor and Project Verification for Project Progress Coordinator and Performance (measured on § Measurements by regional field officers and local IAs an annual basis) APR and PIR § Project Team § UNDP-CO § UNDP-GEF TPR and TPR report § Government Counterparts § UNDP CO § Project team § UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit Steering Committee Meetings § Project Coordinator § UNDP CO Periodic status reports § Project team Technical reports § Project team § Hired consultants as needed Mid-term External Evaluation § Project team § UNDP- CO § UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit § External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) Outputs: Timely, accurate information on implementation progress Phase VI: Completion and Evaluation Term of phase: Operational Completion Goal of phase: To provide management and main stakeholders an assessment of achievement of results, sustainability and co- financing Normal/average duration: 3 months Operational Principles: 6, 9, 10 Steps/responsibilities: Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Final External Evaluation § Project team § UNDP-CO § UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit § External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) Terminal Report § Project team § UNDP-CO § External Consultant Lessons learned § Project team § UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit (suggested formats for documenting best practices, etc) Outputs: Terminal evaluation report 105 Appendix 4i: United Nations Environment Programme Project Cycle Via Project Development SPO between staff member & DGEF FOCAL Submission by SPO proponent upon eligibility AREA TASK for DROC review via check FORCE Review Deputy Director Project Idea Deputy Director circulate to UNEP SMG via email (PDFa, Concepts, MSPs) 5-day review Or to UNEP/GEF PCC (FSPs) Project Closure (Closure reports, terminal reports, self- evaluation fact sheets, audit Submission to GEF Secretariat, STAP MEAs, and reports) Implementing Agencies for review · PDFs (5 days), MSPs (15 days)­ at any time · Concepts ­ at GEF scheduled pipeline dates 106 · FSPs ­ at GEF Work Programme Submission dates Terminal Evaluation For MSPs, FSPs Entry GEFSEC forward document to the GEF Council Red File clearance by SPMO ŕ Portfolio Manager ŕ DGEF days) Pipeline For FSPs Management ŕ BFMS (5 (MSPs) for STAP Review email notification Red files created for project CEPTS to Council Work Programme objection revision and reconciliation of Submission for FSPs no end-year accounts (Annually) CON & upon Bs- CEO GEFOP Endorsement (Teleconference) Mid-year review PDF Received Approval for A- Prodoc preparation Project half-yearly reports, quarterly PDF approval expenditure statements, to cash advance requests Submission for Final CEO sent from EAs to UNEP Endorsement Proceed GEFSEC Pink File Clearance Pink File Prepared Project Prodoc signature and first cash (SPMOŕDGEF Add to GEF Proposals, annexes on project management, Appendix Implementation disbursement Management ŕ DED ŕ structure, ToRs, MoUs, Implementation Plan and Budget in BFMSŕ PRDB) UNEP Format 4i Phase 0: Phase I: Project Preparation Phase II: Negotiation Phase III: Phase IV: Programming Identification Orientation Analysis and Approval Implementation Completion and Process Supervision Evaluation for the project in the upcoming 18 months, an estimated budget for the various tenders for bids into which the procurement will be grouped, the source of financing and method of procurement for each bid, the estimated date for the first notice for bidding or prequalification (if applicable), and the status of the procurement. They are first made available to the public after a project is approved. Procurement plans are updated each year for projects in implementation and made available on the Bank's website. - Bank conducts analysis mission - Loan proposal is submitted for internal review Appendix 4f Appendix 4j: United Nations Industrial Development Organization Project Cycle UNIDO Requirements GEF Requirements Consultations with the country counterparts Consultations with the country counterparts Identification of national priority, focal area, scope, key stakeholders, Gaps and likely coverage of the PDF / full project Consultations with Implementing Agency (IA) Preparation of Service Summary Sheet (SSS) Approval of SSS by Project Approval Committee (PAC) Development of project concept / PDF document as Development of the Project concept / per GEF requirements PDF document as per GEF requirements Consultations with Country counterparts and Implementing Agency Endorsement of the PDF document by Country Endorsement of the PDF document by Country Review of the PDF project by Quality Advisory Group (QAG) Approval of the PDF project by PAC Review of the PDF project by IA Revision of the PDF project to incorporate comments made by IA and consultations with the national counterparts Finalized PDF document sent to IA IA sends the PDF document to GEF IA/EA (Direct Access) sends the PDF document to GEF Review of the PDF document by GEF Review and approval by GEF, entry into the pipeline Revision made in the PDF Document and again sent to GEF Approval of PDF document and entry into the pipeline by GEF Implementation of the PDF activities by IA/EA Implementation of the PDF activities by IA/EA Preparation of the draft project brief Preparation of the draft project brief Service Summary Sheet (for MSP or FSP) submitted to PAC Approval of SSS by Project Approval Committee (PAC) Preparation of draft project brief and review by the IA Consultations with country counterparts Review and approval of the project brief by QAG and PAC Review of the project brief by IA and comments made Revision made by EA and sent to IA Finalization of the project brief by IA Finalized project brief sent to the country for review and Finalized project brief sent to the country comments for review and comments 107 UNIDO Requirements GEF Requirements Endorsement of the project brief by the country Endorsement of the project brief by the country Review of the project brief by STAP expert Review of project brief by STAP expert Comments made by STAP expert incorporated in Comments made by STAP expert the project brief incorporated in the project brief Finalized project brief sent to IA for review and comments of IA incorporated IA sends the project brief to the GEF Sec for review IA / EA (direct access) sends the and entry into work plan project brief to GEF Sec for review and entry into work plan Review by the GEF Sec and comments made GEF Sec reviews the project brief and provides comments Comments of GEF Sec incorporated into the project Comments of GEF Sec incorporated into brief and resubmitted to GEF for work plan entry the project brief and resubmitted to GEF for work plan entry Consideration of the work plan by the GEF Council Consideration of the work plan by the and approval/ rejection/deferment on projects GEF Council and approval/ conveyed along with comments rejection/deferment on projects conveyed along with comments If approved, the project brief is converted into a full If approved the project brief is converted document (including legal and into a full document (including legal and administrative/implementation requirements/details) administrative/implementation requirements/details) Comments received from the GEF Council members Comments received from the GEF incorporated into the project document Council members incorporated into the project document Consultations with the Country Counterparts and Consultations with the Country stakeholders Counterparts and stakeholders Preparation of the full document in IA format Preparation of the full document in IA / EA (direct access) format Review of the full document by QAG and PAC and comments incorporated Review of the full document by IA Comments received from the IA incorporated in the full document Endorsement of full document by the country Endorsement by the country Finalized project document is sent by IA to GEF Finalized project document is sent by IA / EA (Direct Access) to GEF Submission for CEO approval Submission for CEO approval CEO approval given CEO Approval given 108 Appendix 4k: WORLD BANK PROJECT CYCLE Table 4k(i): Full-Sized Projects Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation Term of Quality Enhancement A. Identification / PCN Stage A. A. Appraisal Mission A. GEF CEO ENDORSEMENT A. Project Supervision A. Project Closing & ICR phase Review (QER) To help the Task Team To identifying projects that have improve the quality of project The Borrower implements the a high priority, and appear design through an open and To assess the economic, project, with agreed technical The ICR identifies suitable for Bank/IDA support assistance from the Bank. The accomplishments, problems, and advise on project concept's collaborative discussion with technical, institutional, To obtain GEF CEO Bank ensures that the grant and lessons learned and is Goal of phase probable GEF eligibility. The knowledgeable and financial, environmental, and endorsement prior to Board proceeds are used for the submitted to the Bank Board PCN review is intended to be a independent reviewers. The social aspects of the project. presentation. (OPr6) (OPr9) grant purposes, with due of Executive Directors for brainstorming session on the QER should be the definitive (OPr2)(OPr3) (OPr4) (OPr5) regard for economy, information purposes. strategic issues to be addressed point of closure on how to (OPr9) (OPr10) efficiency, and effectiveness. (OPr3) (OPr4) (OPr6) (OPr10) by the p resolve major design, (OPr10) (OPr3) (OPr4) (OPr5) fiduciary, and safegua Normal/ Average 3-4 weeks (conducted as ICR submitted to Board within duration: regional practice) 6 months of closing. 109 Normal/ Average staff Input in staff weeks is not readily Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not available readily available readily available readily available readily available readily available inputs: Other resources, on average: World Bank Task Team Leader TTL in consultation with the The GEF RC reminds the Once the loan is approved, the (TTL) organizes Identification Sector Manager/Leader TTLs follow the regional Task Team that all GEFSEC borrowing government, with Mission (Optional) - Statement selects a QER panel. practice for Appraisal mission. conditions for CEO technical assistance from the Steps/ of Mission Objectives (SMO) Selection of QER participants The TTL notifies the Borrower endorsement and all Council Bank, prepares the responsi- 1. issued two weeks before 1. follows the regional practice. 1. of the composition of the 1. comments must be addressed 1. specifications and evaluates 1. TTLs follow regional practices bilities departure. On the completion of GEF Regional Coordinator Appraisal Mission. When there in the CEO Endorsement bids for the procurement of for project closing. the mission and the TTL issues and ENV Technical Specialist are substantive issues, the CD memo, which needs to be goods and services for the Back to Office report in order to are also be invited. TTL may be asked to sign the specifies the Panel's terms of Notification. submitted by the TTL to GEF project. The Bank reviews this Appendix inform managemen reference an RC separately. activity to ensure that its procu 4k Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Implementation and Completion and Supervision Evaluation The Task Team, with TTL prepares QER package TTLs follow regional practices TTL prepares project closing and sends to QER TT spends three to four guidance from the RC, for project supervision and notification letter for the CD's weeks in the client country. prepares a GEF Project A concept paper (developed Participants 5 working days ISRs. The Bank wide signature. To complete the either by TTL or an external before the QER meeting. QER Mission reaches agreement Document. The GEF Project minimum reporting standard is notification letter: with government and borrower Document is created from the 2. proposer) is submitted to the 2. package consisted of a 2. on all aspects of the project, 2. negotiated final Project 2. annual. At least once a year, 2. ?Consults with the appropriate GEF Regional transmittal memo with TTs conduct a supervision disbursement officer for the Coordinator for internal GEF following attachments: draft including PIP and operational Appraisal Document (PAD). mission to visit sites of status of disbursements plan. The appraisal team All updating and editing must eligibility review. PAD: Cover Sheet, Project projects or representative against withdrawal Description, Implementation reviews all the work conducted be done in PAD before samples of subprojects under applications, including the during identification and pre generating the Project section; draft ISDS PAD Stage Document implemen amounts disbursed for eac The draft Aide-Memoire is The Task Team/RC prepares For externally proposed prepared and discussed with CEO Endorsement memo for TTL sends a copy of official projects, once the GEF RC the Borrower/Project GEF Executive Coordinator's GEF coordination Team notification to the client to determines a concept to be Entity/Government while in the signature, indicating: (i) how eligible, he/she shares it with the TTL prepares an AGENDA field; a copy is left with the and where GEFSEC/Council reviews PSR / ISR as part of disbursement, legal, GEF RC 110 3. 