Project Document

Project title: Supporting the Achievement of National Development Policies by Building Climate Adaptive Capacity and Planning in Guinea

Country: Republic of Guinea

Implementing Partner: UNDP Management Arrangements: Direct Implementation Modality (DIM)

UNDAF/Country Programme Outcome: UNDAF Outcome 2: By 2022, the national institutions, civil society and the private sector will have implemented the policies that improve food security, sustainable management of environment, resilience of populations to climate change and disaster risk management.

UNDP Strategic Plan Output: 2.3.1 Data and risk-informed development policies, plans, systems and financing incorporate integrated solutions to reduce disaster risks, enable climate change adaptation and mitigation, and prevent crisis

UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Category: EXEMPT

UNDP Gender Marker for the project output: 2

Atlas Project ID (formerly Award ID): 00094653

Atlas Output ID (formerly Project ID): 00098749

UNDP-GEF PIMS ID number: 6044

GCF ID number: GIN-RS-002

Planned start date: 4 March 20201 Planned end date: 3 September 20222

PAC meeting date: May 2020

Brief project description:

1 The actual start date will be contingent on the execution and effectiveness of the amended framework agreement as stated in the approval letter received from GCF.2 The planned end date will depend on the start date.

1 | P a g e

Guinea is experiencing socioeconomic impacts due to its exposure to a variety of serious climate change threats. Sea level rise, droughts, flooding, and disturbance of rainfall and river regimes are only some of the ways climate change threatens to, and does, place pressure on the high-risk sectors of agriculture, livestock, forestry, water resources, and coastal zone management3. Exacerbating this climate change vulnerability and strain on the country’s resources is the fact that Guinea was an epicentre of the 2013 Ebola outbreak, an event that the country is still recovering from to this day.

Guinea has engaged in climate change adaptation, by developing policies and programmes to address these risks. The Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC, 2015) promotes sustainable economic development and climate change adaptation including a) preservation and restoration of water resources, b) protection and management of ecosystems particularly in coastal zones, and c) ensuring food security of rural communities through climate resilient agro-sylvo-pastoral techniques. The five-year National Plan for Economic and Social Development (PNDES), under its foundational pillar “sustainable management of natural capital”, aims to build resilience against disasters and adaptation to climate change as part of its strategic outcomes. In addition, Guinea Vision 2040 seeks to establish economic development that considers environment as an asset in the fight against poverty.

Because the potential impacts of climate change are immense, further efforts are needed. Recently, there have been recommendations from the government (Second National Communication, PNDES) to mainstream climate change adaptation into development policies. This would ensure that appropriate and timely measures are incorporated into those policies through the existing national planning and budgeting mechanisms. To achieve this, significant efforts must be undertaken to ensure adaptation policies and measures are aligned with and are integrated into Guinea Vision 2040 and PNDES.

Based on stakeholder consultations and stocktaking conducted in 2016 and 2018, the main barriers to climate change adaptation mainstreaming and financing adaptation measures for the long-term in Guinea are: (i) the absence of links connecting research to policy to inform decision-making processes; (ii) weaknesses in and/or fragmentation of existing coordination, M&E, and funding mechanisms; (ii) the absence of adaptation in the Planning-Programming-Budgeting-Monitoring and Evaluation (PPBSE) procedures; and (iv) lack of private sector involvement in the adaptation landscape.

These barriers constrain the effective mainstreaming of adaptation into development planning, and negatively affect the sustainability of adaptation programming beyond individual projects’ time horizons.

The proposed project aims to overcome these barriers. Its objective is to increase Guinea’s adaptive capacity to cope with climate change impacts by establishing research to policy linkages for informed decision making and capturing opportunities that arise from both public funding and the private sector. These objectives will be achieved through the following outcomes:

- Outcome 1: Research-policy linkages and knowledge base are strengthened to inform adaptation planning and decision-making

- Outcome 2: CCA mainstreaming is facilitated by reinforcing coordination and M&E mechanisms- Outcome 3: A national funding mechanism and private sector engagement are expanded to increase

CCA financing.

Project beneficiaries include: the Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests (MEEF); the Ministry of Economy

3 Republic of Guinea, Second National Communication to the UNFCCC, October 2018

2 | P a g e

and Finance (MEF); the National Environment Directorate (DNE); sectoral Strategic and Development Offices (BSDS); various research institutions; the Centre for Environmental Observation, Monitoring and Information-COSIE (COSIE); the National Institute of Statistics (INS); the Environmental Safeguard Fund (FSE); the Bauxite Environment Network (REB); civil society organizations; municipalities; and Guinee Ecologie.

While the proposed project aims to remove existing barriers to effective adaptation planning, a follow-up project will be proposed to fill gaps identified through this phase and develop Guinea’s NAP document. The second phase will be informed by the results of this phase, particularly in consolidation of existing climate risks and vulnerability assessments, prioritization of adaptation options in the priority sectors of agriculture, livestock, forestry, coastal and water resources. The planned second phase will further take into account the government’s strategic direction in promoting sustainable cities, clean cities, and blue economy for which the national strategy is currently being developed.

FINANCING PLAN

GCF grant USD 1,502,043

Total Budget administered by UNDP USD 1,502,043

SIGNATURES

Signature: print name below Agreed by Government

Date/Month/Year:

Signature: print name below Agreed by UNDP as the Delivery Partner

Date/Month/Year:

Disbursement: The UNDP CO is aware of the conditions of disbursement ascribed to the first and subsequent tranches of the GCF funding as specified in the Framework Agreement (FA) (and in particular Clause 4of the FA). To the extent that these obligations reflect actions of UNDP, UNDP must ensure that the conditions are met and there is continuing compliance, as well as understanding that availability of GCF funding is contingent on meeting all conditions listed in the FA.

3 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTSI. Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................................4II. Development Challenge...................................................................................................................................5III. Strategy............................................................................................................................................................7IV. Results and Partnerships................................................................................................................................12V. Project Management......................................................................................................................................21VI. Project Results Framework.............................................................................................................................24VII. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan..........................................................................................................30VIII. Governance and Management Arrangements...............................................................................................34IX. Financial Planning and Management..............................................................................................................39X. Total Budget and Work Plan...........................................................................................................................42XI. Legal Context..................................................................................................................................................49XII. Risk Management...........................................................................................................................................49XIII. Mandatory Annexes.......................................................................................................................................52

Annex A: GCF approved Readiness and Preparatory Support Proposal.................................................................53Annex B: GCF notification of approval letter..........................................................................................................53Annex C: Procurement plan...................................................................................................................................54Annex D: Terms of References for Project Board and Project Team......................................................................57Annex E: Terms of References for UNDP Staff.......................................................................................................61Annex F: UNDP risk log..........................................................................................................................................62Annex G: UNDP Project Quality Assurance Report................................................................................................64

4 | P a g e

I. DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE

Guinea is a coastal country in West Africa. It is one of the wettest countries in the West African sub-region, and most of its neighbouring countries depend on rivers that originate in Guinea. The country is comprised of four regions: Maritime Guinea (or Lower Guinea), Middle Guinea, Upper Guinea and Guinea Forestry i. These regions are divided into seven administrative sectors. The national capital, Conakry, is ranked as a special zone. In 2016, the Guinean economy grew by 4.9%. Political appeasement and the improved performance of the mining and agricultural sectors caused this rebound, which follows two years of weak growth (1.1% in 2014 and 0.1% in 2015) resulting mainly from the Ebola outbreak ii. Like other countries in the sub-region, Guinean economic activity is dominated by agriculture, livestock and fishery. However, a high concentration of mining activity aids in the generation of national wealthiii. The poverty incidence was estimated at 55.2% in 2012 iv. While prevalent in rural areas (65%), poverty increased in urban areas where it grew from 30% to 35% between 2007 and 2012. When it comes to poverty, rural populations (63,1%), women (51,7 %) and youth are the most vulnerable groups.

Guinea’s primary economic activities, with the exception of mining, are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate variability and change. The drought that affected the country during 1961-1990 has strongly influenced the hydrological regime of Guinean rivers. The hydraulic variation curves follow the same pattern as the rainfall indices, i.e. a generally decreasing trendv. More recently, the severe droughts experienced by Guinea in 2002, and floods in 2015 contributed significantly to the decline in the availability of cereal crops for protracted amounts of timevi.

Projected climate trends will likely exacerbate climate change impacts. The mean annual temperature is projected to increase by 1.1° to 3.0°C by the 2060s, and 1.6° to 5.3°C by the 2090s vii. This rise in temperature will result in changes in the distribution and volume of precipitation. These changes could result in precipitation drops deviating 36.4% from the current norm in 2050, to 40.4% by 2100viii. This drastic decrease in precipitation will have significant impacts on the main economic activities, particularly affecting agriculture, livestock, water resources (surface water and groundwater), forestry and costal zonesix. Disturbance in rainfall, would lead to the loss of income, interruption of the agricultural/livestock calendars, and disruption of the river regimes. In addition, sea level rise has been occurring along Guinea’s coast, with projected rise between 1.5 to 6.9cm by 21004. As it exacerbates, it will cause increased salinization and flooding in coastal regions, in addition to predicted shortages in drinking water, destruction of infrastructure and damage to mangrove ecosystems5.

The government has initiated the establishment of a national planning system to respond to the various development challenges posed by socio-economic and environmental constraints. The government did so while ensuring adequate post Ebola health surveillance, and alignment with international development agendas. The planning system is organized around four instruments: (i) a national vision of development over 25 years (Vision 2040), (ii) a five-year medium-term development plan as an instrument for implementing the vision (PNDES), (iii) public investment programs (PIP) to translate the objectives of the PNDES into concrete achievements over a 3-year period, and (iv) Local Development Plans (PDL).

Vision 2040 was formed in 2011, and the PNDES was developed in 2015. The latter is a unique reference framework for all development interventions for 2016-2020. PNDES's overall objectives are to promote strong, high-quality growth, to improve the well-being of the population, to achieve the structural transformation of the economy, and to advance the country sustainable development agenda. The PNDES is designed around four foundational pillars:

4 Republic of Guinea, Second National Communication to the UNFCCC, October 20185 Ibid.

5 | P a g e

(i) promotion of good governance for sustainable development; (ii) sustainable and inclusive economic transformation; (iii) inclusive human capital development; and (iv) sustainable management of natural capital.

Under the PNDES’ pillar on “sustainable management of natural capital”, resilience against disasters and adaptation to climate change are considered part of the strategic outcomes. The PNDES aims to give priority to: i) national capacity building on the fight against climate change, ii) promotion of clean energy and energy efficient technologies, iii) mitigation of GHG gases in the transport and agriculture sectors, iv) promotion of the use of household appliances with clean technology and v) increase the capacity of carbon sequestration by means of agroforestry development. It foremost emphasizes climate change mitigation, as the target under the sub-outcome is to reduce greenhouses gas emissions by 10% of 1994 levels. Priority actions defined under other pillars also fail to adequately consider climate change adaptation. For example, the development of PPBSE tool (Planning-Programming-Budgeting-Monitoring and Evaluation)6, and the establishment of agro-poles and the valorisation research results that have the potential to contribute to adaptation planning, do not consider climate change adaptation7. The proposed project will focus its interventions in the PNDES priority areas which are: (i) considered the most vulnerable, (ii) not yet covered by ongoing projects and programs, and (iii) areas where the government is planning future investment.

To solidly connect the PNDES and the Finance Act8, the government will develop the 2016-2020 National Investment Program (NIP) as a financial programming framework that integrates all government investments. The framework will be translated into a Public Investment Program (PIP) which is an annually reviewed rolling three-year program. It is also a budgeting tool for guiding and monitoring government actions in the achievement of development objectives as defined in the PNDES. The PIP will be grounded in the newly configured public finance management, in particular the sectoral medium-term expenditure framework (CDMT), a multi-year programming framework which does not yet integrate climate change.

Various instruments support the planning and budgeting system, including a national statistical system (SSN) and strategic and development offices (BSD) embedded into sectoral ministries. The national statistical system has been improved over the last years. It provides socio-economic data including environment data, albeit limited to forestry, through an Annual Statistical Yearbook. The mission of the BSDs, set up in 2015, is to define sectoral policies and strategies and draw up the CDMT. Over the last three years, BSDs have widely failed to consider climate change considerations and challenges related to its mainstreaming climate change adaptations into planning.

Local authorities affect the PNDES implementation through the Local Development Plans (PDL). The PDL is the main tool for local authorities to exercise their responsibilities in terms of socio-economic development. It presents in a single document all socio-economic actions that the commune intends to lead or support over a five-year period.

The PNDES M&E system involves different categories of actors. The Technical Monitoring Committee (CTS) is its operational entity and is comprised of three functional units: (i) a unit for monitoring macroeconomic management and structural reforms, coordinated by the Planning and Prospective Directorate (DPP); (ii) a unit for monitoring the implementation of programs and projects, coordinated by the National Directorate of Public Investment (DNIP); and (iii) a unit for monitoring SDGs coordinated by the National Institute of Statistics. These three actors are instrumental in the PNDES M&E System.

6 Outcome 2.2.2.7 Outcome 3.3.5.8 The budget is authorized every year through a Finance Act voted by the National Assembly and rendered enforceable by a Decree of the President of the Republic. The finance Act determines, for a fiscal year, the nature, the amount and the allocation of resources and the State's expenses, as well as the resulting budgetary and financial balance.

6 | P a g e

In addition to PNDES, Guinea has also prepared relevant sectoral policies such as the National Plan for Agricultural Investment, Food and Nutrition Security (PNIASAN) for the period spanning 2018-2025. A National Water Policy (PNE) was adopted in 2018 aiming at resilience of water sector. A plan to operationalize this policy, the National Integrated Water Resources Management Plan (PANGIRE), is expected by 2020. A Forestry Code to protect Guinea’s forest resources, with guidelines on use ecosystem services was adopted in 1990. Additionally, a Local Development Plan (PDL) with a common reference guide for the development and implementation of local policies was developed in 2014 and includes principles of sustainable development.

The proposed adaptation planning project therefore aims to anchor climate change adaptation into these key strategic plans, policies and frameworks, using existing coordinating mechanisms to ensure Guinea’s adaptive capacity is increased to cope with the impacts of climate change in the long run. Please see section 4 ‘Additional information’ and Annex I ‘Project description’ for a detailed discussion on Guinea’s current policies and institutional mechanisms and the proposed project’s links to them.

Through this project, mechanisms for a) provision of regular and reliable climate data, b) procedures and capacities for effective climate coordination in national, sectoral and local development planning, c) enhancement of linkages between research and policy to support evidence-based adaptation planning, and d) existing national funding mechanisms to support climate change action will be established and/or strengthened. These will be expected to set the stage for an effective framework for adaptation planning in Guinea (NAP), one that will be developed during a second phase. Informed by the results of this phase, as well as new and emerging direction from the government in sustainable and resilient cities and blue economy will guide the scope of the second phase. At the end of the first phase, a document outlining clear guidance on utilization of deliverables developed during this phase, along with responsible actors and next steps towards implementation for the second phase will be produced by the project team and presented to the CNC

II. STRATEGY

This project aims to increase Guinea’s adaptive capacity to cope with impacts of climate change by linking research and policy for informed decision making and capturing opportunities that arise from local funding and the private sector. As outlined in the previous sections, Guinea has made some progress on climate change adaptation planning, but significant barriers to CCA integration persist. The following are the main barriers to change and improvement of the current situation, as identified during the stakeholders’ consultations:

1. Insufficient linkages between research and policy to support the generation of an evidence-base in accordance with the prospects envisioned by national and climate planning frameworks (Guinea Vision 2040, PNDES, National Communication, NDC) The research agenda is not attuned to policy prospective in areas where research needs have been

identified by the PNDES (sustainable developmentx) and the NC (water resources, coastal zones), despite their involvement in national climate change processes.

The research-policy linkages are not established, and thus cannot inform decision-making processes based on research results. There is an absence of mechanisms for sharing information between researchers and policy makers, which makes their work less effective.

2. Fragmentation of coordination units impedes both the harmonization of interventions on CCA and the establishment of appropriate linkages with existing development planning mechanisms: In many sectors there is a poor understanding of climate change issues, and consequently an inadequate

integration of adaptation priorities into development. For example, even though “resilience against

7 | P a g e

disasters and adaptation to climate change” is considered part of the PNDES strategic outcomes, the plan includes no targets or goals related to adaptation except the reduction of GHG emissions by at least 10% compared to 1994.

The coordination of adaptation actions is split among different actors: The National Environment Directorate (DNE), the GCF and GEF focal points (who are not under the DNE), and ad hoc committees established during specific processes (NDC, National communication, NAPA, etc.) This fragmentation is detrimental to the coordination of adaptation actions.

The National Climate Committee, established in 2014 by ministerial decree, is not operational due to the lack of resources and the designation mode. Currently, many projects pertaining to adaptation are coordinated in an ad-hoc manner without proper coordination at the national level.

The National Environment Directorate has not established a dashboard to facilitate the coordination of interventions and the evaluation of progresses made by projects under implementation. This hinders the coordination and harmonization of interventions.

The absence of a unique national coordinating mechanism bringing together relevant stakeholders, including development planning actors, hampers the establishment of institutional linkages between development planning bodies, in particular the PNDES Technical Monitoring Committee (CTS) and its operational entities: the Planning and Prospective Directorate (DPP), the National Directorate of Public Investment (DNIP) and the National Institute of Statistics.

3. Lack of guidelines and capacities to effectively integrate adaptation into national, sectoral and local development planning and budgeting: At the sectoral level, despite efforts made to integrate CCA into the National Plan for Agricultural

Investment, Food and Nutrition Security (PNIASAN), the national water policy (PNE), and the revised forestry code, there are no planning and budgeting tools to ensure CCA mainstreaming into the PPBSE (Planning-Programming-Budgeting-Monitoring and Evaluation) manual of procedures. This could jeopardize consideration of CCA mainstreaming later in the planning cycle, especially during budgeting.

