GEF-6 GEF Secretariat Review for Full-sized/medium-sized projects
The GEF/ldcf/sccf Trust Fund

  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEF ID:	9974	
Country/Region:	Nauru	
Project Title:	Supporting Mainstreamed Achievement of Roadmap Targets on Energy in Nauru (SMARTEN)	
GEF Agency:	UNDP	GEF Agency Project ID:	6188 (UNDP)	
Type of Trust Fund:	GEF Trust Fund	GEF Focal Area (s):	Climate Change	
GEF-6 Focal Area/ LDCF/SCCF Objective (s):	CCM-1 Program 1; 	
Anticipated Financing  PPG:	$150,000	Project Grant:	$3,302,968	
Co-financing:	$13,354,400	Total Project Cost:	$16,807,368	
PIF Approval:	May 25, 2018	Council Approval/Expected:	June 01, 2018	
CEO Endorsement/Approval		Expected Project Start Date:		
Program Manager:	Ming Yang	Agency Contact Person:		

PIF Review	
Review Criteria	Questions	Secretariat Comment 	
Agency Response 	
Project Consistency	1.	Is the project aligned with the relevant GEF strategic objectives and results framework?	MY 1/16/2018
Yes, it is aligned with GEF6 CCM1 Program 1: to promote low carbon technologies and mitigation options.		
	2.	Is the project consistent with the recipient country’s national strategies and plans or reports and assessments under relevant conventions?	MY 1/16/2018
Not completed at this time. 

Please articulate the country's long term energy and climate change mitigation goal and plan and then justify this project is consistent with them. For example, the agency needs to expand para 3 on page 6 about the country's NDCs and justify how this project will help the country to achieve the goals of the NDCs. This should apply for other national government planning and strategies as well.

MY 2/8/2018
Not completed at this time. Pages 6-7 are not clear on how the proposed GEF project will contribute to the NDCs and the NERM of the country. In its NDCs to the UNFCCC, the government of Nauru stated the following: "The key mitigation intervention is to replace a substantial part of the existing diesel
generation with a large scale grid connected solar photovoltaic (PV) system which would assist in reducing the emissions from fossil fuels. Concurrent to the above there needs to be put in place extensive demand side energy management improvements which will complement the PV installation. The demand management improvements are expected to reduce emissions by bringing down diesel consumption further." In addition, the NERM of Nauru has its specific targets: "by 2020, 50% of grid electricity (will be) supplied from RE sources"

Please present two scenarios in two Tables: (1) without the GEF project, projection of investment and operations of diesel power generation facilities, RE power generation facilities, demand side management investment and penetration/ deployment of EE technologies; and (2) with the GEF project, projection of investment and operations of diesel power generation facilities, RE power generation facilities, and demand side management facilities and EE technology penetration/deployment. 

Then, estimate how much (in percentage) the GEF project will contribute to the target of replacing diesel power generation with solar PV and EE technologies.

MY 3/14/2018
Yes, comments were addressed.	
	
Project Design	3.	Does the PIF sufficiently indicate the drivers of global environmental degradation, issues of sustainability, market transformation, scaling, and innovation? 	MY 1/16/2018

Not completed at this time.

The project is full of TAs, not really investment. The total budget of the project is over $16.6 million. In 2017, the worldwide average capital investment for solar PV was about $1388/kW. This number will continue going down in 2018-2022. In other words, the total investment of the GEF project will be able to help install more than 12 MW solar PV in the country during the project implementation period. This is equivalent to installing more than 1.2 kW of solar PV generation capacity for every person given that the country has about 10,000 people. The PM recommends that the agency use majority of the project funding to install tangible solar PV technologies rather than in TAs. This can be done with the existing on-going baseline projects indicated on page 8. With that, the agency can easily address the following issues:
1.the drivers of global environmental degradation, 
2. sustainability, 
3. market transformation, 
4. scaling, and 
5. innovation

MY 2/8/2018
Not completed at this time.
Please address the comments in Box 2 and revise the PIF accordingly. Then, revise the PIF regarding the following issues:
1.the drivers of global environmental degradation, 
2. sustainability, 
3. market transformation, 
4. scaling, and 
5. innovation

MY 3/14/2018
Yes, comments were addressed.		
	4.	Is the project designed with sound incremental reasoning?	MY 1/16/2018
Not completed at this time. Please see the comments in Box 3.