3. annotated with relevant issues 3. 3. 3. annual GEF Project 3. and ACTTF. TTLs must appropriate sector specialists to Government/Borrower as well comments have been determine the concept's fit with to resolve. as with the Country Office. addressed in the final Implementation Review (GEF coordinate with ACTTF for PIR) for GEF Council. legally closing the GEF project the Bank's country assistance Upon return from the mission, document, and (ii) any TF#. strategy. the TTL prepares the BTOR, substantial modifications in givin project design, phasing, c QER Panel Meeting. The GEF RC sends memo and Task Team prepares Panel meets for 1-2 days, full- final project document implementation completion time without disruption. The electronically through GEF report (ICR) according to Feedback on overall ISR RC seeks concurrence of Panel interviews the Task Coordination Anchor's Project standard Bank guidelines and Technical Specialists (TSs) and Team, and frequently the TTL obtains Draft Letter of Tracking system to GEF quality especially the procedures. ICR report must 4. 4. Sector Policy from Borrower; 4. 4. assessment of outcomes and 4. determines proposal's GEF Country Management Unit, the before negotiations. Coordination Anchor, who use of M&E in supervision is address the GEF-related eligibility. Sector Manager, and resource forwards it to GEFSEC and objectives. For blended persons recommended by the faxes signed copy of the provided to TTLs through RCs. projects, only one ICR is Task Team. The Panel may memo. GEFSEC will respond required unless the GEF grant invite the with clearance or revisions and loan close in diffe Appendix 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation TTL prepares Concise QER The Bank GEF Executive Project Concept Note (PCN) is Report with agreed actions reviewed and approved by the and guidance; 5 days after Coordinator notifies GEF RC of GEFSEC clearance or revisions, if Bank's regional management. meeting. QER report is required. TTL revises project Eligible concepts enter the Bank reviewed by QER participants GEF team prepares annual 5- GEF pipeline only when the 5. and cleared by SM before 5. document, if necessary. If document 5. review of GEF portfolio quality. PCN is reviewed and approved distribution. The Task Team is has been modified, RC sends revised version to GEFSEC (again by the respective country unit. free to share the QER report through GEF Coordination Anchor Review steps are as follows: with whomever it wishes and is encourag electron 111 On scheduling Board Dates, it is recommended that: ?For a GEF project subject to Streamlined CEO Endorsement, the Project Restructuring or Grant 5a. Issue concept package. Board date should be no earlier than 6. agreements require RC 6 weeks from the date of clearance transmission of the project document by the GEF Coordination Anchor to GEFSEC Appendix 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation Concept Review Meeting (CD or 5b. ROC); 8 days after concept package issued Draft Minutes of Concept 5c. Review Meeting circulated; participants have 3 days to respond. Issue PCN Review Minutes 5d. (after CD approval); within 3 days after participants response. A draft PID must be prepared with the draft PCN and included in the PCN package. Immediately following the 5e. Project Concept Review 112 Meeting, the PID should be revised, cleared with the Country Director, sent to infoshop; within 5 days after CD approval of m A draft Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (PCN-ISDS) must be prepared with the draft Project Concept Note (PCN), 5f. PID and included in the PCN package. Immediately following the Project Concept Review Meeting, the PCN-ISDS should be revised, cleared and sign Appendix 4k Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Implementation and Completion and Supervision Evaluation Term of B. GEF Pipeline Entry B. GEF STAP EXPERT REVIEW B. Negotiation B. Bank Board Approval B. Mid-Term Review B. Evaluation phase To reach agreement with the To conduct a systematic borrower on: measures assessment of implementation To determine conformity with the required to assure project experience to date, progress To measure project outcome GEF operational programs, GEF To review scientific and success; the terms and To obtain approval of the Bank's in achieving the agreed against its original objectives Goal of phase Strategic Priorities, and Project technical aspects of project conditions of the loan; and Board of Executive Directors. (OPr2) performance indicators and and validate ICR ratings. Review Criteria for pipeline proposals. Public Disclosure of the PAD. (OPr6) (OPr9) update the economic Analysis is used for future entry. (OPr2) (OPr9) (OPr10) (OPr2)(OPr3)(OPr4)(OPr5) analysis.(OPr3)(OPr4) (OPr5) project design. (OPr10) (OPr3) (OPr9) (OPr10) (OPr10) Normal/ Average 6 weeks - submission to CEO up to several months duration: approval of Pipeline Entry Normal/ Average staff Input in staff weeks is not readily Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not readily Input in staff weeks is not ICR Review: 3 days available readily available readily available available readily available PPAR: 6 weeks inputs: 113 Other resources, on average: Task Team prepares the Bank Implemented GEF negotiation package and For cases where (1) GEF funds are Normally all projects would projects are subject to IEG forwards it to the RC for blended with Bank or IDA funds, i.e., have a mid-term review. While evaluation as per regular Bank staff and borrower/executing Steps/ Task team contracts a clearance. Note: If processing fully-blended projects, to finance agencies should be constantly financed projects. IEG staff responsi- 1. TTL prepares Request for GEF 1. member of STAP "Roster of 1. schedules for the GEF 1. the same components or (2) GEF 1. "re-working" the project to 1. review every ICR, validate the bilities Pipeline Entry Approval Experts" to review final draft of component and the associated and Bank/IDA funds finance discrete solve problems, the Mid-term self-rating, and identify GEF Project Brief. Bank-financed projects differ, components, but those components Review is a stage where a projects that offer good separate negotiations are are so closely linked that the systematic assessment will be potential for further learning necessary. Normally, however, rationale for und undertaken of implementat (because of particularly good negotiations or Appendix 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation The RC reviews package for consistency with Council and Stakeholder consultation is critical Task Team incorporates GEFSEC comments and Stand-alone GEF co-financed in this exercise and the planning of STAP Expert comments and either provides comments or projects require their own the reviews should be fully TTL submits drafts to RC and TTL response as an Annex to GEFSec's M&E team also approves the negotiation separate set of documents. GEF coordinated with the Borrower and 2. ENV TS for review and 2. GEF Project Brief and submits 2. 1a. 2. 2. reviews all the ICR for GEF co- package. The RC's clearance RCs provide guidance to task other stakeholders. The clearance. to the STAP Secretariat (copy financed projects. should state: 1) what managers on projects which operation's development to RC and GEF Coordination documents have been qualify as "fully blended". objectives should be revisited and, Anchor). reviewed; 2) the date of the if necessary, modifications in the documents or transmittal do One in four completed Deadline for submission of technical review: two weeks TT prepares a "GEF" MOP for The Statement of Mission projects is subject to an IEG Objectives (SMO) of mid-term Project Performance after submission of the GEF both GEF stand-alone projects RC submits final drafts to GEF review missions would reflect Assessment Report, which project brief. STAP Roster LEG issues authorization to and for projects receiving a Coordination Anchor after TS consultations within the Country takes about six staff weeks to 3. reviewer should be contacted 3. negotiate; 3 days after 2. combination of IBRD/IDA funding 3. 3. clearance; 7 days after Team (CT), and advice of relevant produce and normally includes 114 at least 30 days prior to decision meeting. and GEF grant support. The GEF submission to RC. staff from outside the Country and a field mission. Project request a review. GEF Project MOP is used to transmit the Task Team. Performance Assessment Brief should be sent to the Project Document to the Board. Reports (PPAs), rate projects reviewer, at least 10 days befor in terms of their o Clearance of Board Package: No Normally, a pre-mission departure RC submits concept to GEF Statutory Committee clearance is meeting, chaired by the Country SEC and circulates it to other ACTTF issues a GEF grant required for GEF grants. Director or her/his designee or IAs, STAP and relevant number after receiving the However, receipt of the GEF CEO Sector Manager, would be held to 4. Convention Secretariats for a 10 4. RC's clearance and following 3. endorsement letter clearing the 4. discuss the focus of the review day review period; submitted to ACT's internal clearance project for approval by Bank and the proposed strategy to GEF SEC 3 days after receipt procedure. management is required for the address the outstanding issues, in from RC. Secretary of the Executive Board order to provide management to author Appendix 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation GEFSEC reviews GEF Pipeline Although task teams follow the Entry Document (or the project Notice of invitation to regional guidelines for mid-term concept note and PDF B Negotiate sent to SECBO. review and amendments, a set of request) and confirms, rejects or SECBO then assigns a Task Team requests a document guidelines has been prepared to 5. requests a review for GEF 5. number and distributes the Notice to the Executive 4. number from the Bank's Internal 5. help task teams assess Pipeline Entry. Pipeline entry Document Unit (IDU). performance of GEF co-financed reviews are scheduled quarterly. Directors. Simultaneously, the TTL sends an Invitation to projects as part of the mid-term The GEF Operational Focal review (MTR) of such projects with Point endorsement lette Negotiations to the Borrower. respe For purpose of project reporting, project changes could be TTL (chairs negotiation), Task Team seeks RVP approval considered minor or major with the lawyer, finance officer for circulation of loan package to following definitions: 6. Receive Secretariat Review 6. participate in Negotiations 5. the Board in accordance with 6. (a) Minor changes: Examples of Sheets; 5 days after submission. (field/headquarters); 3-5 days Regional practice; 20 days before minor changes include renaming duration. Board Presentation. 