With respect to local planning, the new PDL guidelines integrate climate change, but need to be tested. Moreover, their full implementation would require the reinforcing the resource mobilization skills of local staff.

4. The lack of regular, updated and reliable climate data precludes agencies from making informed decision on adaptation: Climate projections and vulnerability assessments conducted during the initial national communication in

2002 are outdated and cannot inform the new long-term and mid-term development plans Vision 2040 and PNDES. The government priority actions identified by the Vision 2040 and PNDES do not have access to accurate information on the risks of, or ways to cope with, climate change. In the water sector, for example, the government is planning the construction of major hydroelectric projects, including Souapiti (515 MW). However, climate risk and vulnerability assessment of the target areas have not been conducted. The same applies to the agriculture sector, in particular the PNDES planned establishment of agropoles across the regions

Although the provision of reliable information to policy programming, as well as monitoring of adaptation actions and policies is promoted with the creation of an Observation, Monitoring and Environmental Information Centre (COSIE) in October 2004, it is currently done in an irregular manner. For example, the COSIE “The state of the Environment” report is not produced regularly. The last report was issued in 2014, and significant amount of data is outdated.

The environmental data included in the Annual Statistical Yearbook prepared by the National Institute of Statistics (INS) is mainly focused on forestry, and often does not consider other adaptation metrics despite country commitments reflected in the various climate change planning strategies (NAPA, NC, NDC).

8 | P a g e

In the absence of regular and updated environmental and climate data from the COSIE, the Annual Statistical Yearbook does not provide the national PNDES and SDGs M&E system with appropriate information, hindering effective and informed decision making on climate change adaptation.

5. Existing national funding mechanisms and the private sector are not sufficiently equipped and structured to support climate change actions: The Environment Safeguard Fund is not adequately structured to assist in mobilizing internal and external

resources for climate financing. Some of the environmental taxes established by decree (e.g. the pollution tax) have never been collected by the fund, representing a failure in resource mobilization.

The mining private sector has demonstrated a willingness to support environment actions through the creation of the Bauxite Environment Network (REB) in 2018. However, the REB needs to be provided with guidance and incentives to expand its interventions and support in the climate change arena. The Guinean Chamber of Mines brings together mining and affiliated companies under one umbrella. Its involvement in the areas of mining, environment, health and community development is evolving. In 2013, the Guinean Chamber of Mines signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the UN System in Guinea to address challenges related to environmental and socio-economic issues in mining areas. In addition to the By-Laws, it has a well-developed Code of Ethics. The Bauxite Environmental Network (BWN) is committed to supporting initiatives related to climate change adaptation in coastal areas.

The project’s theory of change is built to overcome these challenges while complementing ongoing initiatives. The proposed theory has three outcomes with associated sub-outcomes that together form a concerted effort to raise adaptive capacity of Guinea to cope with impacts of climate change:

Outcome 1: Research-policy linkages and knowledge base are strengthened to inform adaptation planning and decision-making

- Establish Research-policy linkages to support NAP formulation and implementation - Develop a climate risks and vulnerability evidence base that informs the identification and

prioritization of adaptation options in the sectors of agriculture, livestock and forestry9

Outcome 2: CCA mainstreaming is facilitated by reinforcing coordination and M&E mechanisms- Operationalize a sustained and suitable coordination mechanism to support mid-term and long-

term adaptation - Enhance CCA mainstreaming into sectoral and local planning and budgeting - Establish CCA M&E mechanisms in adherence with the existing national M&E system

Outcome 3: A national funding mechanism and private sector engagement are expanded to support CCA financing

- Support the Environmental Safeguard Fund (FSE) mechanism to raise awareness on funding sources and expand mandate for the financing of adaptation actions

- Enhance the mining sector‘s engagement on adaptation and climate financing

This project, through the three outcomes, will be aligned with NAPA, NDC and PNDES and will work with ongoing initiatives to reduce duplications and maximizing effectiveness. The proposed project interventions therefore focus on the same priority sectors and zones, further validated by stakeholders’ consultation in 2018, as follows: Upper Guinea (agriculture sector), Mid-Guinea (livestock sector), North-East in Upper Guinea (forestry sector), water resources, coastal zones, agriculture, livestock and forestry (See description of sub-outcome 1.2. for further details). Support provided by the proposed project in these areas will build on past and ongoing CCA project results and

9 While coastal and water resources do form a part of the targeted sectors for the project, no CRVA will be conducted for it under this project. Prioritization exercise however (1.2.2) will include coastal and water resources using readily available information.

9 | P a g e

outputs, including climate risks and vulnerability assessments, Local Development Plans and NAP gender analysis. These initiatives will be part of the technical committee established to provide overall guidance to the project and recommendations to the Board (see section 6.1 on project arrangements).

The three inter-connected outcomes are carefully sequenced to ensure maximum efficiency and support a holistic readiness of the Republic of Guinea to tackle impacts of climate change in the long run. For instance, the climate projections envisaged under Outcome 1 will feed into risk assessment and identification of coping measures, which in turn informs the prioritization exercise. Similarly, the proposed dashboard and the M&E framework in Outcome 2 will be heavily reliant on the results of the information gathered in Outcome 1 to better define the indicators and measure progress. Furthermore, the institutional assessment of FSE proposed in Outcome 3 will rely on a functional RPWG and an operational CNC in Outcomes 1 and 2.

In proposing the above, the project assumes active engagement and support of the government and related stakeholders in a) supporting resource mobilization of the Environmental Safeguard Fund and inclusion of CCA criteria in accessing the fund; b) participating in the project’s activities, in particular the communes and sectors for those under outcome 2; c) supporting the CNC mandate revision and operationalization; and d) sharing documentation and lessons from existing and past CCA experiences to the project implementation team.

Related to the above, the project further envisages potential risks for its successful and timely implementation. These include a) lack of capacity within DNE to implement the project; b) lack of funds to sustain national arrangements post-support project; c) lack of inter-ministerial coordination and d) resistance in sharing of information. In order to mitigate these risks, the project builds in several concrete activities as countermeasures. These include a) a major capacity building component to strengthen human resources in DNE and priority sector agencies; b) mechanisms for scaling investments and addressing financial gaps, including an investment plan; c) a cross-sectoral coordination mechanism; and d) a strong outreach/training component geared for various ministries and agencies, including at the local level.

10 | P a g e

11 | P a g e

Existing national funding mechanisms and the private sector are not sufficiently equipped and structured to support climate change actions

3.1 Support the Environmental Safeguard Fund (FSE) mechanism in raising awareness on funding sources and expand mandate for financing of adaptation actions3.2 Enhance the mining sector’s engagement on adaptation and climate financing

2.1 Operationalize a sustained and suitable coordination mechanism to support mid-term and long-term adaptation2.2 Enhance CCA mainstreaming into sectoral and local planning and budgeting2.3 Establish CCA M&E mechanisms in adherence with the existing national M&E system

1.1 Establish research-policy linkages to support NAP formulation and implementation1.2 Develop a climate risk and vulnerability evidence base that informs the identification and prioritization of adaptation options in the sectors of agriculture, livestock and forestry (PND)

3. A national funding mechanism and private sector engagement are expanded to increase CCA financing

2. CCA mainstreaming is facilitated by reinforcing coordination and M&E mechanisms

Goal:Raise the adaptive capacity of Guinea to cope with

impacts of climate change through the establishment of research, public and private partnerships

mechanisms that facilitate CCA mainstreaming and financing

1. Research-policy linkages and knowledge-base are strengthened to inform adaptation planning and decision-making

Impact

Outcomes

Sub-outcomes

Barriers

Lack of regular, updated and reliable climate data precludes agencies from making informed decision on adaptation

Lack of guidelines and capacities to effectively integrate adaptation into national, sectoral and local development planning and budgeting

Fragmentation of coordination units impedes both the harmonization of interventions on CCA and the establishment of appropriate linkages with existing development planning mechanisms

Insufficient linkages between research and policy to support the generation of evidence-base in accordance with prospects envisioned by national and climate planning frameworks (Guinea Vision 2040, PNDES, National Communication, NDC)

Challenge: Despite progress made in adaptation actions at national and local levels, CCA is not mainstreamed in Guinea, constrained by weaknesses in institutional and coordination mechanisms to shape policies and leverage existing opportunities.

III. RESULTS AND PARTNERSHIPS

Expected Results:

The project aims to increase the adaptive capacity of Guinea to cope with impacts of climate change by establishing research to policy linkages for informed decision making and capturing opportunities that arise from local funding and private sector. The following activities contribute to achieving this objective and will support projects and programmes initiated by the government and described above (see initiatives supporting adaptation planning).

Outcome 1: Research-policy linkages and knowledge base strengthened to inform adaptation planning and decision-making

This outcome provides the research community with the exchange platforms, strategy, and knowledge necessary to set research priorities that address NAP requirements. The outcome will mobilize a large number of national research institutions to address key knowledge gaps with the goal of informing the government actions on climate change adaptation without duplicating research efforts. The knowledge generated by this research will facilitate informed decisions and appropriate adaptation actions in the sectors of agriculture, livestock and forestry.

Sub outcome 1.1 “Establish research-policy linkages to support NAP formulation and implementation” : This sub-outcome establishes a platform for formal exchange between the research community and decision-makers on CCA and builds a research agenda aligned with the priorities of the PNDES, the CDN and the National Adaptation Plan. This Research Policy Working Group (RPWG) will include research institutions involved in the area of adaptation, for example the Center for Scientific Research (CERESCOR), the Center for Environmental Observation, Monitoring and Information (COSIE), the Center for Scientific Research (CERE), the Boussoura National Center for Fisheries Science (CNSHB), INRAG and the Met Agency as well as practitioners and decision-makers in the sectors covered by the NAP; water resources, coastal zone, agriculture, livestock and forestry. Special attention will be given to equal gender representation when forming the group. The National Directorate for the Promotion of Women and Gender (DNPFG) will be a key part of the group. Their involvement provides the gender perspective and ensures that the different dimensions of gender equity are fully considered.

The Environment and Climate Change Research Plan (PRECC) will set research priorities needed to inform NAP implementation based on an assessment of critical knowledge and information gaps. PRECC will provide research institutions with a reference framework and guidance for interacting with development actors to meet the needs identified, particularly in terms of research, academic curricula and trainings. It will be subject to a peer-review with the support of UNDP Network of experts, and also stakeholder review and feedback through national consultations. The PRECC has the same time horizon as the NAP and will be assessed and revised accordingly. Individual agencies will be responsible for implementing the Research Plan. The project will facilitate coordination and liaison with key actors including communities, agencies, donors and private entities.

Many African countries have yet to allocate 1% of GDP to scientific research as recommended by the African Union’s Eighth Ordinary Session in Khartoum in 200610. The project will promote the plan to be integrated into the national budget in line with the AU’s recommendation.

Sub outcome 1.2 “Develop a climate risks and vulnerability evidence-base to inform the identification and prioritization of adaptation options in the sectors of agriculture, livestock and forestry”: This project will support the updating of climate projections (temperature and rainfall), which dates back to 2001. It will use the IPCCC5 release models (Representative Concentration Pathways-RCP) from which two to three RCP scenarios will be selected, and projections made based on selected scenarios. The project will carry out this plan with the support of

10https://uneca.org/sites/default/files/PublicationFiles/eca_policy_brief_beyond_funding-_the_research_and_development_rev1.pdf

12 | P a g e

an interdisciplinary team set up by the Met Office (DGM) at the beginning of the process, which will be composed of an expert in climate related sciences, a climate modelling specialist, users of the five sectors considered the most vulnerable. Users will be involved and consulted to determine their needs (time horizon, variables, temporal, spatial resolutions, etc) in order to streamline the development of climate projections and render it more efficient and cost-effective. Since climate risks and vulnerability assessments require a clear understanding of expected changes in Guinea's four natural areas, the projections will include a downscaling of climatic variables (temperature and rainfall) in ecological systems. Regional climate models could serve this purpose, for example the Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX). This work will be done in close collaboration with the project “Strengthening climate information and early warning systems for climate resilient development and adaptation to climate change in Guinea” (see Initiatives supporting adaptation planning). Following the development of climate projections, the project will conduct climate risks and vulnerability assessments (CRVA) in the sectors of agriculture, livestock and forestry:

The project will target the agriculture sector, the Upper Guinea, as it is prone to droughts and floods that have recently led to a significant decline in the availability of cereals. This sector corresponds to the PNDES and PNIASAN Agropole H zone of production, which includes the production of rice, maize, yams and cotton.

In the livestock sector, the project will target the northern Sudan-Guinean pastoral zone, located in the Middle Guinea, which is the driest part of the country (with an average annual rainfall of between 1200 and 1500 mm). It encompasses the administrative districts of Koundara, and the northern parts of the administrative districts of Gaoual, Mali, Dinguiraye, Siguiri and Mandiana. This zone is one of the target areas for the development and implementation of pastoral management programmes, which is one of the priority actions of PNDES and PNIASAN.

In the forestry sector, the project will target the Mangrove forests in the Low Guinea, considered among the most vulnerable resources to climate risksxi.

The CRVA will also provide analysis on how social dynamics, in particular gender dynamics, influence vulnerability to climate change in target communities. The analysis of socio-economic dimensions of vulnerability, in particular the differences in vulnerability between men and women, informs the identification and prioritization of adaptation options to ensure that adaptation efforts lead to actions for those groups who are most vulnerable to climate change impacts. A local research institution will work under the guidance of a firm to carry the CRVA, with the goal of capacitating local institutions on CRVA during this process and creating a critical mass of expertise in this area.Building on these CRVA and the existing plans in the coastal and water resources sectors xii, the CRVA will be proceeded by the ranking of climate vulnerabilities, followed by the identification and prioritization of adaptation options in Guinea’s most vulnerable sectors: water resources, coastal zones, agriculture, livestock and forestry. The project will use a participatory approach; the stakeholders will participate in a ranking exercise with the active support of consultants who will guide them through the process. The rating scale of the scoring system is defined by mutual agreement between the different actors. A team of consultants will carry out an initial identification and prioritization of adaptation options, aligned with the PNDES, the NAPA, the NDC, the GCF country programme, and past and ongoing adaptation initiatives. The consultants will then present their recommendations for stakeholders’ review. The stakeholders will amend and ultimately decide upon the adaptation options during a validation workshop to ensure the buy-in of stakeholders responsible for implementation of the options selected.

Outcome 2: CCA mainstreaming facilitated by reinforcing coordination and M&E mechanisms

This outcome supports the operationalization of coordination and monitoring-evaluation mechanisms for adaptation, and the development of climate change adaptation planning, budgeting and M&E tools at national and

13 | P a g e

local levels. This project seeks to align and/or integrate these mechanisms into existing systems to ensure their ownership and sustainability.

One of the reasons why the CNC has not been as effective and not fulfilling its mandate is due to financing constraints. Through this project, it will ensure regular meetings of the committee for the lifetime of the project. Furthermore, the capacity development and awareness raising activities, as well as tools such as the dashboard and operating procedurees in form of its multi-annual workplan is expected to ensure it is able to inch ahead on its mandate. Sustainability considerations for its financing and operationalization in the long term will be sought through the financing strategy in 3.12 as well as through a second phase of the project.

The sub-outcome 2.1 “Operationalize a sustained and suitable coordination mechanism to support mid-term and long-term adaptation”: This sub-outcome supports the reinforcement of the National Climate Committee (CNC) throughout the NAP process.

The outcome will support and complete the revision of the CNC legal framework, already initiated by the government, with the goal of making the CNC a functional inter-ministerial coordination mechanism, bringing together the National Environment Directorate, the GCF and GEF focal points, sectoral and local actors, policy makers, the private sector, journalists, civil society and municipalities. The MEEF will be presented with recommended revisions to the decree and provision from its budget lines for the CNC functioning.With the support of the project, the CNC will develop a multiannual work plan that includes coordination of all climate change programming at national level, capacity-building activities for its members, and consultation and awareness-raising meetings with various stakeholders. The project will budget this work plan and present it for endorsement to the Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests (MEEF), after which it will be included as part of the National Environment Directorate multiannual budgetary provisions. For the first year, the project will use capacity building activities, awareness-raising meetings, enhancement of climate change coordination (activity 2.1.2), the establishment of a M&E framework (2.3.1) and of a dialogue mechanism with private sector (activity 3.2.2) to provide support for this endeavour. The CNC will ensure that the gender dimensions are well considered throughout the NAP process, informed by the results of the gender analysis focused on the NAP to be undertaken by the NAP Global Network.

To ensure consistency between adaptation programming, the CNC will be equipped with a “Projects’ Progress Dashboard”, hosted by the DNE, that collects data and monitors the progress of climate change interventions. Data processing and analysis will lead to the drafting of an annual report presented to the CNC and shared with ministries, civil society, the private sector and municipalities. The project will then capitalize recommendations for upcoming interventions.

To further ensure continuity between this and a subsequent phase that will aim to develop and commence implementation of the NAP in Guinea, a document outlining clear guidance on utilization of deliverables developed at this end of this phase, mapping responsible actors and suggesting next steps will be produced by the project team and presented to the CNC.

The sub-outcome 2.2 “Enhance CCA mainstreaming into sectoral and local planning and budgeting”: This project will facilitate the integration of CCA into sectoral and local planning through the development and testing of planning and budgeting guidelines. They key actors for this project are the DNE, the sector-level BSDs, the Planning and Budgeting ministries, and the National Association of the communes of Guinea (ANCG).