MY 2/8/2018
Not completed at this time. Please see the comments in Boxes 2 and 3.

MY 3/14/2018
Yes, comments were addressed.		
	5.	Are the components in Table B sound and sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve project objectives and the GEBs?	MY 1/16/2018
Not completed at this time. The INV sub-component in Component 3 is a TA.
Please focus on capital investment in solar PV technologies, not TAs.

MY 2/8/2018
Not completed yet. The Agency revised the PIF according to the comments of the GEF SEC, but the more work needs to be done. 
Please articulate (1) what kind of RE technologies, solar PV, or wind or biomass power will be invested in the sub-component of INV; (2) the targeted amounts of renewable power installation in MW for the demonstration; (3) possible locations and beneficiaries of the demonstration investments.

MY 3/14/2018
Yes, comments were addressed. 

But, in the CEO ER stage, please clearly present locations and beneficiaries of the demonstration investments.		
	6.	Are socio-economic aspects, including relevant gender elements, indigenous people, and CSOs considered? 	MY 1/16/2018
Not completed at this time.
Please address how this project is related to indigenous people and CSOs.

MY 2/8/2018
Yes, comments are cleared.		
Availability of Resources
	7.	Is the proposed Grant  (including the Agency fee) within the resources available from (mark all that apply):			
	•	The STAR allocation?	MY 1/16/2018
Yes.		
	•	The focal area allocation?	MY 1/16/2018
Yes.		
	•	The LDCF under the principle of equitable access	MY 1/16/2018
N/A		
	•	The SCCF (Adaptation or Technology Transfer)?	MY 1/16/2018
N/A		
	•	Focal area set-aside?	MY 1/16/2018
N/A		
Recommendations	8.	Is the PIF being recommended for clearance and PPG (if additional amount beyond the norm) justified?	MY 1/16/2018
Not completed at this time.
Please address comments in Boxes: 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

MY 1/16/2018
Not completed at this time.
The PM would like to thank the project developer for making efforts to revise the PIF.  But more efforts are needed to proceed the project. Please address comments in Boxes 2, 3, 4 and 5.

MY 3/14/2018
Yes, comments were addressed.
The PM recommends the CEO to endorse the project. 

In the CEO ER stage, please clearly indicate the capacities, expenditures, locations, and beneficiaries of the demonstration investments. Please add one more component: M&E. More co-financing from the private sector is needed to enlarge the ratio of co-financing.		
Review Date
	Review	January 16, 2018		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	February 08, 2018		
	Additional Review (as necessary)	March 14, 2018		

CEO endorsement Review	
Review Criteria 	Questions	Secretariat Comment at CEO Endorsement	
Response to Secretariat comments  	
Project Design and Financing	1.	If there are any changes from that presented in the PIF, have justifications been provided?			
	2.	Is the project structure/ design appropriate to achieve the expected outcomes and outputs?			
	3.	Is the financing adequate and does the project demonstrate a cost-effective approach to meet the project objective? 			
	4.	Does the project take into account potential major risks, including the consequences of climate change, and describes sufficient risk response measures? (e.g., measures to enhance climate resilience)			
	5.	Is co-financing confirmed and evidence provided?			
	6.	Are relevant tracking tools completed?			
	7.	Only for Non-Grant Instrument: Has a reflow calendar been presented?			
	8.	Is the project coordinated with other related initiatives and national/regional plans in the country or in the region?			
	9.	Does the project include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?			
	10.	Does the project have descriptions of a knowledge management plan?			
Agency Responses 
	11.	Has the Agency adequately responded to comments at the PIF stage from:			
	•	GEFSEC 			
	•	STAP			
	•	GEF Council			
	•	Convention Secretariat			

Recommendation 	12.	Is CEO endorsement recommended?			
Review Date	Review			
	Additional Review (as necessary)			
	Additional Review (as necessary)