115 of implementing entities, agreed revision of reporting schedules or formats, TTL prepares Agreed Minutes of Negotiation, which are Minor changes (as defined above) Bi-lateral meeting scheduled by signed by key members of the When the Board date is known, will be reported as part of the the GEF RC with the GEF SEC negotiating teams. Minutes of the task manager sends an EM to annual Project Implementation 7. for the purpose of eligibility Negotiations are copied to the Program Team Leader, GEF Review (PIR) reports. In order to confirmation and pipeline entry; 7. GEF Operations Coordinator; 6. Coordination Anchor, with copy to 6a.bring a major change (as defined 5 days after review sheets upon completion of the GEF RC, confirming the above) to a project, agencies have circulated. Negotiations. Any major scheduled Board date. to make a request to the GEF changes proposed during Secretariat for approval. Fur negotiations with re Appendix 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation For major changes to projects, GEFSEC's pipeline entry TTL issues Status of The Task Team then prepares the GEF Secretariat will respond to decision and conditions for Negotiations; 20 days before the final version of the Project the agency within a ten-working day period, through an 8. further processing are Board Presentation. Must be Document and MOP for communicated to the Bank in a 8. issued before the Board 7. submission to the Corporate 6b. approval/non-approval of the Project Tracking Sheet; 2 days package (MOP and PAD) can Secretariat (SEC) and printing; 18 changes or recommendation for after bi-lateral meeting. be submitted to the Board. days before Board Presentation. Council decision. The Statutory Committee The RC forwards Project comprises the When GEF projects are to be Tracking Sheet to the TTL for Expert/Nominee, Vice submitted to the Board information and guidance on President and Secretary, simultaneously with an associated Board Operations, Vice Bank/IDA operation, the TTL 9. subsequent preparation work. The final GEF Pipeline Entry 9. President, Legal, Regional 8. prepares one Form 2337 and document should be created Vice President. The delivers it to Corporate that addresses all the comments Statutory Committee Report Secretariat (SEC) with the final received. (prepared by Lawyer) is loan or credit package and the signed by RVP/LEG 14 days GEF MOP. For freestanding 116 before Board package is TTL send EM to SEC on Board 9. Attendance and Speech (if applicable); 4 days before Board Presentation. A Preboard Meeting is scheduled one day before Board 10. Presentation. TTL submits note for pre-board meeting; Ends questions and answers; and speech. 11. Board presentation takes place as scheduled. After Board approval, each GEF co-financed project must be "Green Striped". RC submits 12. Green Stripe Printing request to the GEF Coordination Anchor no later than 15 working days after the Bank Board approval. Appendix 4k Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Implementation and Completion and Supervision Evaluation Every Board-approved GEF co- financed project should be accompanied by a press release, if not an article in "Bank's World 13. Today" at the time of Board approval. A regional staff (EXT or Task team in consultation with regional EXT) prepares a draft press re Term of GEF Project Preparation C. C. GEF Work Program Entry C. Signing C. Extensions phase Grants PDF Block B grants are 117 available to co-finance the preparation of GEF project/program proposals which have been admitted to the GEF To extend closing date. Goal of phase Pipeline by the GEFSEC, either (OPr4)(OPr5)(OPr10) previously or simultaneously with the PDF review. PDF Block C grants for up to $1 million ar Appendix 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation Normal/ Average duration: Normal/ Input in staff weeks is not readily Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not readily Input in staff weeks is not readily Average staff available readily available available available inputs: Other resources, on average: The task team leader (TTL) consults with the country director Any extensions of GEF Grant and lawyer and the Steps/ Agreement must receive RC's TTL submits PDF B/C request Pre-appraisal Mission representatives of other signing clearance. For second and responsi- 1. and GEF Country Focal Point 1. (optional) 1. parties to arrange for signing to 1. subsequent extensions, RCs seek bilities endorsement letter to GEF RC. take place as soon as the requirements for signing are met. GEF Anchor's approval before The GEF legal document is granting their clearances normally signed when 118 TTL makes arrangements for RC reviews, seeks concurrence signing ceremony with Lawyer, of TS, clears and sends to Bank TTLs, through GEF RCs, Borrower's circulate draft project briefs to GEF Coordination Anchor for the GEF Anchor and ENV representative/Ambassador, RVP Client submits an official request 2. submission to GEFSEC, other 2. thematic specialist's) for 2. and CMUDR. In case there is a 2. for a project extension including a Implementing Agencies (IAs), review; at least two weeks project agreement, make justification and an action plan. STAP, and relevant convention prior to the GEFSEC arrangements with executing secretariat for their review and submission. agency(ies). comments. Comments from ENV thematic If the concept has already been specialist, GEF Anchor and/or Once timing is confirmed, TTL Task Team prepares detailed approved by GEFSEC for RCs will be sent to TTLs informs relevant EDs office of the memo justifying the extension for pipeline entry the PDF B is through RCs. TTLs should arrangements, in the event that Country Director's consideration 3a. 3. make all the necessary 3. the ED would like to attend the 3. submitted on a rolling basis and along with a letter to be sent to the updates in the draft PAD ceremony. no bilateral is needed. client. before generating the GEF Project Brief from the World Bank's Operations Portal. Lawyer makes arrangements for The extension package includes At the end of a five working day RC submits final drafts to GEF printing of legal documents and the memo to CD and letter to the review period, the GEF CEO Appendix Coordination Anchor after TS prepares the Letter on Financial client which requires a clearance issues a no objection letter. If 4. 4. 4. by the GEF RC, disbursement comments are received, TTLs clearance; 7 days after and Economic Data. officer, sector manager/sector consolidate their comments. submission to RC by TTL leader and legal. 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation Lawyer ensures that she/he has TTL passes the CEO no Project brief submitted to GEF received the satisfactory evidence Once the extension has been objection letter and PDF request Sec and circulated to other 5. IAs, STAP, and relevant 5. of authorizations for signature of 5. cleared by CD, task team sends a to the regions/country LEG for the legal documents. copy of the approval letter to the drafting a Letter of Agreement Convention Secretariats; 3 GEF RC and ACTTF days after receipt from RC TTL prepares a brief TTL confirms with the Loan memorandum along with other For second and sub-sequent Receive comments from IAs, Accounting Officer that the extensions, ENVGC clearance is supporting documents in Borrower has no overdue debt consultation with and final 6. EAs, etc; 10 days after 6. service payments. 6. also required. clearance from GEF RC, for submission Country Director's signature. If the concept has not entered the GEF pipeline the PDF B Receive Secretariat Review TTL prepares Notice of Signing 3b.proposal can simultaneously 7. Sheets; 15 days after 7. and obtains clearance from the cover submission of the project Lawyer. concept note for pipeline entry submission and PDF B request. GEFSEC requests a bilateral TTL initials the cleared Notice, Comments on both the concept meeting with respective TTL, and Task Team delivers the note and PDF B request are due RC and ENV thematic initialed copy and a clean copy to 8. 8. 119 within 10 working days of specialist; 5 days after receipt SECBO for printing. submission. of review sheets At the signing ceremony, Lawyer TTL revises project brief handles documents. The based on GEF Sec and other Ambassador signs on behalf of The concept note - but NOT the PDF B - is discussed at a 9. IA comments and resubmits to 9. the Government, and the bilateral project review meeting. GEF Sec for Work Program Regional Vice President signs on Inclusion; 5 days after bilateral behalf of the Bank/IDA. meeting. GEF Council reviews and If the request is for PDF , it is C approve (or dis-approve) the submitted to GEFSEC copied to project for Work Program entry, posts work program on 3c. other IAs, STAP, and relevant 10. the web, and circulates to convention secretariat for a bilateral discussion. Council members; 2 days after receipt of revised briefs, one month before Council Meeting If the PDF C is agreed at the RC receives Council bilateral meeting, the GEF CEO comments and sends them to 11. TTL; 15 days after Council Appendix issues an endorsement letter which the RC copies to TTL. Meeting (37 days after submission of revised PB). 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation The TTL provides the letter and PDF C request to LEG, which TT completes draft PAD; after prepares a Letter of Agreement with standard attachments for 12. return from pre-appraisal mission. signature by the Country Director. The TTL prepares a brief memorandum requesting the Country Director's signature of the PPG Letter of Agreement. Lawyer drafts Legal 4. The TTL attaches the Letter of 13. Document; 7 days after draft Agreement, its Annex (Purpose PAD completion. and Conditions) and the attachment (Special Account) to the memorandum, circulates The RC reviews and clears the 5. package. The RC requests ACTTF (copied to GEF Coordination Anchor, TTLs and other relevant regional staff) to assign a PPG 120 6. Trust Fund number. On receipt of the RC's clearance of the PPG package, ACTTF assigns a PPG number that the TTL inserts in the final Letter o The signed letter is then transmitted to the Recipient for counter-signature. The counter- signed original is sent to the 7. Country Lawyer for retention in LEG Files. Copies are provided to the GEF Regional Coordinator, LOA (Country Disbursement Officer) and Appendix 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation When the PPG-funded activities are completed, the TTL should cancel any balance of unused funds so that these can be 8. returned to the GEF Trust Fund. The PPG should be closed before the project is submitted for Bank Board approval. Activation of project Tr Within six months of completion of all the activities funded by the PDF B (or C), the Task Team Leader should submit to GEF 9. Regional Coordinator a short note that: (i) summarizes the 121 PPG outputs, (ii) how the grant funds were spent and (iii) confirms that Normal practice is for Recipients to implement PPGs but in special cases the Bank may execute PPGs on behalf of a 10.recipient. Special circumstances include: · regional projects for which there is no existing regional entity or UN specialized agency that th Appendix 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation The RC, in consultation with the GEF Executive Coordinator, is responsible for reviewing requests 10a for Bank execution at the stage . when PDF funding approval is sought from the GEF Secretariat and for advising whether the request qualifies according to the Task Teams processing PPGs which are candidates for the Bank to execute the grant-funded activities 10b should provide for the following: . · The letter from the GEF focal point 122 requesting the Bank to execute on the government/recipient's behalf and why this is Appendix 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation The clearance processes for Bank- executed PPGs follow those of the standard PPGs, except that LOA is 10c not involved in clearance since no . disbursements will be made to the recipient government. Task teams should ensure that ACTTF receives a copy of the pack Term of phase D. PAD Review D. Effectiveness To provide guidance to task teams on whether the project is sufficiently well prepared and should be appraised or, To ensure that the legal Goal of phase whether the project is agreements become effective as sufficiently well prepared so early as possible. (OPr4)(OPr6) 123 that appraisal and negotiations (OPr10) can be combined. (OPr2) (OPr4) (OPr10) (OPr6) Normal/ Average duration: Normal/ Average staff Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not readily inputs: readily available available Other resources, on average: Appendix 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation Early in project preparation, Bank staff address any special country requirements pertaining to Steps/ effectiveness. Proposed responsi- Decision meeting package 1. 