The project will take advantage of the formation of the PPBSE manual of procedure and the sectoral medium-term expenditure framework (CDMT) to develop a guide (including fact sheets) on climate change at each stage of the PPBSE. The following PPBSE planning and budgeting instruments will serve this purpose: the national development plan, the sectoral policy, the sectoral priority actions programme, the National Investment Program (NIP) and the sectoral medium-term expenditure framework (CDMT). The project will first test the guidelines in the water sector, which in 2018 adopted its National Water Policy (PNE) that considers CCA as one of its main stakes. The project will

14 | P a g e

seize the opportunity presented by the formulation of the National Action Plan for Integrated Water Resources Management (PANGIRE), which is the operational plan of the National Water Policy, and the related-sectoral CDMT, to advance the adaptation agenda in this sector. In the process of designing and implementing these planning and budgeting guidelines, the project will work in close collaboration with the “ Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Targeting Vulnerable Communities of the Upper Guinea Region” initiative.

At local level, the project will test second-generation PDL guidelines in 4 communes, which are already integrating climate change considerations, and provide process‐oriented assistance to local authorities and actors to help mainstream adaptation into local planning. Lessons learnt from previous adaptation initiatives on integrating adaptation into the first-generation PDLxiii will inform the training phase. The reinforcement of municipalities’ staff capabilities on climate finance and access will support PDL’s operationalization, with the aim of enabling the identification of the most realistic and immediate finance sources and familiarizing the staff with resource mobilization techniques.

The sub-outcome 2.3 “Establish CCA M&E mechanisms in adherence with national system”: This sub-outcome supports the establishment of an M&E system that builds on the INS monitoring and evaluation system, backed by the Observation, Monitoring and Environmental Information Centre (COSIE) acting as an operational arm.

The INS monitoring and evaluation system is the only one that operates efficiently at the national level and leads to the release of an annual statistical yearbook. Therefore, the establishment of the adaptation M&E system requires the identification of the adaptation indicators already considered in the statistical yearbook, the evaluation of gaps to be filled, and the development proposed adaptation indicators including gender dimension. The COSIE and DNA teams will collect gender disaggregated baseline data under INS supervision to ensure ownership and familiarize them with regular data collection. The project will process, analyse and incorporate this data into the national statistical yearbook with the support of the Research-Policy working group (sub-outcome 1.1.). The data will provide robust scientific information that planners, researchers and academic institutes can routinely use to incorporate climate impacts and vulnerabilities into policies and interventions.

Outcome 3: A national funding mechanism and private sector engagement are expanded to support CCA financing

This outcome will strengthen the governance of existing environment funding mechanisms and further engage the private mining sector in adaptation, in adherence with NAP implementation and financing. The Environmental Safeguard Fund (FSE) and the Bauxite Environment Network (REB) are the main targets.

The sub-outcome 3.1 “Support the Environmental Safeguard Fund (FSE) mechanism in raising awareness on funding sources and expanding mandate for the financing of adaptation actions”: This sub-outcome aims to provide institutional support to the FSE and improve its sources of income, enabling it to participate to the financing of climate change adaptation in a sustainable manner. The project will complete an institutional evaluation of the FSE that will cover (i) its performance in terms of outputs, outcomes, and impact; (ii) the institutional context factors outside and inside of its boundaries; and (iii) inputs and resources. At the same time, the project will identify potential sources of additional funding based on the existing or alternative legal and regulatory framework. Building on these two studies, and on NAP and NDC priorities, the project will develop a strategy plan and support its implementation. The lobbying power of civil society will be utilized to advocate for a positive change in terms of climate in-country financing. The strategic plan will set out priority investment areas and potential actions based on PNDES, NDC, and NAP orientations, and will rely on domestic and international funding as well as strong partnerships between government and the private sector.

The sub-outcome 3.2 “Enhance the mining private sector’s engagement on adaptation and climate financing”: This project contributes to the implementation of the Bauxite Environment Network (REB) action plan, aiming to facilitate its engagement in adaptation, and also includes a dialogue meeting to lay the groundwork for a

15 | P a g e

partnership between the mining companies and the adaptation community. The sub-outcome will also target agribusiness and financing communities through the National Chamber of Agriculture, Development Bank of Guinea and the National Agency for Community Financing (ANAFIC).

The project will provide support to cover the training needs of the private mining sector in the area of climate change adaptation as reflected in the REB action plan. It aims to offer basic skills on climate finance and Ecosystem-Based Adaptation to private actors (organized in collaboration with the project “Ecosystem-Based Adaptation targeting vulnerable communities of the Upper Guinea Region”), which will be useful to the development of public-private project on adaptation and mining. The private mining sector has identified the Ecosystem-based approach as the approach most likely to reduce the vulnerability of people and ecosystems exposed both to their operations and climate change.

Lessons learned from the project development process will inform the public-private dialogues initiated by the project. This dialogue mechanism will in turn be used to improve the private sector understanding of climate change impact and adaptation issues and their capability to take action, particularly during the project development process.The project will expand the partnership during the second year. This collaboration will result in a better mainstreaming of adaptation consideration into the REB action plan, drawing from lessons learned during the previous collaboration.

The proposed actions and activities are inter-connected in nature which together aim to advance the objective of raising adaptive capacity of Guinea to cope with the impacts of climate change. In particular, this phase aims to remove the perceived barriers in the 4 different areas identified with national stakeholders, i.e. : a) insufficient linkages between research and policy, and a lack of reliable climate data b) fragmentation of coordination units, c) lack of guidelines and capacity, and d) lack of engagement from the private sector. The set of proposed solutions categorized under the 3 outcomes are geared to remove those barriers. The drafting and operationalization of the NAP, which is envisaged under a second phase will rely on the results of all the activities in this phase. In that sense, the activities are sequenced to support a holistic readiness of Guinea to tackle impacts of climate change in the long run. Furthermore, in this phase itself, there are clear sequencing of activities within and between outcomes, for instance, the projections under 1.2.1 will feed into risk assessment and identification of coping measures in 1.2.2, which then informs the prioritization exercise in 1.2.3. Similarly, the proposed dashboard in 2.1.2 and the M&E framework in 2.3.1 will be heavily reliant on the results of 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 better define the indicators and measure progress. Furthermore, the institutional assessment of FSE in 3.1.1 will rely on a functional RPWG (1.1.1) and an operational CNC (2.1.1).

Partnerships

There are several ongoing initiatives in climate change in Guinea with which this project will seek to collaborate with. These are listed below:

• Green Climate Fund Readiness Programme (donor: GCF; implementing UNDP; Period: 2016-2018; Budget: 300,000$). This programme attempts to bridge the capacity gaps of the GCF Focal Point and their team in fulfilling GCF-related duties, as well as develop a country programme that will facilitate Guinea’s effective engagement with the Fund. In the interest of consistency with this initiative, and to consolidate its results, the NAP support project will build on adaptation priorities identified during the formulation of the country programme (sub-outcome 1.2) and will ensure the development of an effective adaptation coordination mechanism, chiefly through the existing National Climate Committee (CNC, established in 2014), that also advises the GCF Readiness Programme. The CNC will serve as a unique adaptation coordination unit,

16 | P a g e

convening and strengthening the capacities of its members. It will include the GCF focal point (sub-outcome 2.1).

• Strengthening Resilience and Adaptation to Negative Impacts of Climate Change in Guinea's Vulnerable Coastal Zones (Donor: GEF, implementing partner: UNDP, Period: 2010-2016, Budget: 4,355,000$): This project objective was to reduce vulnerability to climate change impacts in low-lying coastal areas, including sea-level rise, through implementation of adaptation measures. The project contributed to the integration of climate change adaptations in 38 Local Development Plans (LDPs) in four targeted sites (Koba, Kaback, Kakossa and Kito). The project also supported the development of a methodological guide for the integration of climate change adaptations in the LDPsxiv. The NAP project will rely on the new LDPs to test its implementation in the four target sites (activity 2.2.3).

• Strengthening Farming Communities’ Livelihoods Resilience Against Climate Changes in the Guinean Prefectures of Gaoual, Koundara and Mali (Donor: GEF, implementing partner: UNDP, Period: 2013-2018, Budget:4,266,344$): This initiative will strengthen the adaptive capacities of vulnerable populations in the prefectures of Gaoual, Koundara and Mali (Middle Guinea) to the additional risks posed by the increased intensity and frequency of drought. The project, in collaboration with the National Directorate of Local development, initiated the updating of 16 Local Development Plans to incorporate climate change. The initiative also identifies and promotes climate resilient agroforestry best practices to increase community livelihood resilience. The NAP support project will build on these agricultural practices while identifying adaptation options in the agriculture sector (activity 1.2.2). Lessons learned in mainstreaming adaptation at the local level will be used during the formulation of the new PDL (activity 2.2.3)

• Adaptation to Climate Change in the Konkouré Watershed through Integrated Natural Resource Management and the Promotion of Climate-Smart Technologies (Donor: Adaptation Fund, implementing partner: UNDP, Period: 2018-2023, Budget: 10,000,000$): This project is currently being developed, and supports climate change adaptation in the Konkouré watershed, one of the country’s most strategic regions in terms of water and energy resources. Kounkoure hosts the Souapiti (515 MW) hydroelectric project, considered a priority action by the PNDES. The project will assess climate change risks and vulnerabilities (CRVA) of the watershed’s ecological units and will identify coping measures. The NAP initiative will rely on CRVAs for the water resources sector to support identification and prioritization of adaptation options (activity 1.2.3).

• Strengthening Climate Information and Early Warning Systems for Climate Resilient Development and Adaptation to Climate Change in Guinea (Donor: GEF, implementing partner: UNDP, Period: 2019-2023, Budget: 5,350,000$): This project is under development, and will be implemented in 2019. This project will strengthen climate monitoring and early warning capacities to respond to climate shocks and support mainstreaming of climate change adaptation into development planning processes in Guinea. It will lead to the development of new products tailored to serve the information requirements of users in different sectors and locations. It will also encourage the mainstreaming of climate risks and adaptation strategies in the agriculture and energy sectors (PNIA and the Energy Sector Policy Letter). The NAP support initiative will work in close collaboration with the project on updating climate projections (activity 1.2.1).

• Strengthening the Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Change of the Guinean Coastline (Donor: GCF, implementing partner: UNDP, Period: TBD, Budget: TBD): This project aims to improve the resilience and adaptation of rural communities in coastal zones to sea-level rise and other climate change impacts (e.g. erosion, saline intrusion, floods). It will support three groups of activities: (i) institutional capacity-building activities for key actors at the central, local and community level for managing the effects of climate

17 | P a g e

change; (ii) the protection, rehabilitation and strengthening of coastal ecosystems, particularly mangroves, and their ecosystem services for adaptation to sea-level rise and climate change impacts; and (iii) enabling rural coastal communities to design and implement more resilient climate risk management strategies and alternative livelihoods. During project development the project undertook an in-depth climate risk and vulnerability assessment. The NAP support project will rely on this vulnerability assessment for the identification and prioritization of adaptation options.

• Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Targeting Vulnerable Communities of the Upper Guinea Region (Donor: GEF, implementing partner: UNDP, Period: 2015-2022, Budget: 8,600,000$): This project aims to reduce the vulnerability of local communities in the Upper Niger River Basin to the additional risks posed by climate change and to build their general resilience through an ecosystem-based approach that focuses on watersheds, land-use practices and adaptive capacity. Expected outcomes are: (i) ensure the climate resilience of natural resource dependent livelihoods in project sites by securing the continued stream of essential agro-ecological and hydrological services upon which they depend; and (ii) Integrate climate adaptive management of ecosystems into local and regional planning and policy-making processes. The project covers Faranah and Kankan, two regions out the eight regions of Guinea. The integration of climate risk management and resilience into natural resource management planning and budgeting of relevant ministries, prefectures and sub-prefectures in the Upper Guinea Region is an essential output that the NAP process will rely upon. This output will aid in the drafting of technical guidelines on CCA mainstreaming into sectoral planning and budgeting (activity 2.2.1).

In addition to the complementarities mentioned above, the development of some of the projects were reliant on generic data based on national and regional studies. The results of the proposed NAP project will therefore reinforce these initiatives (ongoing) with reliable and robust information, as well as the M&E mechanism to gauge the impact of these projects. These in turn will capacitate decision makers to use scientific data for policymaking. They will also help strengthen the linkages between research institutions and the policymakers.

Risks and Assumptions

The details of risks and management responses are provided in the full risk log attached in annex F. Below are the main risks and assumptions identified for this project.

Risks:

• Lack of capacity within DNE and other government agencies to implement NAP support project• Government will not have funds to sustain the nation-al arrangements, once the project ends• Inter-ministerial coordination is lacking• Resistance from sector ministries and minimal sharing of information• Reluctance from the private sector in engaging with the project • Potential delay in start-up from procurement, project team set-up, governmental clearances

Assumptions:

The project assumes that the government will support the process of reformulating the resource mobilization modality of the Environmental Safeguard Fund and the inclusion of climate change adaptation related criteria to access the fund;

The project assumes that priority communes, sector agencies and REB will participate in the project’s activities;

18 | P a g e

The project assumes that the CNC’s renewed mandate will be supported by the government; The project assumes that documentation and lessons learned from other projects in Guinea will be made

available to the implementation team.

Stakeholder Engagement

The proposed project results from a review of available information, initial discussions with the NDA, extensive bilateral consultations with relevant stakeholders, workshops and field missions. The feedback collected was used to inform project planning. The primary goal of collecting the feedback was to obtain insights on adaptation planning and implementation from a wide range of stakeholder perspectives.

This process began in January 2016 with a series of consultations, following a request for support from the Government of Guinea to UNDP country office. The process involves the UNDP Regional Technical Advisor, the NAP-GSP team, the UNDP Country Office and the UNFCCC Guinea Focal Point. In April 2016, the first NAP support mission set out to organize a high-level awareness raising meeting for decision-makers, host a two-day workshop to identify climate change risks and vulnerabilities and strategies to integrate them into planning, and assess the NAP process.

In May 2016, the Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests of the Republic of Guinea under Dr. Souleymane Camara officially launched the NAP process. It was followed by a three-day training workshop on LEG Technical Guidelines that brought together mid-level and senior experts from different ministries engaged in the national adaptation planning process, including representatives from the environmental, agricultural, financial and budget sectors, as well as representatives from research institutions, NGOs, civil society and Parliament.A NAP stakeholders’ consultation workshop was held in July 2017 and provided orientations to the NAP GCF project development. It brought together more than sixty participants from around the country to take stock of the state of adaptation planning and identify gaps and entry points for intervention. They included members of the ministerial departments of Environment, Water and Forests and Transport; the National Assembly; National and Technical Directorates (DNH, DNE, DNAAHP/livestock, MGE, DNPF, DNPM, BSD/MEEF, BSD/MEH, BSD/MA, Met service, BGEEE, DNDL, DNP); research centres (Boussoura National Center for Fisheries Sciences (CNSHB), Centre for Scientific Research (CERESCOR), Centre for Environmental Observation, Monitoring and Information (COSIE), Centre for Scientific Research (CERE); consultants; civil society (Guinee Ecologie, Renascee DD, PFNCDB, Carbone Guinee); public and private media organizations (Radio Environnement, AGP, Lejourguinée.com, Evasion, Radio Parlementaire, Soleil FM); and technical and financial partners (UNDP, FAO).

In June 2018, several stakeholders met to fill information gaps related to the GCF NAP proposal development. These stakeholders included the NAP, GCF and GEF focal points, National Environment Directorate, COSIE, the Environmental Safeguard Fund (FSE), Agricultural Environment Directorate, INS, Hydromet services (DNM, DNH), UNDP, CNSHB, DNDL, DNPCA, Planning Directorate, Budget Directorate, CERESCOR, Guinee Ecologie, CERE, DNEF, BSD-Environment ministry, BSD-Agricultural ministry, Ministry of Budget, DNP and ANCG.

This project is informed by the outcomes of these consultations. It is based on the broad set of guidelines set forth by the LEG for the development of a national adaptation plan and considers Guinea’s specific situation. Moving forward in the NAP project, stakeholders will be consulted and engaged at all stages of the process, from the launch of the NAP to its implementation and review, through sensitization, consultation, and training workshops. Stakeholders will represent Government institutions, financial and technical partners, international and national non-governmental organizations and local civil society. They will both be represented within the CNC as well as the technical committee to advise the project. The role and involvement of the private sector will also be enhanced with targeted activities under outcome 3.

19 | P a g e

Gender equality and empowering women

Gender inclusiveness is at the centre of the NAP process. The NAP process highlights the need for gender mainstreaming in climate change adaptation planning and budgeting and recognizes that adaptation cannot be successful without the involvement of all Guineans, particularly women. During the implementation process, gender concerns will be brought to the forefront through: (a) the sensitization of official beneficiaries on the crucial role women are playing in the society and in the adaptation process and how essential it is to involve them in every aspect of this process; (b) the engagement of women decision-makers in the trainings, meetings, workshops, etc.; and (c) the development support, evaluation and selection of gender-sensitive initiatives for further implementation.

This project will be directly aligned with the gender policy of the GCF that identifies six priority areas to implement its policy, namely: (a) Governance and institutional structure; (b) Operational guidelines; (c) Capacity building; (d) Outputs, outcomes, impacts and paradigm-shift objectives used for monitoring, reporting and evaluation; (e) Resource allocation and budgeting; and (f) Knowledge generation and communications. The project will address all of these six priorities through a range of adaptation topics, and place emphasis on addressing gender inequality along its implementation and operationalization.

In particular, special attention will be given to equal gender representation in the technical advisory committee of the project. Specific gender related activities under the project will include a) the establishment of a Research Policy Working Group (RPWG) under 1.1, b) updating of climate projections as part of 1.2, as well as c) gender-disaggregated baselines and indicators as part of 2.3. Furthermore, the National Directorate for the Promotion of Women and Gender (DNPFG) will be a key part of the RPWG. The involvement of DNPFG will provide gender perspective and ensures that the different dimensions of gender equity are fully considered. Furthermore, a gender analysis for the NAP process in the Republic of Guinea is envisaged as part of the support from the NAP Global Network (2019). The proposed NAP project, in close cooperation with the CNC will ensure the results from the said analysis are taken into consideration in refining the activities as required.

