Project Document The gef small Grants Programme Fourth Operational Phase (gef-4) July 2007 – June 2010 The gef small Grants Programme Fourth Operational Phase (gef-4) Table of Contents

PART 4: MONITORING AND EVALUATION

167. 
     GEF SGP has an enhanced Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework that links the systems and strategies at the project, country programme, and global levels. The M&E framework leads directly to the knowledge management system, including knowledge products that could produce global benefits. At the country programme level, M&E includes regular visits by country programme teams to projects, and annual Performance and Results Assessment (PRA) to the CPMT, and regular updates through an on-line and off-line database. M&E also includes financial and management audits, performance appraisals, and a risk management system to assess the readiness of a new country start-up. (A diagram showing the components and linkages of the GEF SGP’s M&E system is included in Annex 7)
     

168. 
     The SGP will continue to work closely with M&E units of GEF IAs and Secretariat to link SGP impact assessment with GEF family impact assessment. In addition, the programme shall be monitored and evaluated as per the identified specific indicators of performance for each output in the logical framework. Reporting on the achievement of programme deliverables to the GEF Council shall be done annually.
     

SECTION II. BUDGET

169. 
     The RAF policy provides the framework for GEF SGP budgeting in GEF 4. In the “Summary of Negotiations GEF-4 Replenishment”, the GEF SGP was allocated “$110 million from focal area allocations” as available core funds with “$90 million additional estimated from country allocations of the RAF”.
     

170. 
     In a meeting 11 August 2006 between the GEF CEO, the UNDP/GEF Executive Coordinator, and the GEF SGP Global Manager it was decided that additional RAF contributions from countries be voluntary. In the first meeting of the GEF SGP Steering Committee of December 11, 2006 detailed guidelines were developed on how the programme can utilize core and RAF contributions. The guidelines are in Annex 8. These have been shared in a letter sent by the GEF CEO to all country GEF Focal Points.
     

171. 
     The guidelines provide for caps on how much RAF funds can be contributed to SGP as well as how much of core funds can be accessed by participating countries. It should be noted that caps provide for the maximum limits of GEF SGP funding for a country programme and are a function of projected optimum absorptive capacity and funds availability. The actual country programme allocations will depend on: (a) actual absorptive capacity as reflected in historical trends of grantmaking; (b) strategic need of the country programme or its projects such as building partnerships and accessing cofinancing; (c) adherence to the guidelines on use of core and/or RAF funds. Maximum allocation levels are thus not entitlements but are dependent on presence of good project pipelines.
     

172. 
     The estimated total GEF-4 financing for SGP from core funds and RAF contributions (including those projected for the second half of GEF 4, shown in italics) is presented in budget Table 6. The total core funds budgeted for grants and basic non-grant costs is $100 million which combined with the discounted IA fee of 4% and discounted UNOPS execution services of 6% amounts to $110 million for the whole of GEF-4. This equals the core funds available to SGP for the whole of GEF-4. The available RAF funds contributed for the first half of GEF-4 which covers the July ‘07- June ‘08 SGP replenishment is much more than the needed RAF funds of $17,646,591 plus the RAF share for IA and UNOPS execution fees. The total RAF funds needed for the periods Yr 2 and Yr 3 are estimates based on present trends of contributions and are definitely achievable. The total RAF amounts already committed and projected to be committed are still below the amount expected from RAF to support SGP as determined in the summary of negotiations of the GEF-4 replenishment. Thus, the proposed budget is well within expected SGP replenishment in GEF-4 and even allows for higher RAF contributions from many countries vis-à-vis their commitments in the first half of GEF-4.
     

173. 
     Since SGP is starting late in GEF-4 and following principles of absorptive capacity, not all of the contributed RAF funds for a country, especially for those with high contributions, have been budgeted for the period July 2007 – June 2008. The unused balances, however, could then be used by such country programmes in later replenishments.
     