1. conditions of effectiveness are bilities sent for clearance discussed during project appraisal and described in the Project Appraisal Document or Program Document. Following loan approval, the TTL monitors the borrower's progress Issue decision package to recipients (including the GEF toward compliance with the conditions of effectiveness to 2. Regional Coordinator); 8 working days before the 2. ensure that the legal agreements become effective as early as meeting (or whatever the regional practice is) possible, and not later than the specified date, usually 90 days afte 124 When all the conditions of effectiveness have been satisfied, TTL organizes PAD Review Task Team assembles the formal Meeting in consultation with documentary evidence for review 3. Country Director; 10 days 3. by the Lawyer. Compliance of before Appraisal Mission. effectiveness and conditions related to financial management or procurement should be cleared by the Appendix 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation TTL drafts the Minutes of the TTL prepares a Declaration of decision meeting and sends Effectiveness, cleared by the for clearance to the Country lawyer, for the CMUDR to send to Director and relevant Sector the Borrower. Copies of the 4. Manager with copy to the 4. signed notice are sent to the relevant Operations Adviser, Sector Manager, Sector Leader, GEF RC. The Country Director GEF Regional Coordinator, issues the Minutes of the CMUDR, Lawyer, Disbursement Decision Meeting to all recipie Officer and the Tas If the effectiveness conditions are The TTL reviews the decisions not met by the specified date, in made at the meeting and principle, Borrower should incorporates changes to the request an extension of 5. PAD while the Lawyer 5. effectiveness from the Bank. In incorporates changes to the response, the TTL prepares a 125 legal documents, as Notice to Extend Deadline for necessary. Effectiveness, and a cover memo to the CMUD TTL clears PID and send to Upon approval, the CMUDR Infoshop, and clears PAD- sends the Notice to the Borrower, 6. ISDS and disclose signed 6. with copies to the Lawyer, PAD-ISDS to Info shop; 3 Disbursement Officer, SMUDR, days after decision meeting. Sector Manager and GEF RC. Extensions longer than 18 months require the approval of TTL discloses Safeguard the RVP. Once cumulative delays documents (EA, RAP, IPDP, reach 15 months after approval, 7. 7. etc.) to InfoShop & in-country; the CMUDR advises the RVP of prior to Appraisal Mission. the actions taken to date and makes future recommendations to be approved by the RVP. Appendix 4k Acronyms: ACT Accounting Services ACTTF Trust Funds AIS Activity Initiation Summary ARCS Audit Report Compliance System BTOR Back to Office Report CD Country Director CMUDR Country Management Unit Director CT Country Team EA Enabling Activity; Environmental Assessment ED Executive Director ENV Environment Department ENVGC Global Environment Coordination Division EPS Executive Project Summary GAL Grant Agreement Letter GEF RC GEF Regional Coordinator GEF SEC GEF Secretariat IA Implementing Agency ICR Implementation Completion Report IPDP Indigenous Peoples Development Plan IDU Internal Document Unit (Information, Operations, Organization and Business Practices Department) IEG Independent Evaluation Group (formerly OED) IEPS Initial Executive Project Summary IRIS Integrated Records & Information Service ISDS Integrated Safeguard Data Sheet ISR Implementation Status and Results Report LEG Legal Vice Presidency LOA Country Disbursement Officer 126 MOP Memorandum and Recommendation of the President MTR Mid-term Review PAD Project Appraisal Document PB Project Brief PCD Project concept document PCN Project Concept Note PDF Project Development Facility PID Project Information Document PIP Project Implementation Plan PIR Project Implementation Review PPG Project Preparation Grant PSR Project Status Report QER Quality Enhancement Review RC Regional Coordinator RED Regional Environment Division ROC Regional Operations Committee RPA Procurement RVP Regional Vice President SD Secretary's Department SEC Corporate Secretariat SECBO Board Operations Unit in the Office of the Vice President and Secretary SM Sector Manager SMO Statement of Mission Objectives SOE States of Expenditures STAP Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel TFStar Trust Fund Status Report TOR Terms of Reference TS Technical Specialist Appendix TT Task Team TTL Task Team Leader 4k Table 4k(ii): Medium-Sized Projects Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation Term of GEF CEO Review and Supervision, Mid-Term A. Project Concept Eligibility A. MSP Project Brief Review A. A. Signing & Effectiveness A. A. Project Closing phase Approval Review and Amendments To determine technical merits of proposal and ensure that To ensure that the loan the proposal is prepared in To determine concepts GEF accordance with GEF policies To ensure that the legal proceeds are used for the To identify accomplishments, eligibility and fit within the grant purposes, with due Goal of phase and procedures and meets the agreements become effective problems and lessons learned. Bank's country assistance standards of the GEF Project as early as possible. (OPr10) regard for economy, (OPr6) (OPr10) strategy. efficiency, and effectiveness. Review Criteria for a Medium- sized Project. (OPr10) (OPr2) (OPr3) (OPr4) Normal/ Average project Average implementation period is about duration: 2.5 years. Normal/ Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not Average staff readily available readily available readily available readily available readily available readily available inputs: 127 Other resources, on average: Recipient keeps one original TTL prepares project closing GEF Regional Coordinator The TTL requests the project Grant Agreement Letter (GAL) notification letter for the CD's (RC) reviews project concept proposer to prepare the MSP and returns the other to Task signature. To complete the GEF RC with TTL and the Steps/ developed either by World brief. It is ultimately the Team. Authenticated Supervision teams report notification letter: Bank Task Team Leader responsibility of the TTL to proposer ensures that the specimen signatures from project progress through the 1- Consults SAP or with the responsi- 1. 1. 1. comments received on MSP 1. 1. 1. (TTL) or an external proposer. review the MSP Brief and if Recipient, and first withdrawal Bank's institutional system, disbursement officer (if LOA bilities Brief are included in the For NGO proposer, the TTL is necessary field visit to request should also be TFStar. disbursed) for the status of revised MSP Brief. responsible for determining if determine technical merits of submitted by Recipient with disbursements against proposer is an eligible partner. the proposal. the countersigned GAL. withdrawal applications, including th Appendix 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation TTL with GEF RC include as The TTL submits the MSP an Annex, a response to the brief to the GEF RC for GEFSEC and other agency Task Team sends to the A mid-term review (MTR) for clearance. The GEF RC is RC seeks concurrence of responsible for preparing the comments indicating: (i) how Country Lawyer the original: (i) GEF co-financed MSPs is not TTL sends a copy of official and where countersigned GAL, (ii) required and generally not Technical Specialists (TSs) final MSP Brief package (i.e., notification to the client, 2. 2. 2. GEFSEC/Council/STAP 2. authenticated specimen 2. conducted. However, some 2. and confirms proposal eligible MSP Brief and Country Focal disbursement, legal, GEF RC or ineligible; Point letter) for submission to comments have been signatures, and (iii) first task teams have conducted an and ACTTF. addressed in the revised withdrawal request for filing in MSP MTR. GEFSEC, other implementing document, and (ii) substantial Official Files agencies, STAP and modifications in project appropriate Con design, phasing, CMU agrees to include GEFSEC consolidates After receiving clearance from comments received by other GEFSEC, RC sends directly to proposal in Country Work Task Team sends copies of IAs, STAP and appropriate GEFSEC (again through the Program. (Eligible concepts Convention Secretariat along GEF Anchor electronic GAL, signatures, and Project Restructuring or Grant Task Team prepares project enter the Bank/GEF pipeline withdrawal request to the GEF agreement amendments completion report following the 3. 3. with its own, and transmits to 3. tracking system) the final 3. 3. 3. only when the responsible CU RC and to regional imaging require RC clearance. format provided by the GEF clears them for entry into the GEF RC in 15 working days, project document for (i.e., IRIS). Coordination team. and recommends further circulation to the Council and country work program) action to GEF CEO. CEO approval. The MSP Project Completion 128 Report package is sent to Upon receipt of countersigned Country Director for approval. If RC determines that there legal agreement, GEF RC or The package consists of the 4. are questions about eligibility, 4. Task Team sends a copy to 4. following: the RC may seek clarification ACTTF and requests that 1- Final Project Completion by GEFSEC on these points. MSP TF account be activated. Report; 2- Memo from TTL to CD Task Teams should ensure Prior to submission to CD, the that MSP AIS has been final package needs to be approved by the CD and cleared by: 5. released by VPU, and the TF 5. 1- GEF Regional Coordinator; number has been linked to the and project code as a separate 2- Sector Leader. WBS Element in SAP. Appendix 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation After CD approval, TTL sends Upon receiving authenticated the report to the Internal signatures and withdrawal Documents Unit (Internal request, Task Team reviews Documents request. If all is in order, Task Unit/Service/World Bank) and 6. Team requests an SAP Infoshop (InfoShop PIDs Transaction Processor to 6. Service/Service/World Bank), process request. MSP grant to comply with World Bank's processing will follow the and GEF's document established RM Business disclosure policies. Process Guide f Per established regional procedure, GEF RC clearance may be required for every GEF Regional team distributes to the GEF Anchor and GEF 7. MSP grant disbursement requests before a Transaction 7. Secretariat. 129 Processor processes the request in SAP. Task Teams should ensure that the grant recipient be properly notified about the 8. release of funds, and keeping of grant disbursement records according to the established Bank procedures on TF record keeping Per established regional procedure, GEF RC or TTL, 9. up on RC's clearance, updates MSP disbursement log. Appendix 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation Term of GEF Project Preparation Bank Country Director B. B. Bank Specific Annexes B. B. Project Extension B. IEG Evaluation phase Grants - Block A Approval To ascertain if the grant recipient is capable of purchasing goods or services To obtain funding to cover in- efficiently, economically and Goal of phase country preparation with transparency, and will To obtain Bank approval of To extend closing date. N/A expenditures. follow competitive practices proposed project. (OPr10) whenever feasible, in order to make the best use of MSP grant funds awarded to it. To ens Normal/ Average duration: 130 Normal/ Average staff Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not readily available readily available readily available readily available readily available inputs: Other resources, on average: Bank specific annexes include An MSP Final Package for TTL submits PDF A request (1) additional information on Country Director Approval MSP Project Completion and Country Focal Point the project proposer, includes Reports are not subject to endorsement letter to GEF especially the project 1- MSP Brief with Bank Client submits an official evaluation by IEG or GEF. Steps/ RC. Focal point endorsement executing agency's Specific Annexes request for a project extension However, TTLs follow the responsi- letters must be addressed to 2- Letter of Agreement regional practice, if any. The 1. the project Task Team 1. experience with managing 1. (prepared by TTL with Country 1. including a justification and an 1. Project Completion Reports bilities Leader, Sector Manager, grants awarded by other Lawyer) action plan. are submitted to the GEF Country Director, GEF institutions, financial 3- Memo from TTL to Country Secretariat M&E Unit for Regional Coordinator, or GEF management practices and Director. The memo: (a) review as part of the GEF Executive Coordinator in purchasing/contracting informs CD that a MSP grant Project Implementat practices; of $"x" has Appendix 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation RC reviews, seeks concurrence of TSs, clears The following internal and sends to Bank GEF clearances are required prior Task Team prepares detailed Coordination Anchor for to CD submission: memo justifying the extension submission to GEFSEC and 1- from procurement for Country Director's 2. other Implementing Agencies 2. 