South-South and Triangular Cooperation (SSC/TrC)

This project’s approach to South-South and Triangular Cooperation is in line with UNDP’s approach, which is to support South-South and Triangular Cooperation in order to maximize the impact of development, hasten poverty eradication, and accelerate the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals. This project will encourage and strengthen shared self-reliance among developing countries through the exchange of experiences, best practices, and lessons learned. This will be achieved by coordinating with on-going projects in the area

This project is country specific. However, it borrows from the global principles of CCA practice. The project’s learning and knowledge aspect includes an exchange of lessons and best practices in adaptation with other countries in the region facing similar climate shocks and barriers to adaptation. No collaboration with these countries for the implementation of project activities is planned but knowledge platforms within UNDP between country offices and regional offices can be used to share experiences at a regional level.

The strengthening of technical capacities of national actors and structures for data and information production through the establishing of local and regional research networks will provide the basis for strong triangular partnership with regional partners in government and academia. Results of this partnership will encourage similar actions in neighbouring countries as well.

The creation of knowledge platforms between the countries and UNDP regional offices concerning the promotion of sharing experiences and expertise should take into consideration the components of SSTrC in order to set the tone of this kind of cooperation. Equality, reciprocity, and participation should be the guiding principles of this initiative and its organisational model should be flexible and adaptable to different environments.

20 | P a g e

Knowledge

The project will disseminate its results within and beyond the project intervention area through existing information sharing networks and forums. As is relevant and appropriate, the project will identify and participate in scientific networks, policy-based networks and/or any other networks which may benefit the project. The project will identify, analyse and share lessons learned that might be beneficial to the design and implementation of similar projects. There will be continuous information exchange between this project and other projects of similar focus, globally and within the same country or region.

To assure availability of knowledge and lessons gathered from the trainings in 2.2.3, and the tools and/or trainings materials generated for the private sector in 3.2.1 beyond the life of the project, case studies, lessons and materials will be continuously captured and shared through both the UNDP Guinea website and the MEEF/CNC website. This will allow for possible replication or up-scaling of the trainings in other regions and communes, as well as other industries/private sector partners beyond the scope of this project.

Sustainability and Scaling Up

The project has been designed to ensure the sustainability of the outputs and outcomes, in particular the following points.

The key elements of NAP, that ensure the project’s sustainability beyond international support are as follows: a) Improved synergies and coordination are required at the different levels of the economy, and horizontally, between the sectors affected by climate change, to reduce duplication of effort, pool scarce resources for effective use, and ensure a more coherent and comprehensive approach to integration of CCA responses into development planning; b) Strengthened institutional, functional and technical capacities to plan for CCA and improve the existing climate-related knowledge and evidence base to support more comprehensive and holistic assessment of climate risks, vulnerabilities and impacts; and c) Strengthened monitoring capacity to ensure that knowledge and experiences gained during the implementation of adaptation activities (NAP) are effectively integrated into national and sectoral planning and management. Strengthening feedback mechanisms ensures that there is concurrency in the country’s approach to addressing the climate related challenges it faces.

The potential to scale up the project is incorporated into the project design. Beyond the obvious second phase, the potential is large – this phase itself will kick off a potential to fully develop a project idea under outcome 3. Subsequently, the NAP that will be drafted in the second phase, along with the list of scientifically backed adaptation options for priority sectors that are guided by it are expected to generate adaptation project pipeline for Guinea well beyond this first phase of the project. Furthermore, inclusion of the National Research Plan into the government’s budget is further expected to ensure continuity beyond the life of this project.

IV. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness

The Project will benefit from global experience of the NAP-GSP team and from its pools of experts in areas such as Climate Information and Science Experts, Climate Change /Environment Economists, Private Sector Experts, Financial Expert, etc. Stakeholder consultations will be periodically organized both at the national, regional, and provincial levels to disseminate project information and progress report as well as to collect feedbacks and recommendations on the project progress.

The development of sectoral plans and NAP related activities under this project will take into account the work already done under the NDA’s GCF readiness project in terms of the priority setting, stakeholder consultations, and

21 | P a g e

capacity assessments. The NAP project provides resources for much deeper technical work. The NAP project will be elaborating some of the identified country priorities, prepare in-depth training packages to respond to needs identified through capacity assessments, and design the content of workshops by taking earlier stakeholder engagement activities into account.

National and local stakeholders as well as community members have a key role in the implementation and monitoring of the project. During the inception phase of the project, UNDP will consult with all stakeholders, including vulnerable community members, NGOs, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), women and youth organizations, etc., to facilitate an understanding of the roles, functions, and responsibilities within the Project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines.

The project Logic Framework (indicators, means of verification, assumptions) will be reviewed and the quarterly and annual work plans will be refined engaging the communities from the targeted locale. The stakeholders will also be engaged during the mid-term and final evaluations to assess the progress of the project and enable adaptive project management in response to the needs and priorities of the communities. The project will be conducted with very extensive consultations at the national, provincial, and local levels to ensure a participatory approach and avoid any social issue.

Project Management

The project will be implemented following UNDP’s Direct Implementation Modality (DIM). The PMU, the UNDP Office and the key stakeholders will be based in Conakry.

Project Board: The Project Board is comprised of the DNE and UNDP. The Board is responsible for making management decisions by consensus, including the approval of project workplans and revisions. The Board will also address any project level grievances and assess and decide to proceed on project changes through appropriate revisions. In order to ensure UNDP’s ultimate accountability, Project Board decisions should be made in accordance with standards that shall ensure development results, best value money, fairness, integrity, transparency and effective international competition. In the event a consensus cannot be reached within the Board, final decision shall rest with the UNDP. UNDP's tie-breaker vote is to ensure fiduciary compliance only when consensus agreement cannot be reached by the Board. This accountability only extends to the execution of approved activities and budget resources under the project (as approved by the NDA).

Technical Committee: The National Climate Committee will act as a technical committee. It will provide overall guidance to the project and make recommendations to the Project Board. Their specific responsibilities will include reviewing the project progress; ensuring that the agreed deliverables are produced satisfactorily and according to plans; appraising the bi-annual project implementation report, including the quality assessment rating report; and making recommendations for the work plan. The Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests (MEEF) chairs the technical committee. The committee will be comprised of the GCF Focal Point, the National Directorates and BSDs (Planning (DNP), Budget (DGB), Hydraulics (DNH), Livestock (DNE), Promotion of Women and Gender (DNPFG, BSD/MEEF, BSD/MEH, BSD/MA, Met service, DNDL, DNP)), the National Institute of Statistics (INS), Research Centres (Boussoura National Center for Fisheries Sciences (CNSHB), Centre for Scientific Research (CERESCOR), Centre for Environmental Observation, Monitoring and Information (COSIE), Centre for Scientific Research (CERE)), the Environmental Safeguard Fund (FSE), REB, civil society (Guinee Ecologie, Renasess DD, PFNCDB, Carbone Guinee), technical and financial partners (including UN-Habitat), and CCA projects and programmes, among others.

Project Management Unit (PMU): A Project Management Unit (PMU) will implement the project. The PMU will be part of UNDP, but be based at the DNE, and will be responsible for providing daily technical, administrative and financial management of the project. With DNE support, it will establish and coordinate collaboration with all technical departments involved in project implementation. It shall serve as the secretariat for the Project Board and

22 | P a g e

the steering committee. The PMU will be comprised of a Climate Change Policy Specialist acting as a Project Manager (PM), a Climate Science Expert, a UN Volunteer, an M&E Specialist, and an Financial and Administrative Assistant. Representatives from the UNDP and the Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests (MEEF) will serve on a committee that will recruit project staff through a competitive process. The UNDP will fill oversight and quality assurance roles via the PMU.

Project Assurance: UNDP provides a three – tier oversight and quality assurance role involving UNDP staff in Country Offices and at regional and headquarters levels. The quality assurance role supports the Project Board by carrying out objective and independent project oversight and monitoring functions. This role ensures appropriate project management milestones are managed and completed. Project Assurance must be independent of the Project Management function; the Project Board cannot delegate any of its quality assurance responsibilities to the Project Manager. The project assurance role is covered by the accredited entity fee provided by the GCF. As a Delivery Partner to the GCF, UNDP is required to deliver GCF-specific oversight and quality assurance services including: (i) Day-to-day oversight supervision, (ii) Oversight of project completion, (iii) Oversight of project reporting.

The UNDP will also serve as Senior Supplier, providing funding and/or technical expertise to the project (designing, developing, facilitating, procuring and implementing). It has the authority to commit or acquire necessary supplier resources. The UNDP will establish operational partnership agreements with key institutions, organizations and individuals who play a role in the implementation of the project, as defined within this project document. These may be at the local, national or international level, and all will be in accordance with UNDP procedures. Theses partners may include: DNE, INS, COSIE or Guinee Ecologie.

The National Environment Directorate is the Senior Beneficiary, representing the interests of those who will ultimately benefit from the project. The Senior Beneficiary’s primary function within the Board is to ensure the realization of project results from the perspective of project beneficiaries.

Agreement on intellectual property rights and use of logo on the project’s deliverables and disclosure of information: To accord proper acknowledgement to the GCF for providing grant funding, the GCF logo will appear together with the UNDP logo on all promotional materials, other written materials like publications developed by the project, and project hardware. Any citation on publications regarding projects funded by the GCF will also accord proper acknowledgement to the GCF. Information will be disclosed in accordance with relevant policies notably the UNDP Disclosure Policy11 and the relevant GCF policy. See also GCF Branding Guidelines.

Disclosure of information: Information will be disclosed in accordance with relevant policies notably the UNDP Disclosure Policy12 and the GCF Disclosure Policy13.

11 See http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/transparency/information_disclosurepolicy/ 12 See http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/transparency/information_disclosurepolicy/ 13 See https://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/184476/GCF_B.12_24_-_Comprehensive_Information_Disclosure_Policy_of_the_Fund.pdf/f551e954-baa9-4e0d-bec7-352194b49bcb

23 | P a g e

V. PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

This project will contribute to the following Sustainable Development Goal (s): SDG1, SDG3, SDG5, SDG10, SDG11, SDG13, SDG17

This project will contribute to the following country outcome included in the UNDAF/Country Programme Document: UNDAF Outcome 2: By 2022, the national institutions, civil society and the private sector will have implemented the policies that improve food security, sustainable management of environment, resilience of populations to climate change and disaster risk management.

This project will be linked to the following output of the UNDP Strategic Plan’s Output: 2.3.1 Data and risk-informed development policies, plans, systems and financing incorporate integrated solutions to reduce disaster risks, enable climate change adaptation and mitigation, and prevent crisis

1. LOGICAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Outcomes Baseline TargetsActivities

(brief description and deliverables)

Anticipated duration: 24 months

Monthly implementation plan of activities1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Outcome 1:

Research-policy linkages and knowledge base are strengthened to inform adaptation planning and decision-making

Sub-Outcome 1.1:

Establish Research-policy linkages in support to NAP formulation and implementation

Absence of research agenda to support national planning and adaptation,

despite the existence of several research institutions intervening on CCA

National Research Plan aligned with the 2040 Vision, the PNDES and the NAP

Activity 1.1.1:

Facilitate the establishment of a Research-Policy working group (RPWG) in support to NAP formulation and implementation. The RPWG is under the National Climate Committee umbrella (activity 2.1.1).

Deliverables 1.1.1:

•TOR for the RPWG drafted and working group established by M6.

•Three meetings of the RPWG to discuss research needs emerging from the NAP formulation and implementation (every 6 months), guided by the TOR produced in previous deliverable.

•Three set of recommendations presented to the CNC on ways to address research needs during NAP formulation and implementation. (every 6 months)

X

Activity 1.1.2:

Support the formulation of a Research Plan on Environment and Climate Change that supports NAP implementation in accordance with Guinea Vision 2040 and the PNDES.

Deliverables 1.1.2:•Four consultation workshops organized with research institutions and policy makers, by M16.• Research Plan on environment and Climate Change developed and validated through a national workshop by M24, (linked to activities 1.2.2 and 1.2.3).

X X

24 | P a g e

Outcomes Baseline TargetsActivities

(brief description and deliverables)

Anticipated duration: 24 months

Monthly implementation plan of activities1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Sub-Outcome 1.2:Develop a climate risks and vulnerability evidence base that informs the identification and prioritization of adaptation options in the sectors of agriculture, livestock and forestry (PND).

Existing climate projections date back to 2001, and are based on SRES scenarios

Absence of in-depth climate risks and vulnerability assessments in response to the PNDES priorities in key socio-economic sectors

Updated climate projections based on AR5 RCP models

Vulnerability assessments carried out in key PNDES priority sectors

Activity 1.2.1:

Use the findings of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report to support the update of Guinea climate projections to inform climate risk and vulnerability assessments in agriculture, livestock, forestry (activity 1.2.2.).

Deliverables 1.2.1:•Climate change projections conducted and validated by M13.

•Report (including documentation of the process) produced and shared (including to the private sector) as a learning tool by M13

X

Activity 1.2.2:

In collaboration with research institutions, and based on results from 1.2.1, conduct climate risk and vulnerability assessments and identify coping measures in agriculture (Upper Guinea), livestock (Mid-Guinea) and forestry (North-East in Upper Guinea North-East in Upper Guinea), based on updated climate projections and PNDES priorities. These assessments will include analysis of gender differentiated impacts and socio-economic analyses.

Deliverables 1.2.2:

•Training and mentoring on CRVA provided to research institutions and sectoral ministries. Organize an initial five-day training workshop by M14.

•Three CRVA conducted by national research institutions. The institutions will validate the CRVA through three workshops by M22 (one for each sector).

•Policy recommendations developed for integration of CCA in development planning by M22, and recommendations shared with sectoral Strategic and Development Offices (BSDs).

X X

Activity 1.2.3:

Based on activity 1.2.2 and existing CRVA, prioritize adaptation options in the priority sectors of agriculture, livestock, forestry, coastal and water resources

Deliverables 1.2.3:

•Report with set of criteria and methodology proposed to be used for the prioritization by M22. Validate the criteria through a consultative workshop.

•Report with compendium of adaptation options per sector drafted based on activity 1.2.2 by M24.

•National workshop to validate adaptation options by M24. This will assist in the drafting of the NAP document (second phase of the project). The options can also be a part of the GCF country programme for Guinea. These findings will also be shared with the private sector.

X

Outcome 2 Sub-Outcome The National CNC mandate is Activity 2.1.1: X X

25 | P a g e

Outcomes Baseline TargetsActivities

(brief description and deliverables)

Anticipated duration: 24 months

Monthly implementation plan of activities1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

CCA mainstreaming is facilitated by reinforcing coordination and M&E mechanisms

2.1:

Operationalize a sustained and suitable coordination mechanism to support mid-term and long-term adaptation

Climate Committee (CNC) is not fulfilling its mandate of mainstreaming climate into sectoral policies.

strengthened to mainstream climate into sectoral policies.

Operationalize the National Climate Committee (CNC), which will coordinate adaptation planning and implementation with the National Environment Directorate acting as its secretariat.

Deliverables 2.1.1:

•Report with recommendation for revision of CNC decree by M4.

•Operational manual for CNC and members, including linkages with the RPWG to guide the NAP process drafted by M6.

•6 meetings of the CNC, as the project’s Technical Committee. Particular attention will be paid to equal gender representation.

•CNC multi-annual workplan drafted by M11.

•A national workshop to validate CNC multi-annual workplan by M11.

•A three days NAP process workshop conducted for CNC members by M11.

•Eight awareness-raising meetings on NAP process in the following eight administrative regions by M9: Boké, Conakry, Faranah, Kankan, Kindia, Labé, Mamou and N'Zérékoré.

Activity 2.1.2:

Under the supervision of the CNC and the coordination of the National Environment Directorate, and using information gathered through 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, support the establishment of a dashboard and a reporting system for better coordination of climate change interventions

Deliverables 2.1.2:

•A report outlining information on climate change related projects and programmes, including type of intervention, expected results, indicators, target areas, budget, progress and gaps produced by M13.

•A dashboard and a report template developed by M18 to be used by the DNE to collect information from projects and monitor their implementation for better coordination.

•Annual report on projects and programme interventions produced by DNE and presented to the CNC by M24.

•A report in form of an Action Plan is presented to the CNC by M24, outlining the resources developed under the first phase, with clear guidance on their utilization and responsible actors to help guide the second phase of the project.

X X

Sub-Outcome

2.2: Enhance CCA Mainstreaming into sectoral and local planning and

CCA is not considered in the PPBSE manual of procedures

Planning and budgeting guidelines developed and integrated into the PPBSE manual of procedures

Activity 2.2.1:

Draft technical guidelines on CCA mainstreaming into sectoral planning and budgeting in collaboration with the Directorate of Planning and Prospective (DNP), the Directorate of Public Investment (DNIP), the Directorate of Budget, sectoral Strategic and Development Offices (BSDS), and relevant ongoing initiatives. These guidelines will inform the existing PPBSE manual of procedures (including the medium-term expenditure framework

X X

26 | P a g e

Outcomes Baseline TargetsActivities

(brief description and deliverables)

Anticipated duration: 24 months

Monthly implementation plan of activities1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

budgeting The new PDL guidelines integrating CCA have been drafted but not yet tested

The PDL second generation is tested in at least four communes

(CDMT))

Deliverables 2.2.1:

•Technical guidelines drafted and validated through a national workshop by M12.

•By M20, two trainings are organized on the technical guidelines (three days for each) for 40 Staff (50% of whom will be women) from the DNP, DNIP, and sectoral BSDs.

Activity 2.2.2:

Support the testing of the technical guidelines in the water resources sector by providing an expert for the formulation of the National Integrated Water Resources Management Plan (PANGIRE) and its associated CDMTs

Deliverables 2.2.2:

•A national workshop to validate the report is organised by M18.

•Three months of technical assistance provided to the National Directorate of Hydraulics (DNH) and the sectoral BSD for the development of the CDMT (M12-M15).

