ADAPTATION FUND BOARD SECRETARIAT TECHNICAL REVIEW OF PROJECT/PROGRAMME PROPOSAL PROJECT/PROGRAMME CATEGORY: Regional Project _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Countries/Region: Thailand and Viet Nam Project Title: Mekong EbA South: Enhancing Climate Resilience in the Greater Mekong Sub-region through Ecosystem based Adaptation in the Context of South-South Cooperation Thematic Focal Area: Transboundary water management Implementing Entity: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Executing Entities: UN Environment-International Ecosystem Management Partnership (UNEP-IEMP), Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Thailand, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Vietnam. AF Project ID: ASI/MIE/WATER/2016/1 IE Project ID: Requested Financing from Adaptation Fund (US Dollars): 7,000,000 Reviewer and contact person: Hugo Remaury Co-reviewer(s): Saliha Dobardzic IE Contact Person: Ms. Moon Shrestha Review Criteria Questions Comments Response 1. Are all of the participating Yes. countries party to the Kyoto Protocol? 2. Are all of the participating Yes. Country Eligibility countries developing countries particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change? 1. Has the designated No. CAR 1: We would like to re- government authority for the emphasize that China is not Adaptation Fund endorsed CAR1: As requested in exchanges between seeking any financial resource the project/programme? UN Environment and the AFB secretariat, for the country. As per Para 27 Project Eligibility please provide a letter of endorsement from of OPM, LoE is required for China or kindly make the necessary “seeking financial resources”. modifications to the project. We would also like to clarify that IEMP (International Ecosystem Management Partnership), is a collaborating centre of the Chinese Academy of Science and UN Environment and an international organisation. 2. Does the length of the Yes. proposal amount to no more than Fifty pages for the project/programme concept, including its annexes; or One hundred pages for the fully-developed project document, and one hundred pages for its annexes? 3. Does the regional project / Potentially. CR1: In response to the CR, programme support we would like to make concrete adaptation actions CR1: Activities planned under component 1, following points: to assist the participating which represent half of the requested funding, 1. The project strategy countries in addressing the are not identified to a point where ESP risk identifies concrete adverse effects of climate identification is possible and are unidentified activities to be change and build in climate sub-projects (USPs). The justification provided implemented in resilience, and do so for the use of USPs – a participatory Thailand and Vietnam. providing added value identification process of the USPs – does not 2. Most elements of the through the regional provide sufficient reasons why these could not project have been approach, compared to be undertaken and project activities identified rated Category C – low implementing similar prior to project submission. In addition, the risk (planting, activities in each country proposal does not contain an ESMP or agriculture, alternative individually? framework. In accordance with AFB.B.32-33.7 livelihoods) with only a (https://www.adaptation-fund.org/wp- small sub-set Category content/uploads/2019/04/AFB.B.32- B (water harvesting). 33.7_Compliance-with-ESP_Update-of- The overall risk PPR_and_Guidance-for-USPs_revised.pdf), screening for this please i) provide an acceptable and legitimate project is Low following justification on why such activities could not be an internationally identified prior to the submission of the accepted way of funding application; ii) describe the process determining the that will be applied during project significance of the risk. implementation to ensure ESP and GP compliance for the USPs; and iii) include an 3. The project has been Environmental and Social Management Plan rated low risk by the (ESMP). This ESMP should describe the independent review process that will ensure that ESP- safeguards adviser and related risks are identified among USPs. It the ESERN sets out should i) include a detailed, budgeted process the assessment behind for ESP and GP compliance for each USP; ii) this rating. allocate clear roles and responsibilities for applying ESP and GP compliance processes 4. As per the ESP policy, to the USPs; and iii) explain how the IE will it is permitted to work with the Executing Entities to implement develop ESMF during the ESMP. implementation phase for projects that are CR2: Please include directly into the proposal Category C or that the information provided as responses to have elements of CR15 and 28 in the “UNEP response table” Category B. document send by UN Environment as part of the proposal package submitted for the 33rd 5. For this project, ESMP meeting of the AF Board. and Gender Action Plan will be prepared during inception phase of the project to comply with ESP and GP of AF. Detail ToR is included to undertake gender action plan and environmental and social risk identification through environmental and social assessment and development of the ESMF, with all elements present in the ToR that are indicated in the review comments. The ToR is attached as Annex XIII in the project document. 6. Furthermore, the proposal has included screening against the ESP principles starting on page 79 and the environmental and social risk assessment starting on page 90. This level of analysis is commensurate with a sampling of projects we have viewed on the AF website that have been approved in the last year. 7. Finally, on a practical note, it makes sense to develop the ESMF during project implementation because that will be done together with the participatory detailed planning exercises in the two project sites. CR2: Responses to CR 15 and CR 28 have been added to the project proposal and highlighted in pages 62-63 and 78. 4. Does the project / Likely. However, the project beneficiaries have CR3: Project beneficiary programme provide not been identified and the justification for communities are indicated in economic, social and postponing their selection to the the proposal, see pages 45 for environmental benefits, implementation stage does not provide Thailand. The Vietnam groups particularly to vulnerable sufficient reasons for not proceeding with such are defined by the area. communities, including identification prior to project submission. Detailed consultation gender considerations, processes were undertaken as while avoiding or mitigating CR3: Please proceed with identification of explained in our review sheet negative impacts, in beneficiaries or, only if a justifiable rationale dated 5 February 2019 and compliance with the for postponing such selection is provided, August 2018. Additional text Environmental and Social describe the selection criteria and process that was already inserted in the Policy of the Fund? will be used to determine the beneficiaries and project proposal to describe demonstrate how vulnerability and exposure the selection criteria and to the impacts of climate change will be taken process, which can be found in into account during this selection process. page 41 and 46. 5. Is the project / programme Yes. cost-effective and does the regional approach support cost-effectiveness? 6. Is the project / programme Yes. consistent with national or sub-national sustainable development strategies, national or sub-national development plans, poverty reduction strategies, national communications and adaptation programs of action and other relevant instruments? If applicable, it is also possible to refer to regional plans and strategies where they exist. 7. Does the project / Yet to be demonstrated. programme meet the CAR2: A table has been relevant national technical CAR2: Please list all the relevant national added in Annex III with details standards, where technical standards, and explain how the on list of relevant national applicable, in compliance project interventions (as described in standards that the project with the Environmental and supplement documents I and II) meet them. interventions will meet. Social Policy of the Fund? CR4: please refer to response CR4: Given the various USPs (see CR1 to CR1. above), please describe in the ESMP how the project will ensure compliance with all relevant national technical standards once the activities will be identified. 8. Is there duplication of No. project / programme with other funding sources? 9. Does the project / Yes. programme have a learning and knowledge management component to capture and feedback lessons? 10. Has a consultative process Yes. taken place, and has it involved all key stakeholders, and vulnerable groups, including gender considerations? 11. Is the requested financing Yes. justified on the basis of full cost of adaptation reasoning? 12. Is the project / program Yes. aligned with AF’s results framework? 13. Has the sustainability of the Yet to be demonstrated. project/programme outcomes been taken into CR5: The proposal remains unclear on how CR5: In response to the account when designing the the expected visible and tangible results concern on sustainability of the project? arising from the implementation of outputs 1.1 on-the ground interventions, a and 1.2 (e.g. drip-irrigation, community table has been included in plantations, forest and grasslands restoration, sustainability section