2- from legal 2. consideration along with a 3- from GEF Regional (IAs) for their review. (PDF-A Coordinator (GEF RC) letter to be sent to the client. is submitted to other agencies 4- from Sector Leader and GEFSEC, where program managers may review the The extension package includes the memo to CD and If comments are not received GEF RC requests that ACTTF letter to the client which by the end of five working issue a TF number for the requires a clearance by the 3. days, the GEF Coordination 3. cleared MSP package. 3. GEF RC, disbursement Anchor approves the request officer, sector manager/sector leader and legal. 131 Once TF number has been assigned and MSP package is Once the extension has been If comments are received, TTL in final, Task Team submits cleared by CD, task team 3a.consolidates these comments 4. Grant Agreement Letter (GAL) 4. sends a copy of the approval (2 originals) and Project Brief letter to the GEF RC and to Country Director for ACTTF. approval and signature Task Team sends two originals of GAL and Project TTL completes internal Brief to the Recipient for For second and sub-sequent processing and grant transfer counter signature. Withdrawal extensions, ENVGC clearance 4. on standard Bank procedures. 5. request format and specimen 5. is also required. signature format are also sent along with GAL package for Recipient's use. Appendix 4k Implementation and Completion and Concept Development Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation It is expected that activities financed by a Block A grant will be completed within one Task Team requests creation 5. year from the date of the Letter Agreement. GEF RC's 6. of WBS element for BBGEF supervision budget. clearance is required for any extensions, including retroactive extensions. Grant recipient has 60 days after completion date to provide Bank with the outputs Task Team requests creation of WBS element of the MSP 6. specified in the Letter of 7. Agreement and the final grant which Director has just accounting of the use of the approved. proceeds of the Grant. Upon approval, the Activity At completion TTL is Update Summary (AUS) responsible for providing a should be updated to show: (i) written statement to GEF actual approval date by CMU; 7. Anchor indicating whether the 8. (ii) the grant closing date; and activities financed by the grant (iii) target dates for have been completed receipt/finalization of project satisfactorily. 132 completion report. When the grant becomes effective, the M Acronyms: ACTTF Trust Funds AUS Activity Update Summary CD Country Director CMU Country Management Unit CU Country Unit ED Executive Director ENV Environment Department ENVGC Global Environment Coordination Division GAL Grant Agreement Letter GEF RC GEF Regional Coordinator GEF SEC GEF Secretariat IA Implementing Agency ICR Implementation Completion Report IDU Internal Document Unit IEG Independent Evaluation Group (formerly OED) IRIS Integrated Records & Information Service ISDS Integrated Safeguard Data Sheet ISR Implementation Status and Results Report LOA Country Disbursement Officer MSP Medium Sized Project Appendix MTR Mid-term Review PDF Project Development Facility PID Project Information Document RC Regional Coordinator 4k ANNEX B: TABLE ON WB CYCLE PHASES AND STEPS - Enabling Activities Table 4k(iii): Enabling Activities Implementation and Completion and Project Concept Eligibility Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation Term of A. Identification A. Preparation of Proposal A. GEF CEO Review and A. Signing & Effectiveness A. Supervision A. Project Closing phase Appraisal To ensure that proceeds are To identify concepts that are To determine technical merits used for grant purposes, with Goal of phase eligible for GEF EA funding. of proposal and confirm due regard for economy, (OPr4) country ownership. (OPr4) efficiency, and effectiveness. Normal/ On average, it takes about On average, it takes about On average, it takes about On average, it takes about Average one year for an expedited EA one year for an expedited EA one year for an expedited EA one year for an expedited EA from identification, preparation from identification, preparation from identification, preparation from identification, preparation duration: to approval. to approval. to approval. to approval. Normal/ Average staff Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not readily available readily available readily available readily available readily available readily available inputs: Other resources, on average: 133 Countries are informed about Initial proposal is prepared in During the review period, Recipient keeps one original When the task team leader is TTL prepares project closing the Enabling Activity program collaboration between the in- some obvious lapses (such as Grant Agreement Letter (GAL) based in Washington, field notification letter for the CD's through regular Bank-country country lead agency and the lack of an endorsement letter and returns the other to Task visits are undertaken usually signature. To complete the Steps/ dialogue (e.g., task teams on task team, based on GEF from the GEF focal point, Team. Authenticated in conjunction with supervision notification letter: responsi- 1. mission or based at 1. Enabling Activity guidelines 1. missing tables, calculation 1. specimen signatures from 1. missions for related 1. Consults with the bilities headquarters), or through and on pre-existing proposals. errors) are informally Recipient, and first withdrawal investment projects (2-3 times disbursement officer for the participation in convention On Occasion, in-country communicated to the GEF request should also be per year on average). Regular status of disbursements events. GEF Regional proposal development RCs to give a head start on submitted by Recipient with contact is maintained through against withdrawal Coordinators (GEF RCs) workshops are held. corrective action. the countersigned GAL. e-mail and fax with the p applications, including the should ensure that amounts disbursed for each Countries expressing interest Task Team sends to the are sent examples of At the end of the review period Country Lawyer the original: (i) proposals by the GEF RCs Task team passes initial if there are no major countersigned GAL, (ii) Financial and technical TTL sends a copy of official 2. through task teams, and may 2. proposal to the GEF RC for 2. comments, the proposal is 2. authenticated specimen 2. reporting is done as set out in 2. notification to the client, be requested to submit an clearance. recommended to the CEO for signatures, and (iii) first the grant agreement. disbursement, legal, GEF RC official letter asking for Bank approval. withdrawal request for filing in and ACTTF assistance. Official Files. Appendix 4k Project Concept Eligibility Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Implementation and Completion and Supervision Evaluation Early in the dialogue with the GEF RC reviews the eligibility GEF Focal Point (the source of the proposal for GEF grant If there are major comments, of the formal request for then all the appropriate Task Team sends copies of The Bank, i.e., task team, assistance), the task team and with inputs from technical comments are compiled by the GAL, signatures, and frequently advises the Task Team prepares project should check with the GEF RC specialists, provides GEF Program Manager at withdrawal request to the GEF executing agency on completion report following the 3. 3. clarifications and revisions as 3. 3. 3. 3. as to whether the country is needed to the in-country GEFSEC, and with his/her RC and to regional imaging international technical format provided by the GEF eligible for the Enabling agency via the task team. own comments, forwarded to (i.e., IRIS). assistance. Coordination team. Activity program, and whether GEF RCs usually does final GEF RCs for consideration. another Implementing Agency h editing and ensures that all Ba Disbursement of EA funds is When the proposal is included according to standard Bank The EA Project Completion Revised project briefs are re- The Focal Point's request for in the country work program submitted to the GEF practices (opening of a Report is sent to the GEF assistance should be sent to and is cleared by GEF RCs, it Secretariat for GEF CEO Special Account, as There is not a PSR (or Regional Coordinator for 4. 4. enters in the Bank/GEF 4. 4. appropriate, Recipient's 4. TFStar) requirement for the 4. approval. A copy of approved the Country Director, copied to pipeline. Approval by the GEF RC provision of specimen GEF Enabling Activity. completion report should be the GEF RC through the GEF Anchor signatures and withdrawal send to ENVGC, and archived tracking system. 134 application, etc.). in IRIS. Before preparing the proposal, GEF RCs through the GEF If the revised brief does not the task team obtains approval Coordination Anchor, submits adequately address earlier for the Enabling Activity's the proposal together with comments, the task teams inclusion in the Country's Disbursements are made Work Program Agreement. official GEF Focal Point letter attention is drawn to it and upon receipt of proof of 5. These discussions usually 5. of endorsement to GEFSEC, 5. attempts made by the 5. expenditures or as agreed in and other implementing Program Manager, in as start with the appropriate PTL agencies, STAP and relevant informal a manner as possible, advance of large periods of then the Country Officer and convention Secretariat along to reach agreement on further expenditure. Country Director. with a deadline, usually 8 changes. Once the agreement business d is reached If agreement cannot be reached, the matter is brought 6. to the attention of the CEO/Assistant CEO and guidance sought on further steps. Appendix 4k Project Concept Eligibility Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Implementation and Completion and Supervision Evaluation Term of Bank Country Director B. B. Project Extensions B. IEG Evaluation phase Approval Goal of phase To obtain Bank Management approval. To extend the closing date. Normal/ Average duration: Normal/ Average staff Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not Input in staff weeks is not readily available readily available readily available inputs: Other resources, on average: An Enabling Activity (EA) Final Package for Country Director Approval includes: Final EA Brief; Enabling Activity Completion Steps/ Client submits an official Letter of Agreement (prepared Reports are not subject to 135 responsi- 1. by TTL with Country Lawyer); 1. request for a project extension 1. evaluation by IEG or GEF. including a justification and an bilities and, However, TTLs follow the action plan. Memo from TTL to Country regional practice, if any. Director. The memo: (a) informs CD that a EA grant of $"x" has been a The following internal clearances are required prior to CD submission: Task Team prepares detailed from procurement (RPA), memo justifying the extension from legal (LEG), 2. from Country Disbursement 2. for Country Director's 2. Officer (LOA) consideration along with a letter to be sent to the client. from GEF Regional Coordinator (GEF RC), from Sector Leader Appendix 4k Implementation and