•A report on the sectoral process is documented and shared as a learning tool for CCA mainstreaming into sectoral planning by M22.

X X

Activity 2.2.3:

In collaboration with the National Association of municipalities of Guinea (ANCG) and the National Directorate of Local Development (DNDL), test the implementation of the new PDL and Annual investment Plans (PIA) and provide local authorities with information on climate finance.

Deliverables 2.2.3:

•Four trainings (three days each) are organized, targeting four communes already integrating climate change through the EbA initiative,, decentralized institutions and ANCG’s technical staff using new PDL guidelines by ANCG and DNDL by M12.

•4 missions (5-day each) to test the implementation of the new PDL in the four communes by M18.

•Eight trainings (three days each) on climate finance and access in support of the implementation of the new PDL, targeting the four communes, are organized by M20.

XX X

Sub-Outcome 2.3:

Establish CCA M&E mechanisms in coherence with the existing national M&E system

Lack of M&E of CCA at national, sectoral or local levels

CCA M&E framework established and aligned with the INS M&E framework

Activity 2.3.1:

Establish a M&E framework on CCA in accordance with the national M&E framework, utilizing data gathered from 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, under the leadership of the DNE and COSIE, and in close collaboration with the National Institute of Statistics (INS), relevant BSDs and the RPWG.

Deliverables 2.3.1:

•An agreement (between the DNE, COSIE, INS, and BSDs) to define adaptation indicators and collect data and reporting under the

X X X X

27 | P a g e

Outcomes Baseline TargetsActivities

(brief description and deliverables)

Anticipated duration: 24 months

Monthly implementation plan of activities1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

supervision of the CNC by M11.

•CCA M&E framework developed including indicators, method of data collects and sources based on the NDC, PNDES and SDG M&E frameworks, and create an Annual Statistical Yearbook by M13.

•A consultation workshop for the validation of assessment gaps is organized by M14.

•A second validation workshop for the proposed M&E frameworkis organized by M16.

Activity 2.3.2:

Support the testing of the M&E framework through the collect of baseline data during the formulation of the 2019 Annual Statistical Yearbook

Deliverables 2.3.2:

•2 training workshops for INS, COSIE, DNE and BSDs teams on the collection of data by M18.

•Report on baseline data collected by a team comprised of INS, COSIE, DNE and BSDs staff by M19.

•The Annual Statistical Yearbook drafted to report the baseline data by M24.

X X

Outcome 3:

A national funding mechanism and private sector engagement are expanded to support CCA financing

Sub-Outcome 3.1:

Support the Environmental Safeguard Fund (FSE) mechanism in raising awareness of funding sources and expanding mandate for the financing of adaptation actions

The Environmental Safeguard Fund (FSE) does not provide funding to adaptation specific actions

Recommendations made to expand the Environmental Safeguard Fund (FSE) mandate and sources of funding for CCA financing

Activity 3.1.1:

In collaboration with RPWG (1.1.1) and CNC (2.1.1), conduct an institutional assessment of the Environmental Safeguard Fund (FSE) and propose recommendations for its leveraging as a mechanism for CCA financing and alternative revenue incomes

Deliverables 3.1.1:

•A Report on institutional assessment drafted and validated a workshop by M16.

•By M18, A study is conducted and validated on the identification of potential sources of additional funding for the FSE (including international climate finance), in particular the technical feasibility of the introduction of door taxation and the revision of the methods of levying environmental taxes.

X

Activity 3.1.2:

Based on activities 3.1.1, develop a strategic plan for the FSE, integrating recommendations emerging from previous activities and methods of improvement, taking into consideration NAP and NDC implementation requirements.

Deliverables 3.1.2:

•A strategic plan drafted and validated by M20. The plan will include legal measures to be taken by the government for the FSE restructuring.

X

28 | P a g e

Outcomes Baseline TargetsActivities

(brief description and deliverables)

Anticipated duration: 24 months

Monthly implementation plan of activities1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

•At least five awareness-raising meetings are organized by M24 as part of a national campaign, to educate decision-makers, parliament, and the private sector on the NAP process, options for adaptation (informed by results of outcome 2) and proposed measures on mobilizing private sector to support these options.

Sub-Outcome 3.2:

Enhance the mining sector’s engagement on adaptation and climate financing

The mining private sector is organized around the Bauxite Environment Network (REB) but has not established a formal partnership with the adaptation community

Dialogue platform between the REB and the National Climate Committee (CNC) established

Activity 3.2.1:

In collaboration with the Chamber of Mine of Guinea, support the implementation of the Bauxite Environment Network (REB) 2018-2019 action plan to facilitate private sector engagement on adaptation and climate financing

Deliverables 3.2.1:

•Two trainings (five days for each) for the REB mining, agribusiness, and financing institutions on ecosystem-based adaptation and climate finance access are organized by M14. These workshops will target 24 participants (at least 25% of whom will be women).

•By M22, one project idea on the EBA’s approach for further development is drafted. This will be done in collaboration with the public sector.

X

Activity 3.2.2:

Support the establishment of a public-private dialogue between companies intervening in the mining sector and the adaptation community (CNC-activity 2.1.1) to deliver adaptation benefits for the most vulnerable populations in the mining areas

Deliverables 3.2.2:

•REB 2020-2021 action plan formulated by M17. The plan will be based on the assessment of the 2019-2020 REB action plan, mining companies’ strategies, the NAP and the NDC.

•Two exchange meetings between the CNC and the REB agribusiness, and financing institutions on their respective activities are organized. These organizations will recommendations ways to feed their respective annual workplans by M24.

X

29 | P a g e

VI. MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) PLAN

The project results as outlined in the project results framework will be monitored and reported bi-annually and evaluated periodically during project implementation to ensure the project effectively achieves these results.

Project-level monitoring and evaluation will be undertaken in compliance with UNDP requirements as outlined in the UNDP POPP and UNDP Evaluation Policy. While these UNDP requirements are not outlined in this project document, the UNDP Country Office will work with the relevant project stakeholders to ensure UNDP M&E requirements are met in a timely fashion and to high quality standards. Additional mandatory GCF-specific M&E requirements will be undertaken in accordance with relevant GCF policies.

In addition to these mandatory UNDP and GCF M&E requirements, other M&E activities deemed necessary to support project-level adaptive management will be agreed during the Project Inception Workshop and will be detailed in the Inception Workshop Report. This will include the exact role of project target groups and other stakeholders in project M&E activities including national/regional institutes assigned to undertake project monitoring.

M&E oversight and monitoring responsibilities:

Project Manager: The Project Manager is responsible for day-to-day project management and regular monitoring of project results and risks, including social and environmental risks. The Project Manager will ensure that all project personnel maintain a high level of transparency, responsibility and accountability in M&E and reporting of project results. The Project Manager will inform the Project Board, the UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor of any delays or difficulties as they arise during implementation so that appropriate support and corrective measures can be adopted. The Project Manager will develop annual work plans to support the efficient implementation of the project. The Project Manager will also ensure that the standard UNDP and GCF M&E requirements are fully met.

Project Board: The Project Board will take corrective action as needed to ensure the project achieves the desired results. The Project Board will hold project reviews to assess the performance of the project and appraise the Annual Work Plan for the following year. In the project’s final year, the Project Board will hold an end-of-project review to capture lessons learned, discuss opportunities for scaling up, and highlight project results and lessons learned with relevant audiences. This final review meeting will also discuss the findings outlined in the project terminal evaluation report and the management response.

Project Implementing Partner: The UNDP CO, as the Implementing Partner for the project, is responsible for providing all required information and data necessary for timely, comprehensive and evidence-based project reporting, including results and financial data, as necessary and appropriate. The UNDP CO will strive to ensure project-level M&E is undertaken effectively and is aligned with national systems so that the data used by and generated by the project supports national systems.

UNDP Country Office: The UNDP Country Office will support the Project Manager as needed, including through annual supervision missions. The annual supervision missions will take place according to the schedule outlined in

30 | P a g e

the annual work plan. Supervision mission reports will be circulated to the project team and Project Board within one month of the mission. The UNDP Country Office will initiate and organize key M&E activities including the Annual Project Report, the independent terminal evaluation. The UNDP Country Office will also ensure that the standard UNDP and GCF M&E requirements are fulfilled to the highest quality.

The UNDP Country Office is responsible for complying with all UNDP project-level M&E requirements as outlined in the UNDP POPP. This includes ensuring the UNDP Quality Assurance Assessment during implementation is undertaken annually; the regular updating of the ATLAS risk log; and, the updating of the UNDP gender marker on an annual basis based on gender mainstreaming progress reported in the Bi-Annual Project Report and the UNDP ROAR. Any quality concerns flagged during these M&E activities (e.g. Annual Project Report quality assessment ratings) must be addressed by the UNDP Country Office and the Project Manager.

The UNDP Country Office will support GCF staff (or their designate) during any missions undertaken in the country and support any ad-hoc checks or ex post evaluations that may be required by the GCF.

The UNDP Country Office will retain all project records for this project for up to seven years after project financial closure in order to support any ex-post reviews and evaluations undertaken by the UNDP Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) and/or the GCF.

UNDP-Global Environmental Finance Unit (UNDP-GEF): The UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisors and the UNDP-GEF Directorate will provide additional M&E and implementation oversight, quality assurance and troubleshooting support as outlined in the management arrangement section above.

i. Audit :

The project will be audited according to UNDP Financial Regulations and Rules and applicable audit policies on DIM implemented projects.xv Additional audits may be undertaken at the request of the GCF.

ii. Additional monitoring and reporting requirements:

Inception Workshop and Report: A project inception workshop will be held within two months after the project document has been signed by relevant parties to:

a) Re-orient project stakeholders to the project strategy and discuss any changes in the overall context that influence project strategy and implementation;

b) Discuss the roles and responsibilities of the project team, including reporting and communication lines and conflict resolution mechanisms;

c) Review the results framework and finalize the indicators, means of verification and monitoring plan;

d) Discuss reporting, monitoring and evaluation roles and responsibilities and finalize the M&E budget; identify national/regional institutes to be involved in project-level M&E;

e) Identify how project M&E can support national monitoring of SDG indicators as relevant;

f) Update and review responsibilities for monitoring the various project plans and strategies, including the risk log; g) Review financial reporting procedures and mandatory requirements, and agree on the arrangements for the periodic audit; and h) Plan and schedule Project Board meetings and finalize the first-year annual work plan.

31 | P a g e

The inception report will be cleared by the UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Adviser and approved by the Project Board.

GCF Bi-Annual Project Report (due June and December each year of project implementation ): The Project Manager, the UNDP Country Office, and the UNDPGEF Regional Technical Advisor will provide objective input to the bi-annual project reports covering the 6 months in the calendar year for each year of project implementation. The Project Manager will ensure that the indicators included in the project results framework are monitored annually in advance so that progress can be included in the report.

The Bi-Annual Project Report will also be shared with the Project Board. The UNDP Country Office will coordinate the inputs of other stakeholders to the report as appropriate. The quality rating of the previous year’s report will be used to inform the preparation of the subsequent report.

Lessons learned and knowledge generation: Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention area through existing information sharing networks and forums. The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to the project. The project will identify, analyse and share lessons learned that might be beneficial to the design and implementation of similar projects and disseminate these lessons widely. There will be continuous information exchange between this project and other projects of similar focus in the same country, region and globally.

Final Independent Evaluation Report: A final independent evaluation report will be completed by operational closure of the project. The final evaluation will take place upon completion of all major project outputs and activities. The final evaluation process will begin at least three months before operational closure of the project allowing the evaluation mission to proceed while the project team is still in place, yet ensuring the project is close enough to completion for the evaluation team to reach conclusions on key aspects such as project sustainability.

The Project Manager will remain on contract until the final evaluation report and management response have been finalized. The terms of reference, the evaluation process and the final evaluation report will follow the standard templates and guidance prepared by the UNDP IEO available on the UNDP Evaluation Resource Center. As noted in this guidance, the evaluation will be ‘independent, impartial and rigorous’. The consultants that will be hired to undertake the assignment will be independent from organizations that were involved in designing, executing or advising on the project to be evaluated. Additional quality assurance support is available from the UNDP-GEF Directorate. The final evaluation report will be cleared by the UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Adviser, and will be approved by the Project Board. The final evaluation report will be publicly available in English on the UNDP ERC.

The UNDP Country Office will include the planned project evaluations in the UNDP Country Office evaluation plan and will upload the evaluation reports in English and the corresponding management response to the UNDP Evaluation Resource Centre (ERC).

Final Report: The project’s final Annual Project Report along with the final independent evaluation report and corresponding management response will serve as the final project report package. The final project report package shall be discussed with the Project Board during an end-of-project review meeting to discuss lesson learned and opportunities for scaling up.

32 | P a g e

Mandatory GCF M&E Requirements and M&E Budget: GCF M&E requirements Primary responsibility Indicative costs (US$) Time frame

GCF grantInception Workshop UNDP Country Office USD 10,000 August 2020

Inception Report and baseline assessments

Project Manager None September 2020

Standard UNDP monitoring and reporting requirements as outlined in the UNDP POPP

UNDP Country Office None Annually

Risk management (including Atlas Risk logs)

Project ManagerCountry Office

None Quarterly, annually

Monitoring of indicators in project results framework (including hiring of external experts, project surveys, data analysis etc…)

Project Manager USD 10,000 Annually

GCF Bi-Annual Project Report Project Manager and UNDP Country Office and UNDP-GEF Unit

NoneBi-Annually

Audit of Project as per UNDP audit policies

UNDP Country Office USD 4,500 As per UNDP Audit policies

Lessons learned, case studies, and knowledge generation

Project Manager USD 10,000 Annually

Project Board meetings Project BoardUNDP Country OfficeProject Manager

None At minimum annually

Supervision missions UNDP Country OfficeNone

Two per year

Oversight missions UNDP-GEF UnitNone

Troubleshooting as needed

GCF learning missions/site visits UNDP Country Office and Project Manager and UNDP-GEF Unit USD 15,000

To be determined.

Final independent evaluation and management response

UNDP Country Office and Project team and UNDP-GEF Unit

USD 10,000 Q3 2022

Translation of evaluation reports into English

UNDP Country Office USD 3,000 As required. GCF will only accept reports in English.

TOTAL indicative COST Excluding project team staff time, and UNDP staff and travel expenses

USD 62,500( 4.23% of Total GCF

grant)

VII. GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

33 | P a g e

Project Manager

Project Board

Senior BeneficiaryNational Environment

Directorate (DNE)

ExecutiveUNDP

Senior SupplierUNDP

Project Oversight and Assurance

UNDP Country office (DRR)

Regional Service Center (RTA)HQ (PTA)

Project Support (Technical committee)

GCF Focal Point, the National Directorates and BSDs (Planning (DNP),

Budget (DGB), Hydraulics (DNH), Livestock (DNE), Promotion of Women

and Gender (DNPFG, BSD/MEEF, BSD/MEH, BSD/MA, Met service, DNDL, DNP)), the National Institute of Statistics

(INS), Research Centres (Boussoura National Center for Fisheries Sciences

(CNSHB), Centre for Scientific Research (CERESCOR), Centre for Environmental

Observation, Monitoring and Information (COSIE), Centre for Scientific Research (CERE)), the Environmental Safeguard Fund (FSE), REB, civil society (Guinee

Ecologie, Renasess DD, PFNCDB, Carbone Guinee), technical and financial partners (including UN-Habitat), and CCA projects

and programmes

Project Organisation Structure

1 Climate Science Expert1 M&E Specialist1 UN Volunteer

1 Finance & Admin. Assistant

Roles and responsibilities of the project’s governance mechanism:

The project will be implemented following UNDP’s direct implementation modality, in accordance with the terms of conditions set forth in the Second Amended Readiness and Preparatory Support Grant Framework agreement between UNDP and the GCF. (NOTE: As of the date of this project document, the Framework Readiness and Preparatory Support Grant Agreement between the Green Climate Fund and UNDP, dated 6th March 2018, is being amended. The implementation of the readiness activities under this proposal will be in accordance with, and subject to the execution and effectiveness of, the Second Amended and Restated Framework Readiness and Preparatory Support Grant Agreement between UNDP and the GCF

Implementing Partner: The Implementing Partner for this project is UNDP. UNDP, through the CO, is therefore responsible and accountable for managing this project, including the monitoring and evaluation of project interventions, achieving project outcomes, and for the effective use of UNDP resources. UNDP is responsible for:

Approving and signing the multiyear workplan; Approving and signing the combined delivery report at the end of the year; and,

A strict firewall will be maintained between project oversight costs and personnel and implementation of the project costs and personnel.

The project organisation structure is as follows:

Project Board: The Project Board will provide overall guidance and quality assurance for the project, ensure adherence to the DIM guidelines and ensure compliance with GCF and UNDP policies and procedures. The Project Board is responsible for making, by consensus, management decisions when guidance is required by the Project Manager. Project Board decisions will be made in accordance with standards that shall ensure management for

34 | P a g e

development results, best value for money, fairness, integrity, transparency and effective international competition. This accountability only extends to the execution of approved activities and budget resources under the project (as approved by the NDA). The Project Board will meet at least once a year. Representatives of local governments and independent third parties, such as international or national NGOs, can attend the augmented Project Board meetings as observers.

In case consensus cannot be reached within the Board, the UNDP Resident Representative (or their designate) will mediate to find consensus and, if this cannot be found, will take the final decision to ensure project implementation is not unduly delayed.

Specific responsibilities of the Project Board include: Provide overall guidance and direction to the project, ensuring it remains within any specified constraints; Address project issues as raised by the project manager; Provide guidance on new project risks, and agree on possible countermeasures and management actions

to address specific risks; Agree on project manager’s tolerances as required; Review the project progress, and provide direction and recommendations to ensure that the agreed

deliverables are produced satisfactorily according to plans; Appraise the annual project implementation report, including the quality assessment rating report; make

recommendations for the workplan; Provide ad hoc direction and advice for exceptional situations when the project manager’s tolerances are

exceeded; and Assess and decide to proceed on project changes through appropriate revisions.