174. 
     The proposed administrative and programme management budget for July 2007 – June 2008 is also shown in Table 6. This budget shows an increase in the staff item for country-level programme management given that five country teams will have to be set up in those countries started up late in SGP OP3 and five new countries will be started up in this new period. It should be noted that over the whole GEF-4 there will be an additional 21 new SGP country programmes. But to maintain SGP within its existing policy for cost efficiency vis-à-vis the overall budget, the programme has made cuts in all other items relative to the 2006 budget as shown in Annex 9, part 2. The non-grant component of the GEF contribution to SGP OP4 is 24.0%. This is less than the 25% cap that has normally been approved by GEF Council in previous phases, despite the increasing number of countries participating in the programme.
     

175. 
     Specific budget cuts for the period July 2007 – June 2008 as compared to last year’s budget, the reductions of which are then sustained throughout SGP OP4, include:
     

1. 
   Global Workshops (less by 100%)
   
2. 
   Communication/Knowledge Management (less by 60%)
   
3. 
   Lessons Learned/Impact Assessment (less by 83%)
   
4. 
   Travel/M&E (less by 67%)
   
5. 
   Country Team Strengthening (less by 50%)
   
6. 
   Country-level programme equipment, operations and maintenance (less by 27%)
   
7. 
   Country-level technical assistance (less by 26%)
   
8. 
   Country-level outreach (less by 60%)
   
9. 
   Country-level sundry (including support to National Steering Committee meetings (less by 40%)
   
10. 
    Two posts at SGP CPMT to be unfilled
    

176. 
     Critical activities that have been cut such as that related to knowledge management, communications, training, ex-post studies and other lessons learning work of the programme will therefore have to be sourced from other donors or the programme’s quality and outputs will suffer. This need will increase in succeeding years as GEF SGP brings in more participating countries from the 21 approved for start up in the GEF-4 period.
     

177. 
     As an additional cost-cutting measure, the SGP CPMT and SGP country teams will assess country situations vis-a-vis the programme and renegotiate its payment for office premises. This assessment shall take into consideration the matter of the SGP country programme office needing to provide for: (a) a strong character of programme impartiality or neutrality (actual and perceived) as well as ease of accessibility to grassroots NGOs and CBOs particularly in situations where government and civil society relations still need strengthening and also where there is strong inter-NGO competition; (b) good communications and internet accessibility given that the computer-based ATLAS financial management system used by the programme require fast and secure e-mail and internet connections; (c) security requirements as the programme is perceived as a repository of funds and with UNOPS and UNDP regulations requiring its staff and programmes to be located within office premises that meet basic security requirements. The assessment will look at options for free office space for the SGP country programmes in existing UNDP country offices (which saves on substantial relocation costs), in national NGO offices, within University premises, and in government offices with the aim of making transfers in the second year of SGP OP4 when existing rent agreements and leases end. At the very least, the target is to cut 50% of the budget for new countries to be started up in SGP, the criteria for start up shall also now include the willingness of country stakeholders to commit to providing free offices premises. As for new countries to be started up in SGP, the criteria for start up shall also now include the willingness of country stakeholders to commit to providing free office premises. The budget on premises for SGP OP4 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 shall then be refined to reflect the savings and needed shifts of savings to other critical programme activities for approval by the GEF SGP Steering Committee.
     

178. 
     Following the rolling replenishment financial strategy for SGP, it is proposed that the programme’s Operational Phase 4 Project Document and its budget that includes the full utilization of its $110 million core funds for the whole of GEF-4 as well as the budgeted $18.3 million of RAF funds that participating countries have committed as part of their first half of GEF-4 RAF allocation be approved. As additional RAF funds that participating countries can commit in the second half of GEF-4 are contributed to SGP within the guidelines set by the GEF SGP Steering Committee, then such funds as projected in budget Table 6 shall be added to the budget replenishment of SGP in its OP4 2^nd Yr and 3^rd Yr periods upon endorsement of the GEF SGP Steering Committee and approval of the GEF CEO. Likewise, refinements in country grant allocations and non-grant budget items would be reviewed on an annual basis by the GEF SGP Steering Committee and approved by the GEF CEO. SGP will submit through the GEF CEO its annual progress report to the GEF Council.
     