Completion and Project Concept Eligibility Preparation Appraisal Approval and Start Supervision Evaluation The extension package includes the memo to CD and GEF RC requests that ACTTF letter to the client which 3. issue a TF number for the 3. requires a clearance by the 3. cleared EA package. GEF RC, disbursement officer, sector manager/sector leader and legal. Once TF number has been assigned and EA package is Once the extension has been in final, Task Team submits cleared by CD, task team 4. Grant Agreement Letter (GAL) 4. sends a copy of the approval 4. (2 originals) and EA Brief to letter to the GEF RC and Country Director for approval ACTTF. and signature. Task Team sends two originals of GAL and Project Brief to the Recipient for For second and sub-sequent counter signature. Withdrawal extensions, ENVGC clearance 5. request format and specimen 5. is also required. signature format are also sent along with GAL package for Recipient's use. 136 Acronyms: ACTTF Trust Funds CD Country Director EA Enabling Activity ENVGC Global Environment Coordination Division GAL Grant Agreement Letter GEF RC GEF Regional Coordinator GEF SEC GEF Secretariat IEG Independent Evaluation Group (formerly OED) IRIS Integrated Records & Information Service LEG Legal Vice Presidency LOA Country Disbursement Officer PSR Project Status Report PTL Program Team Leader RPA Procurement STAP Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel Appendix TFStar Trust Fund Status Report TTL Task Team Leader 4k Appendix 5: Steps And Responsibilities Under Agency Cycles In The GEF Network--Full-Size Project Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO Phase 0: Programming Strategy GEF CAS CSP Country Not Country COSOP Document Business Strategy specified strategy Plan Paper apart from every 4­6 periodic years country (depending visits on country's political cycle) Phase I : Concept Development and/or PDF Processing Idea Upon TTL Sector Task Business Country Idea GEF Identify Identifica- eligibility organizes Division Manager development identifies originates Coordinator national tion and check of team, which forms team, identifies team, the from the +Regional priority, focal 137 Team project brainstorms and a specific through concept; country's Director, in area, scope,2 Formation idea, staff on issues determines operation periodic divisional national plan consultation stakehold- member that may concept's fit already country GEF focal or through with GEF ers, gaps, and require with CSP or included missions, point dialogue with Project and PDF proponent early government in the identifies reviews country Officer and coverage = begins manage- priorities, AfDB project compliance authorities; IFAD preparation project ment while Pipeline, ideas; with usually, an Country of Service develop- attention Regional or proponent divisional official Portfolio Summary ment Department proponent submits priorities; request for Manager, Sheet, which checks fit submits request for and the assistance is strategically is approved with internal idea to a loan Field submitted to identify by the PAC goals and Country Program IDB by the proposals. safeguards; Department Develop- country focal If a country PT assesses ment point, which makes the existing Service is different request, information (TCAP) from the they ensure and the GEF Team GEF focal that it is extent to reviews point aligned with which more compliance endorse- IFAD and data need to with GEF ment GEF be collected criteria priorities as for PDF-B or outlined in PPTA COSOP Appendix 1Based on 2 March 2006 mapping, representing a provisional FAO-GEF project cycle still under development. 2Except projects on persistent organic pollutants. 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO First Draft Proponent Senior TTL/external Sector Task Banking Lead Concept GEF Unit, Develop- of the drafts Program proponent Division Manager team Technical Paper (or under ment of Concept concept Office drafts drafts prepares investigates Unit of Project Government project Document with help convenes concept concept issues proposed Investment Outline; 2- leadership, concept/ PDF from UNDP Division of paper/PDF- clearance paper, for business Center page) is develops document Country GEF Coord. B proposal paper, Team clearance plan and Division prepared, Concept Office, for (DGEF) for internal prepares by the makes (LTU-TCI), following Note/PDF-B clearance Task Force GEF logframe for Division decision to as project identification proposal of GEF Review, eligibility concept Manager consider or champion, mission. It with help of Regional followed by review and reject the prepares provides consultant Unit and Divisional regional project concept basic project and in close review of Review and depart- document/ information, collabora- HQ Focal Oversight ment's PDF-B link to IDB tion with Area Team Committee review, refit proposal strategy and Regional headed by with CAS; indicative Division DD concept funding review (internal) meeting 138 Consulta- Government TTL Team During the Upstream IDB Country Consulta- tion reviews submits consults Identifica- consultation conducts Portfolio tions with concept Country stakehold-ers tion with identification Manager country Focal Point about Mission, GEFSec, mission; facilitates counterparts endorse- concept Team TCAP GEF formal acquisition and IA ment letter framework; consults team, requests or of Letter of to GEF RC PT forges the divisional no-objection Endorse- agreement Borrower, GEF focal from the ment with borrower beneficia- point; counterpart on the scope, ries, Government Ministry must implementa- NGOs concept be in hand tion and and other endorse- for concept financing stakehold- ment and PDF-B arrange- ers; proposals ments and social, timeframe for environ- PPTA mental, and political/ economic Appendix issues are identified Technical UNDP DD TTL PT discusses Task (Unnamed FAO Environ- Project Review of Review GEF- circulates prepares concept Manager player) clearances: ment Develop- PDF project 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO Registry draft to and framework prepares makes technical Division ment Team by the circulates to DGEF submits with project preliminary (LTU), (ENV), the (PDT) UNIDO GEFSec Senior request for consultants, identifica- assessment financial CESI for Meeting and Quality and Manage- GEF NGOs, etc.; tion report of technical, (Finance safeguard clearance, Advisory partners, ment Pipeline Regional and financial, Div), risks, and prior to Group after Group, for Entry Department includes economic, operational the Manage- submission (QAG), IA Deputy submission Approval links to ADB proposal environ- (Field ment Review for IFAD and national Executive to GEFSec goals and in mental and Operation Meeting approval counterparts Coordinator safeguards provisional institutional and (CRG) reviews unit reviews lending feasibility + Coordina- reviews and consistency for program comple- tion approve with UNDP environmen- after mentarity Service), GEF tal and social clearance with EBRD budget Business concerns from the sectoral (Office of Plan Operations and country Program Manage- policies Budget and ment Evaluation), 139 Team legal (Legal Office) Submis- GEFSec GEFSec GEF RC, Banking After Documents Project PAC clears sion to receives provides thru GEF Team approval are sent to Manage- PDF GEFSec concept review Coordination prepares from GEF ment proposal and for note/PDF-B sheet Anchor, concept Program Department sends to IA, Pipeline application conveying circulates review and Project and GEF who submits Entry or from IA/EA comments draft to memo, Review Unit document to PDF-B and reviews other IAs, which is Committee, finalizes GEF Approval it against STAP and presented TCAP proposal priorities Convention to submits to and submits and review Secretariat Operations IA or to GEFSec criteria for review; Committee GEFSec, via IFAD bilateral for approval followed by GEF meeting and bilateral Registry scheduled categoriza- discussions for eligibility tion confirmation and pipeline entry (none for PDF-B) Appendix GEFSec GEFSec CEO GEFSec GEFSec and GEFSec Approval of Decision gives approves confirms, CEO, with calls PDF recommend pipeline rejects, or no-objection concept document ation for entry of requests a review by the review and entry into 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO either concept via review of a GEF meeting, GEF pipeline pipeline formal concept for Council, where IFAD entry, memo to GEF decide if the and pipeline UNDP-GEF pipeline project proponents entry Executive entry; GEF concept participate subject to Coordinator, CEO should be via telecon- requirements who notifies approves included in ference or rejection. UNDP PDF-B for the GEF Resident pipeline pipeline. If Representa- entry approved, tive concept is registered by GEF GEF GEFSec GEF RC EBRD IDB Implementa- Decision reaches confirms signs Department tion of the Enabling understand- pipeline mandate Manager PDF Actions ing with entry from letter with approves activities by IA/ExA re: GEFSec project PDF-B the IA/ExA level of and guides plan, activities 140 project TTL on development while the IDB preparation subsequent expenses Division expected work and Chief for responsibili- approves subsequent ties PDF-A reviews grants Notification Resulting Concept is GEF CEO GEF Unit About GEF GEF included in issues no- circulates Decision pipeline is GEF objection official published Pipeline on letter for notification quarterly GEF PDF-B; of pipeline website TTL entry or prepares PDF-B CEO Letter of approval to Agreement IFAD units. for Country signature Portfolio by Country Manager Director, for notifies PDF-B government Appendix 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO Average 1.5­2 3 months 6 weeks 1­2 weeks at Duration Ideas can 5­20 staff 2­6 months , Timeframe months (before least not incubate 2­ weeks involving 9.6 submission (referring available 3 years staff weeks to GEFSec) only to team until formation) conditions are met Phase II: Preparation Consultant Prepare Team Develop EBRD Negotiations Identifica- Mobiliza- PDF for prepares TOR, contracts with entity tion of tion project recruitment obtain FAO that would disburse- preparation documents financing, investment execute the ment and selects contract center to PDF-B arrange- consultant consultants, develop ments, and proposal TOR, and 141 launch workplan for mission to PDF-B develop project feasibility study Fact- (Optional) Consultant Conduct Conduct Implemen- Finding/ Pre- team pre- feasibility tation of Pre- appraisal prepares appraisal study to PDF either Appraisal mission to preliminary mission identify through gather reports (optional if technical and IFAD's information feasibility institutional direct supporting study is operations, execution, the drafting sufficient) costs, thru another of the PAD to resolve benefits, agency or outstanding procurement. government issues monitoring Consulta- Consultant Check if In relation Upstream Bank Bank Consulta- tion team participatory to the EIA, consultation: conducts conducts tions with conducts approach notify GEFSec, orientation formulation country workshops to was used affected TCAP GEF mission mission counterparts reach people and team, agreement NGOs and divisional Appendix on best conduct GEF focal project public point; design consultations Government 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO concept endorsement Drafting of IA/ExA Proponent TTL Consultant Draft Development LTU and PCD (15 Full project Preparation Proposed preparation finalizes generates team drafts feasibility of Final TCAP GEF pages) is brief of the draft Project may include executive the GEF detailed study Review Team registered, prepared project brief Document feasibility summary project brief project containing Memoran- formulates containing and studies, and project from the design and the dum, detailed description, submitted to technical document draft PAD implementa- financing project project prelim GEF Unit, and tion plan for plan, structure, design implementa- who scientific proposed procure- terms and tion plan and ensures design, investment ment and conditions expected quality development project accounting impact design and of a require- provides financing ments, GEF plan, etc., realistic technical supported