The composition of the Project Board must include the following roles:

Executive: The Executive is an individual who represents ownership of the project who will chair the Project Board. This role can be held by a representative from the Government Cooperating Agency or UNDP. The Executive is: UNDP.

The Executive is ultimately responsible for the project, supported by the Senior Beneficiary and Senior Supplier. The Executive’s role is to ensure that the project is focused throughout its life cycle on achieving its objectives and delivering outputs that will contribute to higher level outcomes. The executive has to ensure that the project gives value for money, ensuring cost-conscious approach to the project, balancing the demands of beneficiary and suppler.

Specific Responsibilities: (as part of the above responsibilities for the Project Board) Ensure that there is a coherent project organisation structure and logical set of plans; Set tolerances in the AWP and other plans as required for the Project Manager; Monitor and control the progress of the project at a strategic level; Ensure that risks are being tracked and mitigated as effectively as possible; Brief relevant stakeholders about project progress; Organise and chair Project Board meetings.

Senior Supplier: The Senior Supplier is an individual or group representing the interests of the parties concerned which provide funding and/or technical expertise to the project (designing, developing, facilitating, procuring, implementing). The Senior Supplier’s primary function within the Board is to provide guidance regarding the technical feasibility of the project. The Senior Supplier role must have the authority to commit or acquire supplier resources required. If necessary, more than one person may be required for this role. Typically, the implementing partner, UNDP and/or donor(s) would be represented under this role. The Senior Suppler is: UNDP.

Specific Responsibilities (as part of the above responsibilities for the Project Board)

35 | P a g e

Make sure that progress towards the outputs remains consistent from the supplier perspective; Promote and maintain focus on the expected project output(s) from the point of view of supplier

management; Ensure that the supplier resources required for the project are made available; Contribute supplier opinions on Project Board decisions on whether to implement recommendations on

proposed changes; Arbitrate on, and ensure resolution of, any supplier priority or resource conflicts.

Senior Beneficiary: The Senior Beneficiary is an individual or group of individuals representing the interests of those who will ultimately benefit from the project. The Senior Beneficiary’s primary function within the Board is to ensure the realization of project results from the perspective of project beneficiaries. The Senior Beneficiary role is held by a representative of the government or civil society. The Senior Beneficiary is: National Environment Directorate (DNE).

The Senior Beneficiary is responsible for validating the needs and for monitoring that the solution will meet those needs within the constraints of the project. The Senior Beneficiary role monitors progress against targets and quality criteria. This role may require more than one person to cover all the beneficiary interests. For the sake of effectiveness, the role should not be split between too many people.

Specific Responsibilities (as part of the above responsibilities for the Project Board) Prioritize and contribute beneficiaries’ opinions on Project Board decisions on whether to implement

recommendations on proposed changes; Specification of the Beneficiary’s needs is accurate, complete and unambiguous; Implementation of activities at all stages is monitored to ensure that they will meet the beneficiary’s

needs and are progressing towards that target; Impact of potential changes is evaluated from the beneficiary point of view; Risks to the beneficiaries are frequently monitored.

Project Manager: The Project Manager has the authority to run the project on a day-to-day basis on behalf of the Project Board within the constraints laid down by the Board. The Project Manager is responsible for day-to-day management and decision-making for the project. The Project Manager’s prime responsibility is to ensure that the project produces the results specified in the project document, to the required standard of quality and within the specified constraints of time and cost.

The Implementing Partner appoints the Project Manager, who should be different from the Implementing Partner’s representative in the Project Board.

Specific responsibilities include:

Provide direction and guidance to project team(s)/ responsible party (ies); Liaise with the Project Board to assure the overall direction and integrity of the project; Identify and obtain any support and advice required for the management, planning and control of the

project; Responsible for project administration; Plan the activities of the project and monitor progress against the project results framework and the

approved annual workplan; Mobilize personnel, goods and services, training and micro-capital grants to initiative activities, including

drafting terms of reference and work specifications, and overseeing all contractors’ work; Monitor events as determined in the project monitoring schedule plan/timetable, and update the plan as

required; Manage requests for the provision of financial resources by UNDP; Monitor financial resources and accounting to ensure the accuracy and reliability of financial reports; Be responsible for preparing and submitting financial reports to UNDP on a quarterly basis;

36 | P a g e

Manage and monitor the project risks initially identified and submit new risks to the project board for consideration and decision on possible actions if required; update the status of these risks by maintaining the project risks log;

Capture lessons learned during project implementation; Prepare the annual workplan for the following year; and update the Atlas Project Management module if

access is made available. Prepare the Bi-Annual Project Report and submit the final report to the Project Board; Based on the Bi-Annual Project Report and the Project Board review, prepare the AWP for the following

year. Identify follow-on actions and submit them for consideration to the Project Board; Ensure the final evaluation process is undertaken as per the UNDP guidance, and submit the final

evaluation report to the Project Board;

Project Support (Technical Committee): The National Climate Committee will act as a technical committee. It will provide overall guidance to the project and make recommendations to the Project Board. Their specific responsibilities will include reviewing the project progress; ensuring that the agreed deliverables are produced satisfactorily and according to plans; appraising the bi-annual project implementation report, including the quality assessment rating report; and making recommendations for the work plan. The Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests (MEEF) chairs the technical committee. The committee will be comprised of the GCF Focal Point, the National Directorates and BSDs (Planning (DNP), Budget (DGB), Hydraulics (DNH), Livestock (DNE), Promotion of Women and Gender (DNPFG, BSD/MEEF, BSD/MEH, BSD/MA, Met service, DNDL, DNP)), the National Institute of Statistics (INS), Research Centres (Boussoura National Center for Fisheries Sciences (CNSHB), Centre for Scientific Research (CERESCOR), Centre for Environmental Observation, Monitoring and Information (COSIE), Centre for Scientific Research (CERE)), the Environmental Safeguard Fund (FSE), REB, civil society (Guinee Ecologie, Renasess DD, PFNCDB, Carbone Guinee), technical and financial partners (including UN-Habitat), and CCA projects and programmes, among others.

Project Assurance: UNDP provides a three – tier supervision, oversight and quality assurance role – funded by the agency fee – involving UNDP staff in Country Offices and at regional and headquarters levels. Project Assurance must be totally independent of the Project Management function. The quality assurance role supports the Project Board and Project Management Unit by carrying out objective and independent project oversight and monitoring functions. This role ensures appropriate project management milestones are managed and completed. The Project Board cannot delegate any of its quality assurance responsibilities to the Project Manager. This project oversight and quality assurance role is covered by the accredited entity fee provided by the GCF.

As a Delivery Partner to the GCF, UNDP delivers the following GCF-specific oversight and quality assurance services: (i) day to day project oversight supervision covering the start-up and implementation; (ii) oversight of project completion; and (iii) oversight of project reporting. A detailed list of the services is presented in the table below.

37 | P a g e

Function Detailed description of activityTypical GCF

fee breakdown

Day-to-day oversight supervision

1. Project start-up: In the case of readiness proposals, if needed assist the NDA and/or government

partners prepare all the necessary documentation for approval of a readiness grant proposal

Prepare the Project Document with the government counterparts Technical and financial clearance for the Project Document Organize Local Project Appraisal Committee Project document signature Ensure quick project start and first disbursement Hire project management unit staff Coordinate/prepare the project inception workshop Oversee finalization of the project inception workshop report

2. Project implementation: Project Board : Coordinate/prepare/attend annual Project Board Meetings Annual work plans : Quality assurance of annual work plans prepared by the

project team; issue UNDP annual work plan; strict monitoring of the implementation of the work plan and the project timetable according to the approved readiness proposal

Prepare GCF/UNDP bi-annual project report : review input provided by Project Manager/team; provide specialized technical support and complete required sections

Portfolio Report (readiness): Prepare and review a Portfolio Report of all readiness activities done by UNDP in line with Clause 9.02 of the Readiness Framework Agreement.

Procurement plan : Monitor the implementation of the project procurement plan

Supervision missions : Participate in and support in-country GCF visits/learning mission/site visits; conduct annual supervision/oversight site missions

Risk management and troubleshooting : Ensure that risks are properly managed, and that the risk log in Atlas (UNDP financial management system) is regularly updated; Troubleshooting project missions from the regional technical advisors or management and programme support unit staff as and when necessary (i.e. high risk, slow performing projects)

Project budget: Provide quality assurance of project budget and financial transactions according to UNDP and GCF policies

Performance management of staff : where UNDP supervises or co-supervises project staff

Corporate level policy functions : Overall fiduciary and financial policies, accountability and oversight; Treasury Functions including banking information and arrangements and cash management; Travel services, asset management, and procurement policies and support; Management and oversight of the audit exercise for all GCF projects; Information Systems and Technology provision, maintenance and support; Legal advice and contracting/procurement support policy advice; Strategic Human Resources Management and related entitlement administration; Office of Audit and Investigations oversight/investigations into allegations of misconduct, corruption, wrongdoing and fraud; and social and environmental compliance unit and grievance mechanism.

70%

38 | P a g e

Function Detailed description of activityTypical GCF

fee breakdown

Oversight of project completion

Initiate, coordinate, finalize the Project Completion Report, Final Independent Evaluation Report and management response

Quality assurance of final evaluation report and management response Independent Evaluation Office assessment of final evaluation reports; evaluation

guidance and standard setting Quality assurance of final cumulative budget implementation and reporting to

the GCF Return of any un-spent GCF resources to the GCF

10%

Oversight of project reporting

Technical review of project reports: quality assurance and technical inputs in relevant project reports

Quality assurance of the GCF bi-annual project report Preparation and certification of UNDP annual financial statements and donor

reports Prepare and submit fund specific financial reports

20%

TOTAL 100%

Governance role for project target groups:

Local stakeholders and community members have a key role in the implementation and monitoring of the project. During the inception phase of the project, the NDA-GCF and DNE working together with UNDP, will consult with all stakeholders, including vulnerable community members, NGOs, Community Based Organization, civil society, women organizations, etc., to facilitate an understanding of the roles, functions, and responsibilities within the Project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The project Logic Framework (indicators, means of verification, assumptions) will be reviewed and the quarterly and annual plans will be refined engaging the communities from the targeted counties. The stakeholders will also be engaged during the mid-term and final evaluations to assess the progress of the project and enable adaptive project management in response to the needs and priorities of the communities.

VIII. FINANCIAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

The total cost of the project is USD 1,502,043. This is financed through a GCF grant. UNDP, as the GCF Delivery Partner, is responsible for the oversight and quality assurance of the execution of GCF resources.

GCF Disbursement schedule: GCF grant funds will be disbursed in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the Second Amended and Restated Framework Readiness and Preparatory Support Grant Agreement. The Country Office will submit an annual work plan to the UNDP-NCE Unit and comply with the GCF milestones in order for the next tranche of project funds to be released. All efforts must be made to achieve 80% delivery annually.

39 | P a g e

Disbursement requests will be managed at portfolio level by UNDP-NCE MPSU in NY, as agreed in the Second Amended and Restated Framework Readiness and Preparatory Support Grant Agreement” between GCF and UNDP. Under Clause 4 of said Second Amended and Restated Framework Readiness and Preparatory Support Grant Agreement, the Delivery Partner shall be required, when submitting Requests for Disbursement, to provide confirmation or evidence that at least 70% of the aggregate amounts previously disbursed by GCF have been committed and/or expended for Eligible Expenditures.

GCF disbursement request for this proposal will only be submitted upon execution and effectiveness of a second amendment to the Framework Readiness and Preparatory Support Grant Agreement between UNDP and the GCF. An Indicative Disbursement Schedule is provided below for reference.

Month 6 months 12 months 18 months 24 months

Amount in USD 72,150.25 178,925.25 769,653.25 481,314.25Total Project Outcomes in USD 1,502,043.00

DP Fee in USD 127,674.00Total Project Budget in USD 1,629,717.00

Direct Project Services: services provided to the project. To ensure the strict independence required by the GCF and in accordance with the UNDP Internal Control Framework, these execution services should be delivered independent from the GCF-specific oversight and quality assurance services (i.e. not done by same person to avoid conflict of interest). These execution services will be charged to the project budget in accordance with the UNDP’s Harmonized Conceptual Funding Framework and Cost Recovery Methodology These costs need to be transparently and correctly budgeted in the TBWP.

Budget Revision and Tolerance: 10% of the total overall projected costs can be reallocated among outcomes . No changes are allowed in the PMC. Any budget reallocation involving a major change in the project’s scope, structure, design or objectives or any other change that substantially alters the purpose or benefit of the project requires the GCF’s prior written consent.

As outlined in the UNDP POPP, the project board will agree on a budget tolerance level for each plan under the overall annual work plan allowing the project manager to expend up to the tolerance level beyond the approved project budget amount for the year without requiring a revision from the Project Board (within the GCF requirements noted above). Should such deviation occur, the Project Manager and UNDP Country office will seek the approval of the UNDP-GEF Unit.

Any over expenditure incurred beyond the available GCF grant amount will be absorbed by the Country Office using non-GCF resources (e.g. UNDP TRAC or cash co-financing).

Refund to GCF: Unspent GCF resources must be returned to the GCF. Should a refund of unspent funds to the GCF be necessary, this will be managed directly by the UNDP-GEF Unit in New York.

40 | P a g e

Project Closure: Project closure will be conducted as per UNDP requirements outlined in the UNDP POPP.14 On an exceptional basis only, a no-cost extension beyond the initial duration of the project will be sought from in-country UNDP colleagues and then the UNDP-Global Environmental Finance Executive Coordinator.

Operational completion: The project will be operationally completed when the last UNDP-financed inputs have been provided and the related activities have been completed. This includes the final clearance of the Final Independent Evaluation Report (that will be available in English) and the corresponding management response, and the end-of-project review Project Board meeting. The UNDP CO through a Project Board decision will notify the UNDP GEF Unit when operational closure has been completed.

Transfer or disposal of assets: In consultation with the other parties of the project, UNDP programme manager (UNDP Resident Representative) is responsible for deciding on the transfer or other disposal of assets. Transfer or disposal of assets is recommended to be reviewed and endorsed by the project board following UNDP rules and regulations. Assets may be transferred to the government for project activities managed by a national institution at any time during the life of a project. In all cases of transfer, a transfer document must be prepared and kept on file15.

Financial completion: The project will be financially closed when the following conditions have been met: a) The project is operationally completed or has been cancelled; b) UNDP CO has closed the accounts for the project; d) UNDP CO has certified a final Combined Delivery Report (which serves as final budget revision).

The project is required to be financially completed within 12 months of operational closure or after the date of cancellation. Between operational and financial closure, the UNDP CO will identify and settle all financial obligations and prepare a final expenditure report. The UNDP Country Office will send the final signed closure documents including confirmation of final cumulative expenditure and unspent balance to the UNDP-GEF Unit for confirmation before the project will be financially closed in Atlas by the UNDP Country Office.

14 see https://info.undp.org/global/popp/ppm/Pages/Closing-a-Project.aspx15 See https://popp.undp.org/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/UNDP_POPP_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY/Public/PPM_Project%20Management_Closing.docx&action=default.

41 | P a g e

IX. TOTAL BUDGET AND WORK PLAN

Project Title: Supporting the Achievement of National Development Policies by Building Climate Adaptive Capacity and Planning in Guinea

PIMS ID: 6044

Business Unit: GIN10

Award ID: 00094653

Project ID: 00098749

Implementing Partner (Executing Agency) UNDP CO

Outcomes Resp. Party

Fund ID

Donor Code

ATLAS Accou

nt code

Detailed Budget (in US$)

Total Budget(disbursement

plan)

Disbursement Plan

Budget noteBudget

Categorieschoose from the drop-down list

Total Budget

(per budget

category)

Total Budget(per sub-outcome)

6m 12m 18m 24m

Outcome 1: Research-

policy linkages and knowledge-

base are strengthened

to inform adaptation

planning and decision-making

1.1: Establish Research-policy linkages in support to NAP formulation and implementation

UNDP 66001 12526

71200 International Consultants

21,334.00

119,119.00

607,329.00

-

834.00

833.00

19,667.00 1

71300 Local Consultants 9,000.00

-

-

- 9,000.00 2

71600 Travel 5,560.00

-

-

- 5,560.00 3

71400Contractual Services - Individual

19,272.00

1,928.00

5,782.00

5,781.00

5,781.00 4

75700Training, Workshops and Conferences

27,000.00

-

1,000.00

25,000.00

1,000.00 6

74200Audio Visual & Print Production Costs

5,000.00

-

-

2,500.00

2,500.00 7

72800Information Technology Equipment

3,500.00

2,750.00

250.00

250.00

250.00 8

71500 International UNV 22,500.00

2,250.00

6,750.00

6,750.00

6,750.00 9

60000 Staff Costs 5,953.00

595.00

1,786.00

1,786.00

1,786.00 30

1.2: Develop a climate risks and vulnerability evidence base that informs the

71200 International Consultants

21,334.00

488,210.00

-

19,668.00

833.00

833.00 1

71300 Local Consultants 9,000.00

-

9,000.00 -

- 2

71600 Travel 4,400 8,120.0 3

42 | P a g e

identification and prioritization of adaptation options in the sectors of agriculture, livestock and forestry

12,520.00 - .00 0 -

71400Contractual Services - Individual

19,272.00

1,928.00

5,782.00

5,781.00

5,781.00 4

72100Contractual Services - Companies

349,800.00

-

-

200,100.00

149,700.00 5

75700Training, Workshops and Conferences

36,000.00

-

6,000.00

6,000.00

24,000.00 6

74200Audio Visual & Print Production Costs

5,000.00

-

2,500.00

2,500.00

-

7

72800Information Technology Equipment

3,500.00

2,750.00

250.00

250.00

250.00 8

71500 International UNV 22,500.00

2,250.00

6,750.00

6,750.00

6,750.00 9

60000 Staff Costs 5,952.00

595.00

1,786.00

1,785.00

1,786.00 30

74500 Miscellaneous 3,332.00

833.00

833.00

833.00

833.00 10

TOTAL OUTCOME 1     15,879.00

73,371.00

275,852.00

242,227.00

Outcome 2: CCA

mainstreaming is

facilitated by reinforcing

coordination and M&E

mechanisms

2.1: Operationalize a sustained and suitable coordination mechanism to support mid-term and long-term adaptation