Financing Plan for current Submission
SGP Core (All years)		106,000,000
RAF (Year 1)		17,646,591
IA Fee		4,665,909
Total Financing		128,312,500



*) Budgets for Y2 and Y3 are projections as it will depend on availability of RAF funds during the second half of GEF4.



ANNEXES

1. 
   List of Countries
   
2. 
   Letter for Participation of 21 New Countries
   
3. 
   Partnership
   
4. 
   Planning Matrix
   
5. 
   Work Plan
   
6. 
   Terms of Reference for Programme Steering Committee
   
7. 
   Monitoring and Evaluation Diagram
   
8. 
   Guidelines for Use of Core and RAF funds
   
9. 
   Budget OP3 Years 1 and 2
   

Country	Entry	LDC	SIDS	Country	Entry	LDC	SIDS
Albania	1996			Madagascar	2004	LDC
Antigua and Barbuda *	1994		SIDS	Malawi	2006	LDC
Argentina	2005			Malaysia	1996
Barbados *	1994		SIDS	Mali	1993	LDC
Belarus	2004			Marshall Islands	2004		SIDS
Belize	1993		SIDS	Mauritania	2001	LDC
Benin	2005	LDC		Mauritius	1995		SIDS
Bhutan	1996	LDC		Mexico	1994
Bolivia	1992			Micronesia (FSM)	2004		SIDS
Botswana	1992			Mongolia	2002
Brazil	1994			Morocco	1996
Bulgaria	2005			Mozambique	2003	LDC
Burkina Faso	1992	LDC		Namibia	2002
Cambodia	2004	LDC		Nauru ***	2006		SIDS
Cameroon	2005			Nepal	1993	LDC
Chad	2005	LDC		Nicaragua	2003
Chile	1992			Niger	2002	LDC
Colombia	2003			Niue ****	2006		SIDS
Comoros	2005	LDC	SIDS	Pakistan	1993
Cook Islands ****	2004		SIDS	Palau	2004		SIDS
Costa Rica	1993			Palestinian Authority	1996
Cote d'Ivoire	1993			Panama	2005
Cuba	2004		SIDS	Papua New Guinea	1994		SIDS
Dominica	1994		SIDS	Peru	1996
Dominican Republic	1993		SIDS	Philippines	1992
Ecuador	1994			Romania	2004
Egypt	1993			Rwanda	2003	LDC
El Salvador	2001			Samoa	2003	LDC	SIDS
Ethiopia	2004	LDC		Senegal	1993	LDC
Fiji	2003		SIDS	Solomon Islands	2006	LDC	SIDS
Gambia	2006	LDC		South Africa	2001
Ghana	1993			Sri Lanka	1994
Grenada *	1994		SIDS	St Kitts and Nevis *	1994		SIDS
Guatemala	1996			St Lucia *	1994		SIDS
Guinea	2006	LDC		St Vincent and Grenadines*	1994		SIDS
Haiti	2005	LDC	SIDS	Suriname	1995		SIDS
Honduras	2001			Syria	2004
India	1995			Tanzania	1996	LDC
Indonesia	1992			Thailand	1993
Iran	2000			Tonga ***	2006		SIDS
Jamaica	2003		SIDS	Trinidad and Tobago	1995		SIDS
Jordan	1992			Tunisia	1993
Kazakhstan	1996			Turkey	1993
Kenya	1993			Tuvalu ***	2006	LDC	SIDS
Kiribati ***	2006	LDC	SIDS	Uganda	1996	LDC
Kyrgyzstan	2001			Uruguay	2005
Lebanon	2001			Vanuatu	2006	LDC	SIDS
Lesotho	2006	LDC		Vietnam	1996	LDC
Lithuania	2000			Yemen	2003	LDC
Macedonia	2004			Zambia	2006	LDC
				Zimbabwe	1993

*) Part of the Barbados and OECS Subregional Programme

**) Part of Micronesia I Subregional Programme (Coordinated by Federated States of Micronesia)

***) Part of Micronesia II Subregional Programme (Fiji)