implemen- guidance with PDF-B tation and other plan, 142 resources poverty issues,risk analysis Technical Proponent Team PT reviews Review by (optional) FAO ENV and the Project brief Service Review submits Leader and Task structure clearances: CESI is cleared summary documents circulates circulates Manager/ review for technical reviews through 3 sheet to UNDP thru GEF draft loan sectoral projects (LTU), [CESI is meetings submitted to Country RC the document for experts with financial optional, only (PDT, pre- PAC; review Office and draft project inter- structural (Finance if requested TRC of draft GEF brief to department issues Div), by CESI Meeting and project brief Regional GEF review operational during the TRC by the Unit for Anchor and (regional and (Field earlier meeting) UNIDO QAG technical Env country Operation concept prior to and PAC, quality thematic offices, legal, and review] STAP and IA; IA review, who specialists environment, Coordination review finalizes circulates to economic, Service), project brief HQ Focal controllers, budget before Area Team, cofinancing, (Office of sending to GEFSec, etc.) Program country for and other Budget and review Appendix GEF Evaluation), partners legal (Legal Office) 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO Country Each UNDP Already Country Endorse- project Country required at endorses ment must obtain Office project project brief the obtains concept/ endorse- government PDF stage ment of the endorse- GEF ment letter national signed by operational the GEF focal point, Operational except Focal Point global addressed projects to UNDP Resident Representa- tive GEF STAP Each STAP Task Team GEF Unit STAP expert 143 Expert project review contracts recruits reviews Review must be STAP STAP project brief submitted member to reviewer and sends to for review review final and IA to a draft of includes technical GEF project necessary expert brief revisions selected prior to from the IFAD STAP clearance roster Manage- Quality Manage- Task EIAs are Program CRG reviews Project IA reviews ment Enhance- ment Review Manager done to and Project and Manage- and finalizes Review or ment Meeting states if ensure Review approves ment project brief Other Review project is project is Committee Department Review Panel ready for environmen- approves approves for reviews appraisal, tally sound. submission project making to GEFSec, design and formal including resolves recom- finalization design, menda- of project fiduciary, tion to the brief and Appendix and Operations preparations safeguard VP to for issues appraise submission it 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO Submis- IA/EA Submission GEF RC, Task TCAP Submission GEF Unit IA sends sion to submits for work thru GEF Manager submits to to GEF for submits to project brief GEFSec project program Coordina- updates IA or work GEFSec via to GEFSec for Work proposal Inclusion tion Anchor, the project GEFSec; program IFAD GEF Program documents, submits brief Bilateral inclusion Registry for Inclusion including project brief discussions work project to GEFSec held program executive and inclusion summary circulates it and CEO and a to other approval, request for IAs, STAP, including all manage- and peer ment fees, Convention comments to GEFSec, Secretariat and other IAs, for review; necessary EXAs, bilateral revisions to convention meeting project brief secretariat, scheduled and STAP for work 144 Chair for program comments inclusion GEFSec GEFSec GEFOP GEFSec GEFSec Decision either (teleconfe- requests a calls recom- rence) bilateral Concept mends meeting Review inclusion, and Meeting, inclusion provides where IFAD subject to comments and changes, proponents deferment participate until issues via telecon- are ference resolved, or rejection for ineligibility Post Following GEFSec GEFSec GEF posts work Action Operations program on Committee, the web Appendix CEO and approves circulates to the work Council program for members 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO submission to GEF Council; GEFSec posts it on the web GEF Council GEF GEF GEF Council Council may Council Council approves/ Decision approve approve/ provides rejects/ work disapprove commit- defers program in the project ment to inclusion of whole for work support the the project in (subject to program project by the work comments), inclusion including it program object to in the GEF whole or work object to program 145 some proposals in work program. Decision of fee will also be made. Post-GEF WB RC Project GEF Unit Council receives summary circulates Action Council documents official comments are notification and asks available on of work Team website, program Leader to before inclusion complete (EBRD?) and CEO PAD; Team Board approval of Leader considera- project brief organizes tion to IFAD PAD units. Review Country Meeting, Portfolio after which Manager Appendix changes notifies are government reflected in PAD and 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO legal documents Average 12 months 15­31 Goal is 4 21 to 40 9­18 Timeframe months total, months, staff weeks months, including but involving 42 time for ranges staff weeks PPTA from 7 preparation months to 2.5 years Phase III: Appraisal Preparation Appraisal EBRD has New Loan Appraisal for team simulta- procedures proposals, mission Appraisal reviews neous for which work preparation appraisal contain conducted and are still logical in appraisal being framework identification phases developed, and EIA for and including project. 146 preparation, new legal including agreements PAD. Consulta- Task Team PT discusses Conduct GEF Unit Consulta- tion goes on proposed of field clarifies tions with appraisal investment appraisal implement- country mission to project with or ation counter- reach the borrower, Appraisal arrange- parts and agreement EXA/IA and Mission ments stakehold-ers with stakehold-ers through borrower on prior to inter-agency all aspects drafting loan consulta- of the documents tions; if project project is co- developed, task responsibili- ties are determined Appendix and fee- sharing scheme agreed on 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO Refinemen GEF Preparation PT prepares Prepara- Full project The project t of Project Regional of project 2nd draft of tion of brief is brief is Appraisal Unit document loan appraisal operationa- converted Document submits (Prodoc) document for report, lized and into a full documents inter- including converted document to HQ Focal departmen- validation into project (including Area Team tal comments by the document legal and Task administra- Manager tive, imple- and mentation classifica- details), tion of following IA project in format categories Review HQ Focal PAD is Staff Review Review of Final Loan Project QAG and Area Team reviewed Committee Appraisal Review Committee Develop- PAC re- provides and Meeting Report by Memoran- ment Team views full 147 technical redrafted resolves Internal dum meets to document clearance, for outstanding Working presented finalize the while the submission issues and Group to Bank Project Deputy to WB gives using the Operations Document Executive manage- decision to Appraisal Committee prior to Director ment proceed Quality for approval submission provides Assess- for IFAD managerial ment approval clearance, Checklist; for exec review of summary 2nd draft and project by the document Inter- depart- mental Working Group Finalization IA/EXA PT Leader Third draft Documents UNIDO of Project finalizes prepares to be for the revises full Appraisal detailed draft report signed by Board of document Document project and Vice Directors based on IA arrange- recommend- President, are reviews Appendix ments, ation to the to prepared legal President, convene agreements, and the loan the SMC including agreement or loans 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO incremental committee cost, with the recipients Country Government TTL obtains Country Commit- reviews and draft letter endorses full ment clears final of sector document project policy from document Borrower, before negotiations Preparation Task Team VP Country is for prepares authorizes invited to Negotia- negotiation loan discuss tions package for negotiations the draft clearance and invites loan by RC borrower agree- ment and appraisal 148 report Negotia- TTL chairs PT Leader Negotiations tions negotiations, leads with lawyer negotiations and finance officer also participating Post- UNDP Minutes of Sector Prepare Sponsor Project Negotia- Country Negotiations Division and the loan makes a Manage- tions Office are PT conduct agree- public ment ensures prepared, final quality ment and announce- Department availability copied to check of project ment about approves of letters of GEF documents, appraisal the final project financial Operations General report for proposed document commit- Coordinator; Counsel Board project and for ment and Statutory gives legal submission completes submission submits to Committee clearance the EIA and to GEFSec GEF signs report other for CEO Regional prior to environ- endorse- Unit for issuance of mental ment Appendix transmittal Board reports to UNDP- package GEF HQ 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO Submis- Once UNDP GEF Submission Task Team Submission IFAD GEF IA submits sion to project is Registry for final prepares to GEFSec Registry final project GEFSec ready for circulates CEO GEF project for GEF submits to document to IA/EXA executive endorse- document CEO GEFSec for GEF for CEO approval, summary, ment from the endorse- CEO approval the final project negotiated ment endorse- project document final PAD, ment document and and sends is sent to government to GEFSec the endorse- thru GEF GEFSec, ment letters Coordina- seeking to GEFSec tion Anchor endorse- and GEF ment of the partners for CEO comments GEFSec GEFSec GEFSec GEFSec GEFSec Decision decides circulates to posts reviews the 149 whether to Council project project forward or Members document document not the vis website on the web and forwards project to and informs to GEF the GEF Council Council CEO for members of endorse- its ment availability GEF After Council Council approval Decision ADB submits a final project proposal to the GEF CEO for endorse- ment GEF CEO CEO CEO CEO CEO Decision endorses endorses endorse- approval the project the project ment given at the end document of the 4- via formal Appendix week memo to period, the UNDP- unless the GEF project had Executive 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO previously Coordinator been identified for Council re- circulation Average 15 days for 3 to 4 8 to 16 36 to 38 1 year for 3­6 months , Timeframe internal weeks (but weeks weeks EIA involving 6.5 clearance excluding staff weeks prior to time for GEF GEF CEO submis- endorse- sion; 3­6 ment) months for CEO approval and loan signature (overlap 150 with next phase) Phase IV: Approval and Start of Implementation Preparation Proponent Pink Stand- After EBRD Merged Not of finalizes (project alone GEF negotiation, requires an with FAO mentioned in Documents project proposal) cofinanced prepare independent appraisal UNIDO for Board document file is projects the project review of phase, submission Approval and obtains prepared, require appraisal the environ- which is still letter of which will separate report, mental being financial be added to GEF draft Loan compliance developed commit- GEF documents. Agree- of projects, ment proposals, Blended ment, and a summary annexes on projects do resolution of which project not. The signed by should be manage- GEF memo President, incorpora- ment , and for Board ted in the structure, recommen- submission final review TORs, dation of MOUs, President is implemen- used to Appendix tation plan, transmit and budget project in UNEP document format to Board 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO Clearance UNDP Pink file Receipt of Board GEF Focal Loan of Board Country clearance, the GEF considera- Point signs proposal is Package Office from (i) CEO tion cannot before the submitted to clears final Senior endorse- be given Board signs the Loan project Program ment letter more than Committee document Officer, (ii) clears the 120 days and Division of project for after posting submits to GEF Board the summary GEF