UNDP 66001 12526

71300 Local Consultants 17,900.00

122,701.00

486,164.00

-

2,250.00

15,650.00

-

11

71200 International Consultants

1,667.00

-

555.00

556.00

556.00 14

71400Contractual Services - Individual

12,847.00

1,285.00

3,854.00

3,854.00

3,854.00 4

75700Training, Workshops and Conferences

66,000.00

-

10,000.00

52,000.00

4,000.00 15

74200Audio Visual & Print Production Costs

1,667.00

-

-

- 1,667.00 16

71500 International UNV 15,000.00

1,500.00

4,500.00

4,500.00

4,500.00 9

72500 Office Supplies 1,668.00

667.00

333.00

334.00

334.00 17

60000 Staff Costs 5,952.00

595.00

1,786.00

1,785.00

1,786.00 30

2.2: Enhance CCA

Mainstreaming into

sectoral and local

planning and budgeting

71300 Local Consultants 68,200.00

196,725.00

-

-

55,600.00

12,600.00 11

71600 Travel 23,728.00

-

-

23,728.00

-

12

71200 International Consultants

43,667.00

-

556.00

42,555.00

556.00 14

71400Contractual Services - Individual

12,847.00

1,285.00

3,854.00

3,854.00

3,854.00 4

75700Training, Workshops and Conferences

24,000.00

-

-

12,000.00

12,000.00 15

74200Audio Visual & Print Production Costs

1,666.00

-

-

- 1,666.00 16

71500 International UNV 1

,500.00 4,500

.00 4,500.0

0 4,5

00.00 9

43 | P a g e

15,000.00

72500 Office Supplies 1,666.00

667.00

333.00

333.00

333.00 17

60000 Staff Costs 5,951.00

595.00

1,786.00

1,785.00

1,785.00 30

2.3: Establish CCA M&E mechanisms in coherence with the existing national M&E system

71300 Local Consultants 12,000.00

166,738.00

-

-

12,000.00

-

11

71600 Travel 14,608.00

-

-

11,824.00

2,784.00 12

71200 International Consultants

25,666.00

-

556.00

24,555.00

555.00 14

71400Contractual Services - Individual

12,847.00

1,285.00

3,854.00

3,854.00

3,854.00 4

72100Contractual Services - Companies

50,000.00

-

-

50,000.00

-

13

75700Training, Workshops and Conferences

24,000.00

-

6,000.00

12,000.00

6,000.00 15

74200Audio Visual & Print Production Costs

1,667.00

-

-

- 1,667.00 16

71500 International UNV 15,000.00

1,500.00

4,500.00

4,500.00

4,500.00 9

72500 Office Supplies 1,666.00

667.00

333.00

333.00

333.00 17

60000 Staff Costs 5,952.00

595.00

1,786.00

1,785.00

1,786.00 30

74500 Miscellaneous 3,332.00

833.00

833.00

833.00

833.00 10

TOTAL OUTCOME 2     12,974.00

52,169.00

344,718.00

76,303.00

Outcome 3: A national funding

mechanism and private

sector engagement

are expanded to support

CCA financing

3.1: Support the Environmental Safeguard Fund (FSE) mechanism in raising awareness of funding sources and expanding mandate for the financing of adaptation actions

UNDP 66001 1252671200 International

Consultants 46,500.00

185,425.00

304,382.00

- 834

.00 30,833.0

0 14,8

33.00 18

71300 Local Consultants 27,000.00

-

-

15,000.00

12,000.00 19

71600 Travel 11,200.00

-

-

6,800.00

4,400.00 20

71400Contractual Services - Individual

19,273.00

1,928.00

5,781.00

5,782.00

5,782.00 4

72100Contractual Services - Companies

35,000.00

-

-

- 35,000.00 21

75700Training, Workshops and Conferences

18,000.00

-

-

12,000.00

6,000.00 22

71500 International UNV 22,500.00

2,250.00

6,750.00

6,750.00

6,750.00 9

60000 Staff Costs 5,952.00

595.00

1,786.00

1,785.00

1,786.00 30

3.2: Enhance the mining private sector’s engagement

71200 International Consultants

40,500.00

118,957.00

-

834.00

18,833.00

20,833.00 18

71300 Local Consultants 9,000.00

-

-

3,000.00

6,000.00

19

44 | P a g e

on adaptation and climate financing

71600 Travel 6,400.00

-

-

6,400.00

-

20

71400Contractual Services - Individual

19,273.00

1,928.00

5,781.00

5,782.00

5,782.00 4

75700Training, Workshops and Conferences

12,000.00

-

-

- 12,000.00 22

71500 International UNV 22,500.00

2,250.00

6,750.00

6,750.00

6,750.00 9

60000 Staff Costs 5,951.00

595.00

1,786.00

1,785.00

1,785.00 30

74500 Miscellaneous 3,333.00

833.25

833.25

833.25

833.25 10

TOTAL OUTCOME 3     10,379.25

31,135.25

122,333.25

140,534.25

Total Outcome Budget 1,397,875.00

39,232.25

156,675.25

742,903.25

459,064.25

Project Management Cost (PMC)Up to 7.5% of Total Activity Budget

UNDP 66001 12526

71400Contractual Services - Individual

31,668.00

104,168.00

Percentage of PMC requested:

7.4 %

3,168.00

9,500.00

9,500.00

9,500.00 23

71200 International Consultants

3,000.00

3,000.00

-

- -

32

71600 Travel 8,000.00

2,000.00

2,000.00

2,000.00

2,000.00 24

75700Training, Workshops and Conferences

10,000.00

10,000.00

-

- -

31

74100 Professional Services

4,500.00

-

-

4,500.00

-

25

72500 Office Supplies 5,000.00

2,000.00

1,000.00

1,000.00

1,000.00 26

72800Information Technology Equipment

3,000.00

3,000.00

-

- -

27

64397 Services to Projects

36,000.00

9,000.00

9,000.00

9,000.00

9,000.00 29

72200 Equipment and Furniture

3,000.00

750.00

750.00

750.00

750.00 28

Total Project Management Costs 104,168.00 104,168.00 104,168.00 32,918.00 22,250.00 26,750.00 22,250.00

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS INCLUDING PMC 1,502,043.00 72,150.25 178,925.25 769,653.25 481,314.25

Budget Note Detailed Description

Outcome1

1 International Expert on CC and Research Policy for 30 days @ $600/day for the formulation of the Research Plan on Environment and Climate Change = $18,000 (1.1)

45 | P a g e

Budget Note Detailed Description

International Capacity Building expert @ $6,668 split across Outcome 1 ($3,334 in outcome 1.1 and $3,334 in outcome 1.2)

International Expert on climate modelling for 30 days @ $600/day for the update of Guinea climate projections = $18,000 (1.2)

2Local Researcher for 30 days@$300/day for the formulation of the Research Plan on Environment and Climate Change = $9,000 (1.1)

Local Climatologist for 30 days @ $300/day for the update of Guinea climate projections =$9,000 (1.2)

3

1 mission for International expert on CC and Research Policy. $2,000 flight costs and 10 days total DSA @ $240/day = $4,400 (1.1)

1 mission for the Local Researcher. 10 days total DSA @ $116/day = $1,160 (1.1)

1 mission for the International on climate modelling. $2,000 flight costs and 10 days total DSA @ $240/day = $4,400 (1.2)

2 missions for a project manager and climate science expert: 5 days total DSA @ $116/day each for the formulation of the Research Plan on Environment and Climate Change = $1,160 (1.2)30 days total DSA @ $116/day each for the climate risk and vulnerability assessments = $6,960 (1.2)

4

Service contracts for (i) Climate change policy expert (SB5) to act as project manager @ $32,725/y ($54,542 for 20 months) split across 3 outcomes (1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2)(ii) M&E expert (SB4) @ $18,326/y ($30,543 for 20 months), split across 3 outcomes (1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2)(iii) Climate science expert (SB4) @ 18,326/y ($30,543 for 20 months) split across 3 outcomes (1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2)

5

Firm to lead the 3 climate risk and vulnerability assessments, coach and mentor national institution and the identification and prioritization of adaptation options. $173,800 for 70 days, including travel costs, DSA, and the training of local research institutions (1.2)

National research institution to support the 3 climate risk and vulnerability assessments. $176,000 for 65 days. This includes the fees of the 3 LC (Agronomist, Livestock Expert, Forestry Expert), 1 Climate science Expert, 1 GIS Expert, 1 Gender specialist, and 1 Environmental Economist and their travel costs in the field. (1.2)

6

Three meetings of the Research-Policy working group ($1,000 x 3) = $3,000 (1.1)

Four consultation workshops with research actors and research users ($6,000 x 4) =$24,000 (1.1)

Five validation workshops ($6,000 x 6) = $24,000 (1.2)

One Training workshop on climate risk and vulnerability assessment ($6,000), and one prioritization workshop ($6,000) = $12000 (1.2)

7 Audio visual and printing costs for dissemination of editing the guide and the documenting the prioritization process = $10,000 (1.1, 1.2)

8 4 Laptops for the project manager, the M&E expert, the climate science expert and the UNV @$1,500/piece, and small consumables ($1,000)

9 International UNV with policy planning expertise @$81,000/y for 20 months, split across outcomes 1, 2 and 3

10 Unforeseen programme cost, such as FX gain and loss, courier service etc., which is unrelated to implementation/service fee. Any use of contingency will be reported to and agreed by the GCF Secretariat in writing (email is sufficient) in advance with sufficient justifications.

30 Staff for dedicated project technical support (International FTA (P4 level, cost share) @$25,000/yr for 20 months split across 3 outcomes) (1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2)

Outcome 2

11

Local Climate Change Policy Specialist for 15 days@ $300/day for the training of NCC entities and the awareness meetings = $4,500 (2.1)

Local Knowledge Management Specialist for the establishment of dashboard and reporting system for 40 days@$300/day, and 15 days for the five trainings = $16,500 (2.1)

Local Public Policy Specialist for the development of the technical guidelines on CCA mainstreaming into sectoral planning and budgeting for 30 days@$300/day, and 6 days for the two trainings = $10,800 (2.2)

46 | P a g e

Budget Note Detailed Description

Local Expert on CC and water resources for the formulation of the PANGIRE, for 40 days@300$/day = $12,000 (2.2)

Local Planning expert for the development of the CDMT. 3-month technical assistance for 63 days@300$/day = $18,900 (2.2)

1 Local Decentralization specialist and 1 CC Finance Expert for the trainings on PDL guidelines, their testing, and trainings on climate finance access for 78 days@$300/day = $23,400 (2.2)

Local CC Specialist for the establishment of the CCA M&E framework for 30 days@$300/day, and 10 days for the reporting to the statistical yearbook = $12,000 (2.3)

12

1 mission for the CC and Water Resources IC: $2,000 flight costs and 20 days total DSA @ $240/day = $6,800, Local consultant 20 days DSA @ $116/day = $2,320 Total = $9,120 (2.2)

1 Mission for International policy specialist: $2,000 flight costs and 10 days total DSA @ $240/day = $4,400 (2.2)

3 Missions for the Local Decentralization specialist and 3 mission for the Local CC finance expert: Series of Trainings on PDL, Testing of PDL, and Series of trainings of Climate Finance. 44 days total DSA@$116/day for each consultant = $10,208 (2.2)

1 Mission for M&E specialist travel - $2,000 flight costs and 10 days DSA @ 240/day = $4,400 (2.3)

1 mission for the project manager and for the local M&E expert: 20 days total DSA @ $116/day for awareness raising outside Conakry + 44 days for municipalities trainings + 24 days for PANGIRE = (20+44+24) x $166 = $10,208 (2.2, 2.3)

13 Institutional contract with INS for the collect of baseline data. $50,000 (2.3)

14

International Policy Specialist for the development of the technical guidelines on CCA mainstreaming into sectoral planning and budgeting for 30 days@$600/day = $18,000 (2.2)

International Expert on CC and Water Resources for the formulation of the PANGIRE, for 40 days@600$/day = $24,000 (2.2)

International Capacity Building expert @ $5,000 split across Outcome 2

International M&E Specialist for the establishment of the CCA M&E framework for 40 days@$600/day = $24,000 (2.3)

15

6 meetings of the NCC (every 3-months) ($2000 x 6) = $12,000 (2.1)

1 Training on NAP for NCC entities ($6,000) (2.1)2 Trainings on the mainstreaming technical guidelines ($6000 x 2) = $12,000 (2.2,2.3)Total $18,000

1 consultation workshop on the M&E framework ($6,000) (2.3)

8 Awareness-raising meetings on NAP in the 8 Regions ($6000 x 8) = $48,000 (2.1)

2 workshops to establish the M&E framework with INS ($6,000 x 2) = $12,000 (2.3)

3 validation workshops (6,000$ x 3) = $18,000 (2.2)

16 Audio visual and printing costs for dissemination of material = $5,000 (2.1, 2.2, 2.3)

17 Office supplies = $5,000

30 Staff for dedicated project technical support (International FTA (P4 level, cost share) @$25,000/year for 20 months split across 3 outcomes) (1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2)

Outcome 3

18 International Environment Economist for 50 days @ $600/day for institutional assessment of the FSE, identification of potential sources of additional funding for the FSE = $30,000 (3.1,3.2)

47 | P a g e

Budget Note Detailed Description

International Expert on funding mechanisms for 40 days @ $600/day for the formulation of the FSE strategy plan = $24,000 (3.1)

International Climate Finance Expert for 15 days @ $600/day for the REB mining companies training on climate finance access =$9,000 (3.2)

International Expert on EBA for 15 days @ $600/day for the REB mining companies training on ecosystem-based adaptation = $9,000 (3.2)

International Capacity Building expert @ $5,000 split across Outcome 3 (3.1, 3.2)

International project evaluation expert for terminal evaluation 20*$500/day = $10,000 (3.2)

19

Local specialist on institutional assessment for 50 days @ $300/day for the institutional assessment of the FSE, identification of potential sources of additional funding for the FSE = $15,000 (3.1)

Local Expert on Public Policy Finance for 40 days @ $300/day for the formulation of the FSE strategy plan = $12,000 (3.1)

Local Climate Change Expert for 20 days @ $450/day for the formulation of the project idea on EBA approach, and 10 days for the formulation of the REB 2020-2021 action plan = $9,000 (3.2)

20

1 mission for the International environment economist: $2,000 flight costs and 20 days total DSA @ $240/days = $6,800 (3.1)

1 mission for the International Expert on funding mechanisms: $2,000 flight costs and 10 days total DSA @ $240/day. = $4,400 (3.1)

1 mission for the international EBA specialist and 1 mission for the international Climate Finance Specialist: for each 5 days DSA @ $240/day. $2,000 flight cost = $6,400 (3.2)

21 Institutional contract for Guinee Ecologies for a national campaign including 5 awareness-raising meetings. $35,000 (3.1)

22Two exchange meetings between CNC and REB on annual workplans ($6,000 x 2) = $12,000 (3.2)

Three validation workshops (6,000$ x 3) = $18,000 (3.1)

30 Staff for dedicated project technical support (International FTA (P4 level, cost share) @$25,000/year for 20 months split across 3 outcomes (1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2)

PMC

23 Service contracts for Financial and Administrative Assistant (SB4) @ $19,000/y = $31,667 for 20 months

24 Travel for the Financial and Administrative Assistant to support the project activities

25 Project audit will be conducted by external audit firm, hired competitively @$4,500

26 Office Supplies = $5,000

27 1 laptop and accessories ($1,500), 1 printer ($1,000), ink/toner ($500)

28 Office furniture and maintenance = $3,000

29 Costs related to dedicated time of UNDP staff to provide implementation support services to the Project (HR, procurement, logistics, issuance of vouchers and checks, etc. and based on UNDP UPL)

31 Project Inception workshop @ $10,000

32 International consultant for translation of project documentation into French @ $3,000

48 | P a g e

X. LEGAL CONTEXT

This project document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article 1 of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Guinea and UNDP, signed on 13 February 1975. All references in the SBAA to “Executing Agency” shall be deemed to refer to “Implementing Partner.”

This project will be implemented by UNDP in accordance with its financial regulations, rules, practices and procedures only to the extent that they do not contravene the principles of the Financial Regulations and Rules of UNDP. Where the financial governance of an Implementing Partner does not provide the required guidance to ensure best value for money, fairness, integrity, transparency, and effective international competition, the financial governance of UNDP shall apply.

The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations or UNDP concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

XI. RISK MANAGEMENT

UNDP as the Implementing Partner will comply with the policies, procedures and practices of the United Nations Security Man -agement System (UNSMS.) UNDP as the Implementing Partner will undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that none of the [project funds]16 [UNDP funds received pursuant to the Project Document]17 are used to provide support to individuals or en-tities associated with terrorism and that the recipients of any amounts provided by UNDP hereunder do not appear on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999). The list can be accessed via http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/aq_sanctions_list.shtml. This provision must be included in all sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into under this Project Document.

Social and environmental sustainability will be enhanced through application of the UNDP Social and Environmental Standards (http://www.undp.org/ses) and related Accountability Mechanism (http://www.undp.org/secu-srm).

UNDP as the Implementing Partner will: (a) conduct project and programme-related activities in a manner consistent with the UNDP Social and Environmental Standards, (b) implement any management or mitigation plan prepared for the project or programme to comply with such standards, and (c) engage in a constructive and timely manner to address any concerns and complaints raised through the Accountability Mechanism. UNDP will seek to ensure that communities and other project stakeholders are informed of and have access to the Accountability Mechanism.