Coordina- approval. If EIA on the Regional tion, (iii) Board ADB website Unit for Deputy Operations clearance Executive Unit results and Director, in material transmittal (iv) Budget change to to UNDP- and the GEF HQ Financial document Manage- package 151 ment endorsed Service, by GEF and (v) CEO, the project GEF reports and Coordina- database tion Anchor section should consult GEFSec Pre-Board Team Meeting Leader submits note for pre-Board meeting Presenta- Board AfDB staff The final Loan President's tion to presenta- makes review with proposal is approval Board and tion takes formal the presented to Board place presenta- President's the Board Approval tion at recommend- and the Board ation and Committee Meeting; other loan of the Whole. Appendix Board documents approval are presented to the 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO Board of Executive Directors Post- After Board Preparation Board approval, of Legal Approval printing Agreement request is between the forwarded full project to GEF beneficiary Coordina- and IFAD, tion Anchor, using the while press GEF CEO release is endorsed sent to full project GEFSec for grant as review basis for the agreement (including 152 monetary transactions in preparation of project grant implemen- tation ) Pre- UNDP-GEF Team ADB Borrower IDB informs Grant Signing Executive Leader operations is borrower of negotiations Coordinator arranges coordination informed Board are held formally signing division of Board approval, between delegates ceremony ensures approval after which Government authority to with lawyer, prompt and borrower and IFAD UNDP who should signing of the invited for defines (Office of Resident receive loan; PT loan signature the General Represen- authoriza- finalizes signature date Counsel, tative to tion for cofinancing GEF Unit, sign project signing. arrange-ment Regional document Team Division, Appendix on behalf of Leader also Controller's UNDP and confirms Office) execute with Loan GEF- Accounting 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO funded Officer that project the Borrower has no overdue debt service payments Signing Prodoc Lawyer ADB Loan EBRD and Loan signature handles President signing client signs Agreement documents and loan is signed during the borrower's agreement only upon signing represen- receipt of ceremony. tative sign the first The the letter of tranche of Ambassa- agreement. project grant dor signs financing 153 on behalf of the Governmen t while the Regional Vice President signs on behalf of the WB/IDA. Effective- Team Sector Declaratio Loan Loan Upon ness Leader Division n of becomes agreement fulfillment of monitors ensures that effective- legally enters into the Legal compliance borrower has ness binding, force after Agreement- with met loan based on often on the fulfillment of specified conditions conditions; fulfillment same day all conditions conditions, of effective- Office of of as Board precedent to the Office of ness. After General conditions signing first the Legal clearance Counsel by disburse- Counsel by lawyer, prepares borrower, ment declares the Appendix Team loan (generally grant Leader effective- for loans effective prepares ness letter only). Declaration Loan 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO of Effective- Agreement ness enters into force then Notification ADB notifies After they GEF Trustee have been of project signed and approval entered into affect, public sector loan contracts are made available to the public GEF GEF Trustee Action commits funds to ADB on a monthly basis, by means of a 154 Letter of Commit- ment. ADB submits Cash Transfer Request to Trustee Mobiliza- Project First cash WB Project Start-up is Borrower is Start-up tion/ Coordinator, disburse- prepares Leader borrower wholly Mission to Procure- UNDP ment specifica- explains ADB responsi- responsible launch GEF ment (up Country tions and pro- bility for project full project to 1st year Office and and curement, execution, grant of UNDP GEF evaluates disburse- including any through implement- Regional bids for the ment and procure- start-up tation ) Unit procure- reporting ment it workshop. organize ment of require- entails Grant is Inception good and ments, and implement- Workshop services. finalizes ed by implement- national Appendix tation staff with arrange- guidance ments from IFAD. Average 3 to 6 Up to 4 to 6 2 weeks 3 to 6 5 Steps GEF UNDP UNEP WB ADB AfDB EBRD FAO1 IDB IFAD UNIDO Timeframe months several weeks between months months final review and Board meeting ADB = Asian Development Bank, AfDB = African Development Bank, CAS = Country Assistance Strategy, CEO = Chief Executive Officer, CESI = Committee on Environment and Social Impact, COSOP = Country Strategic Opportunities Paper, CSP = Country Strategy and Program, DD = Deputy Director, EBRD = European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, EIA = environmental impact assessment, FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization, GEF = Global Environment Facility, HQ = Headquarters, IA = implementing agency, IDB = Inter-American Development Bank, IFAD = International Fund for Agricultural Development, MOU = memorandum of understanding, NGO = nongovernment organization, PAC = Project Approval Committee, PAD = Project Appraisal Document, PCD = Project Concept Document, PDF = project preparation and development facility, PPTA = project preparatory technical assistance, RC= Regional Coordinator, STAP = Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, TOR = terms of reference, TRC = Technical Review Committee, TTL = Task Team Leader, UNDP = United Nations Development Programme, UNEP = United Nations Environment Programme, UNIDO = United Nations Industrial Development Organization, WB = World Bank. 155 Appendix 5 Appendix 6: SPECIFIC AGENCY RESPONSES ON THE IMPORTANCE OF CYCLE PHASES IN ACHIEVING GEF OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES Opr 2 Opr 3 Opr 4 Opr 5 Opr 6 Opr 7 Opr 9 Opr 10 GEF's Public Agency/Phase Cost- Catalytic Monitoring Incremental Country Full Involvement Effective- Flexibility Role and and Costs Ownership Disclosure and ness Financial Evaluation Participation Leverage African Development Bank I. Concept Development 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 II. Preparation 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 III. Appraisal 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 IV.Approval and Start 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 V. Implementation and Supervision 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 VI.Completion and Evaluation 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 Asian Development Bank I. Concept Development 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 II. Preparation 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 III. Appraisal 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 IV.Approval and Start 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 156 V. Implementation and Supervision 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 VI.Completion and Evaluation 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 Inter-American Development Bank I. Concept Development 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 II. Preparation 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 III. Appraisal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 IV.Approval and Start 2 4 4 1 4 1 1 2 V. Implementation and Supervision 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 VI.Completion and Evaluation a a a a a a a a Food and Agriculture Organization I. Concept Development 1 1 b 2 II. Preparation 1 1 1 1 b 1 1 1 III. Appraisal 2 1 1 b 2 1 1 IV.Approval and Start 2 1 2 b 1 2 1 V. Implementation and Supervision 2 1 1 b 1 1 1 VI.Completion and Evaluation 2 2 2 b 2 2 1 International Fund for Agricultural Development I. Concept Development 1 1 4c N/A 1 II. Preparation 1 2 1 4c 1 1 1 Appendix III. Appraisal 1 2 1 IV.Approval and Start 1 4c N/A V. Implementation and Supervision 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 VI.Completion and Evaluation 1d 1 1 2 1 6 Opr 2 Opr 3 Opr 4 Opr 5 Opr 6 Opr 7 Opr 9 Opr 10 Public GEF's Agency/Phase Incremental Cost- Country Full Involvement Catalytic Monitoring Costs Effective- Flexibility Role and and ness Ownership Disclosure and Financial Evaluation Participation Leverage United Nations Development Programme (Modal Average of 5 Samples) I. Concept Development 2 2 1 1 4 1 1 3 II. Preparation 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 III. Appraisal 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 IV.Approval and Start 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 V. Implementation and Supervision 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VI.Completion and Evaluation 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 United Nations Environment Programme I. Concept Development 3 3 1 4 3 2 2 3 II. Preparation 1 2 1 4 2 1 1 1 III. Appraisal 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 157 IV.Approval and Start 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 V. Implementation and Supervision 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 VI.Completion and Evaluation 2 3 2 4 1 1 2 1 United Nations Industrial Development Organization I. Concept Development 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 II. Preparation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III. Appraisal 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 IV.Approval and Start 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 V. Implementation and Supervision 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VI.Completion and Evaluation 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 World Bank I. Concept Development 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 II. Preparation 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 III. Appraisal 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 IV.Approval and Start 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 V. Implementation and Supervision 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 VI.Completion and Evaluation 3 2 2 3 1 3 1 Notes: 1 means VERY Important; 2 means SOMEWHAT Important; 3 means NOT Important; 4 means No Opinion or Do not Know. To compute the modal average, zeroes were used to replace blanks and comments outside of the 4 responses indicated in the survey form. a Does not apply because IDB does not have a project under this phase yet b FAO felt that importance does not really apply to OP 6 as it is "automatic." Appendix c IFAD felt OP 6 does not really apply because it is "automatic" or beyond the agency's decision (e.g., GEFSec posts in its website). d Refers to the global benefits part Source: February 2006 agency survey done by the GEF Evaluation Office for Component 4. 6 Appendix 7: APPLICATION OF GEF OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES IN THE AGENCY PROJECT CYCLE Opr 2 Opr 3 Opr 4 Opr 5 Opr 6 Opr 7 Opr 9 Opr 10 Public GEF's Agency/Phase Incremental Cost- Country Full Involvement Catalytic Monitoring Costs Effective- Flexibility Role and and ness Ownership Disclosure and Financial Evaluation Participation Leverage African Development Bank I. Concept Development x x x II. Preparation x x x x III. Appraisal x x x x IV.Approval and Start x V. Implementation and Supervision x x x VI.Completion and Evaluation Asian Development Bank I. Concept Development x x x II. Preparation x x x x x x x III. Appraisal x x x x x x x IV.Approval and Start x x x x x x 158 V. Implementation and Supervision x x x x VI.Completion and Evaluation x European Bank for Reconstruction and Development I. Concept Development x x x II. Preparation x x x III. Appraisal x IV.Approval and Start V. Implementation and Supervision x x VI.Completion and Evaluation x United Nations Development Programme I. Concept Development x x x II. Preparation x x x x x III. Appraisal x x x x IV.Approval and Start x x x x V. Implementation and Supervision x x x x x VI.Completion and Evaluation x x x World Bank I. Concept Development x x x x x II. Preparation x x x x x x x III. Appraisal x x x x x x Appendix IV.Approval and Start x x x x x V. Implementation and Supervision x x x x VI.Completion and Evaluation x x x x Source: Various agency submissions. 6