All signatories to the Project Document shall cooperate in good faith with any exercise to evaluate any programme or project-related commitments or compliance with the UNDP Social and Environmental Standards. This includes providing access to project sites, relevant personnel, information, and documentation.

UNDP as the Implementing Partner will ensure that the following obligations are binding on each responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient:

a. Consistent with the Article III of the SBAA [or the Supplemental Provisions to the Project Document], the responsibility for the safety and security of each responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient and its personnel and property, and of UNDP’s property in such responsible parties, subcontractor’s and sub-recipient’s

16 To be used where UNDP is the Implementing Partner17 To be used where the UN, a UN fund/programme or a specialized agency is the Implementing Partner

49 | P a g e

custody, rests with such responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient. To this end, each responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient shall:

i. put in place an appropriate security plan and maintain the security plan, taking into account the security situation in the country where the project is being carried;

ii. assume all risks and liabilities related to such responsible parties, subcontractor’s and sub-recipient’s security, and the full implementation of the security plan.

b. UNDP reserves the right to verify whether such a plan is in place, and to suggest modifications to the plan when necessary. Failure to maintain and implement an appropriate security plan as required hereunder shall be deemed a breach of the responsible parties, subcontractor’s and sub-recipient’s obligations under this Project Document.

c. Each responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient will take appropriate steps to prevent misuse of funds, fraud or corruption, by its officials, consultants, subcontractors and sub-recipients in implementing the project or programme or using the UNDP funds. It will ensure that its financial management, anti-corruption and anti-fraud policies are in place and enforced for all funding received from or through UNDP.

d. The requirements of the following documents, then in force at the time of signature of the Project Document, apply to each responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient: (a) UNDP Policy on Fraud and other Corrupt Practices and (b) UNDP Office of Audit and Investigations Investigation Guidelines. Each responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient agrees to the requirements of the above documents, which are an integral part of this Project Document and are available online at www.undp.org.

e. In the event that an investigation is required, UNDP will conduct investigations relating to any aspect of UNDP programmes and projects. Each responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient will provide its full cooperation, including making available personnel, relevant documentation, and granting access to its (and its consultants’, subcontractors’ and sub-recipients’) premises, for such purposes at reasonable times and on reasonable conditions as may be required for the purpose of an investigation. Should there be a limitation in meeting this obligation, UNDP shall consult with it to find a solution.

f. Each responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient will promptly inform UNDP as the Implementing Partner in case of any incidence of inappropriate use of funds, or credible allegation of fraud or corruption with due confidentiality.

Where it becomes aware that a UNDP project or activity, in whole or in part, is the focus of investigation for alleged fraud/corruption, each responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient will inform the UNDP Resident Representative/Head of Office, who will promptly inform UNDP’s Office of Audit and Investigations (OAI). It will provide regular updates to the head of UNDP in the country and OAI of the status of, and actions relating to, such investigation.

g. UNDP will be entitled to a refund from the responsible party, subcontractor or sub-recipient of any funds provided that have been used inappropriately, including through fraud or corruption, or otherwise paid other than in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Project Document. Such amount may be deducted by UNDP from any payment due to the responsible party, subcontractor or sub-recipient under this or any other agreement.

Where such funds have not been refunded to UNDP, the responsible party, subcontractor or sub-recipient agrees that donors to UNDP (including the Government) whose funding is the source, in whole or in part, of the funds for the activities under this Project Document, may seek recourse to such responsible party, subcontractor or sub-recipient for the recovery of any funds determined by UNDP to have been used inappropriately, including

50 | P a g e

through fraud or corruption, or otherwise paid other than in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Project Document.

Note: The term “Project Document” as used in this clause shall be deemed to include any relevant subsidiary agreement further to the Project Document, including those with responsible parties, subcontractors and sub-recipients.

h. Each contract issued by the responsible party, subcontractor or sub-recipient in connection with this Project Document shall include a provision representing that no fees, gratuities, rebates, gifts, commissions or other payments, other than those shown in the project, have been given, received, or promised in connection with the selection process or in contract execution, and that the recipient of funds from it shall cooperate with any and all investigations and post-payment audits.

i. Should UNDP refer to the relevant national authorities for appropriate legal action any alleged wrongdoing relating to the project or programme, the Government will ensure that the relevant national authorities shall actively investigate the same and take appropriate legal action against all individuals found to have participated in the wrongdoing, recover and return any recovered funds to UNDP.

j. Each responsible party, subcontractor and sub-recipient shall ensure that all of its obligations set forth under this section entitled “Risk Management” are passed on to its subcontractors and sub-recipients and that all the clauses under this section entitled “Risk Management Standard Clauses” are adequately reflected, mutatis mutandis, in all its sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into further to this Project Document.

51 | P a g e

XII. MANDATORY ANNEXES

Annex A: GCF approved Readiness and Preparatory Support ProposalAnnex B: GCF notification of approval letterAnnex C: Procurement planAnnex D: Terms of References for Project Board and Project Team Annex E: Terms of References for UNDP StaffAnnex F: UNDP Risk Log Annex G: UNDP Project Quality Assurance Report Annex H: Capacity Assessment

52 | P a g e

Annex A: GCF approved Readiness and Preparatory Support ProposalThe proposal is available here : GCF approved Readiness and Preparatory Support Proposal.pdf

Annex B: GCF notification of approval letter

53 | P a g e

Annex C: Procurement plan

Item Item Description Estimated Cost (US$) Procurement Method Thresholds (Min-Max monetary value for which indicated procurement method must be used)

Estimated Start Date

Projected Contracting Date

Goods and Non-Consulting Services

Office supplies Office supplies 10,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Please see table below

Q2, 3, 4/Y1; Q1, 2, 3, 4/Y2

Q2, 3, 4/Y1; Q1, 2, 3, 4/Y2

Training, Workshops and Conferences

Meetings, workshops and conferences under Outcomes 1-3

217,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q2, 3, 4/Y1; Q1, 2, 3, 4/Y2

Q2, 3, 4/Y1; Q1, 2, 3, 4/Y2

Contractual Services – Company National research instititution to conduct the 3 climate risks and vulnerability assessments

176,000.00 Local Advertisement Q2/Y1 Q2/Y1

Contractual Services – Company Institutional contract with an international firm for leading the climate risk and vulnerability assessments.

173,800.00 Request for quotation/ Request for proposal

Q2/Y1 Q2/Y1

Contractual Services – Company Institutional contract with INS for the collect of baseline data

50,000.00 Local Advertisement Q2/Y1 Q2/Y1

Contractual Services – Company Institutional contract with Guinee Ecologie for the national campaign

35,000.00 Local Advertisement Q1/Y2 Q1/Y2

Professional services External audit 4,500.00 Request for quotation/ Request for proposal

Q2/Y2 Q2/Y2

IT Equipment 5 laptops, 1 scanner/printer, 1 copy machine 10,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q2/Y1 Q2/Y1

Equipment and furniture Office equipment and maintenance 13,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q2/Y1 Q2/Y1

Audio-visual & Print Prod Cost Printing materials 15,000.00 Micro-purchasing Q2, 3, 4/Y1; Q1, 2, 3, 4/Y2

Q2, 3, 4/Y1; Q1, 2, 3, 4/Y2

Sub-Total (US$) $ 704,300.00

Consultancy Services

54 | P a g e

Item Item Description Estimated Cost (US$) Procurement Method Thresholds (Min-Max monetary value for which indicated procurement method must be used)

Estimated Start Date

Projected Contracting Date

International consultant International Expert on CC and Research Policy 18,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Please see table below

Q2/Y1 Q2/Y1

International consultant International Expert on climate modelling 18,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q2/Y1 Q3/Y1

International consultant International Policy Specialist for the development of the technical guidelines

18,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q2/Y1 Q2/Y1

International consultant International Expert on CC and Water Resources 24,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q3/Y1 Q3/Y1

International consultant International Capacity Building Expert 20,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q2/Y1 Q1/Y1

International consultant International M&E Specialist 24,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q2/Y1 Q3/Y1

International consultant International Environmental Economist 30,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q3/Y1 Q3/Y1

International consultant International Expert on funding mechanisms 24,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q2/Y2 Q2/Y2

International consultant Climate Finance Expert 9,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q2/Y1 Q2/Y1

International consultant EBA Expert 9,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q2/Y1 Q2/Y1

International consultant Terminal Evaluation 10,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q3/Y2 Q4/Y2

International consultant Translation of project documentation 3,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q1/Y1 Q1/Y1

National consultant Researcher 9,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q2/Y1 Q2/Y1

National consultant Climatologist 9,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q2/Y1 Q2/Y1

55 | P a g e

Item Item Description Estimated Cost (US$) Procurement Method Thresholds (Min-Max monetary value for which indicated procurement method must be used)

Estimated Start Date

Projected Contracting Date

National consultant Climate Change Policy Specialist 5,900.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q3/Y1 Q3/Y1

National consultant Knowledge management specialist 12,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q3/Y1 Q3/Y1

National consultant Public Policy Specialist 10,800.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q3/Y1 Q3/Y1

National consultant Expert on CC and water resources 12,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q3/Y1 Q3/Y1

National consultant Planning expert for the development of the CDMT 18,900.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q3/Y1 Q3/Y1

National consultant Decentralization specialist 23,400.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q3/Y1 Q3/Y1

National consultant CC Finance Expert 13,200.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q2/Y2 Q2/Y2

National consultant CC Specialist 12,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q3/Y1 Q3/Y1

National consultant Institutional assessment Specialist 15,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q3/Y1 Q3/Y1

National consultant Expert on Public Policy Finance 12,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q2/Y2 Q2/Y2

National consultant Climate Change Expert 9,000.00 Desk Review – Competitive Sourcing

Q3/Y1 Q3/Y1

Sub-Total (US$) $ 369,200.00

56 | P a g e

Annex D: Terms of References for Project Board and Project Team Project Manager (Climate change policy expert, SB5)

The Project Manager has the authority to run the project on a day-to-day basis on behalf of the Project Board within the constraints laid down by the Board. The Project Manager is responsible for day-to-day management and decision-making for the project. The Project Manager’s prime responsibility is to ensure that the project produces the results specified in the project document, to the required standard of quality and within the specified constraints of time and cost.

The Implementing Partner appoints the Project Manager, who should be different from the Implementing Partner’s representative in the Project Board.

Specific responsibilities include:

Provide direction and guidance to project team(s)/ responsible party (ies); Liaise with the Project Board to assure the overall direction and integrity of the project; Identify and obtain any support and advice required for the management, planning and control of the project; Responsible for project administration; Plan the activities of the project and monitor progress against the project results framework and the approved annual

workplan;

Mobilize personnel, goods and services, training and micro-capital grants to initiative activities, including drafting terms of reference and work specifications, and overseeing all contractors’ work;

Monitor events as determined in the project monitoring schedule plan/timetable, and update the plan as required;

Manage requests for the provision of financial resources by UNDP;

Monitor financial resources and accounting to ensure the accuracy and reliability of financial reports;

Be responsible for preparing and submitting financial reports to UNDP on a quarterly basis;

Manage and monitor the project risks initially identified and submit new risks to the project board for consideration and decision on possible actions if required; update the status of these risks by maintaining the project risks log;

Capture lessons learned during project implementation;

Prepare the annual workplan for the following year; and update the Atlas Project Management module if access is made available.

Prepare the Bi-Annual Project Report and submit the final report to the Project Board; Based on the Bi-Annual Project Report and the Project Board review, prepare the AWP for the following year. Identify follow-on actions and submit them for consideration to the Project Board; Ensure the final evaluation process is undertaken as per the UNDP guidance, and submit the final evaluation report to

the Project Board; Provide technical supervision and support to the National Directorate for the Environment, GCF and GEF focal points

and existing ad hoc committees, execute the NAP process, and ensure its national and local ownership Direct capacity building activities related to climate finance ;

• Direct the activities related to the integration of the budget in the development plans; • Oversee the institutional framework for planning, budgeting and integrating climate change adaptation into

national, sectoral and regional processes; • Oversee the prioritization of national and sectoral adaptation action aligned with strategic documents and the

preparation of directives on the integration of CC at local level.

Required skills and expertise: A university degree (Master’s) in a subject related to environment/development economics, natural resource

management or environmental sciences, project management;

57 | P a g e

Minimum seven (7) years of experience in policy analysis, advice and capacity development related to climate finance, and public policy/finance/budget management in developing countries;

At least five (5) years of demonstrable project/programme management experience; At least five (5) years of experience working with ministries, national or provincial institutions that are concerned with

natural resource and/or environmental management; Expertise and experience in climate change and relevant sectors such as energy, forestry, agriculture, water and cross-

cutting issues such as gender.

Competencies:

Strong leadership, managerial and coordination skills, with a demonstrated ability to effectively coordinate the implementation of large multi-stakeholder projects, including financial and technical aspects;

Ability to effectively manage technical and administrative teams, work with a wide range of stakeholders across various sectors and at all levels, to develop durable partnerships with collaborating agencies;

Ability to administer budgets, train and work effectively with counterpart staff at all levels and with all groups involved in the project;

Ability to coordinate and supervise multiple Project Implementation Units in their implementation of technical activities in partnership with a variety of subnational stakeholder groups, including community and government;

Strong drafting, presentation and reporting skills; Strong communication skills, especially in timely and accurate responses to emails; Strong computer skills, in particular mastery of all applications of the MS Office package and internet search; Strong knowledge about the political and socio-economic context related to the protected area system in Guinea,

biodiversity conservation and law enforcement at national and subnational levels; Excellent command of French; fluency in English and local languages are an advantage.

Climate Science Expert (SB4)

Under the guidance and supervision of the Project Manager/ Climate Change Policy Expert, the Climate Science Expert will have the following specific responsibilities:

Provide quality assurance on climate science for any outputs of the projects Draft ToRs for vulnerability and risks assessments Oversee vulnerability and risks assessments Lead capacity building activities on climate science Participate in the development of concept notes Provide expert advice to the DNE and NAP Committee as required

Required skills and expertise:

A post-graduate university degree (Master’s) in climate change, geography, natural science, environmental management or other discipline related to climate change;

At least five (5) years of experience working in the related field; Policy and institutional knowledge in the Climate Change sector; Solid analytical and conceptual skills and the ability to think creatively Excellent research skills; Excellent writing and editing skills; Excellent time management skills; Thorough knowledge of climate change and its potential impact on Guinea and of its related environmental issues. Excellent command of French; fluency in English and local languages are an advantage.

Monitoring and Evaluation Expert (SB4)

Under the overall supervision and guidance of the Project Manager/ Climate Change Policy Expert, the M&E Expert will have the responsibility for project monitoring and evaluation, as well as technical advice and supervision of M&E related activities under the project. Specific responsibilities will include:

58 | P a g e

Monitor project progress and participate in the production of progress reports ensuring that they meet the necessary reporting requirements and standards;

Ensure project’s M&E meets the requirements of the Government, the UNDP Country Office, and UNDP-GEF; develop project-specific M&E tools as necessary;

Oversee and ensure the implementation of the project’s M&E plan, including periodic appraisal of the Project’s Theory of Change and Results Framework with reference to actual and potential project progress and results;

Oversee/develop/coordinate the implementation of the stakeholder engagement plan; Oversee and guide the design of surveys/ assessments commissioned for monitoring and evaluating project results; Facilitate mid-term and terminal evaluations of the project; including management responses; Facilitate annual reviews of the project and produce analytical reports from these annual reviews, including learning and

other knowledge management products; Support project site M&E and learning missions; Visit project sites as and when required to appraise project progress on the ground and validate written progress reports; Prepare and conduct training activities for DNE staff and stakeholders to improve their knowledge on NAP process

monitoring; Support the Government in preparing M&E frameworks for the NAP, the NDP and other related documents.

Required skills and expertise:

Master’s degree, preferably in the field of project management, environmental or natural resources management; At least five (5) years of relevant work experience preferably in a project management setting involving multi-lateral/

international funding agency. Previous experience with UN project will be a definite asset; Significant experience in collating, analyzing, and writing up results for reporting purposes; Very good knowledge of results-based management and project cycle management, particularly with regards to M&E

approach and methods. Formal training in RBM/ PCM will be a definite asset; Knowledge and working experience of the application of gender mainstreaming in international projects; Understanding of climate change, biodiversity conservation, law enforcement, sustainable livelihoods and associated

issues; Very good inter-personal skills; Proficiency in computer application and information technology. Excellent command of French; fluency in English and local languages are an advantage.

Adaptation Policy Specialist (International UNV)

Under the guidance and supervision of the Project Manager/ Climate Change Polocy Expert, and in coordination with other experts at the national and international level, UNDP and the Government staff, the International UNV/Adaptation Policy Specialist will provide support to and be part of the project team.

Responsibilities include (but not limited to): Prepare review of institutional framework for climate change adaptation planning, budgeting and integration into

national, sectoral and regional processes, building on the national policies and strategies; Support the identification of obstacles to CCA planning in development plans with consultants; Conduct consultations with the Parliament’s environment committee; Support the drafting of climate change law/decree is available and submitted to the Parliament’s Environmental

Committee; Support any development of law or decree on climate change; Support the set up a national coordination mechanism for climate change adaptation planning; In consultation with climate change science expert, prepare a capacity assessment and training on CCA planning is

undertaken in the institutions; Contribute to the development of Sensitization sessions on climate change towards the technical reforms monitoring

committee of the clefs Ministers, and relevant Parliamentary committees and other key development planning and budgeting stakeholders;

59 | P a g e

Based on the identification of adaptation options, oversee the prioritization of adaptation options, including economic costs and benefits, development benefits, no-regret measures and possibilities for unintended (positive and negative) impacts of adaptation measures;

Analyse gaps and needs to strengthen public-private partnerships and innovative financing for the following sectors: agriculture, health, coastal and ecosystem management, and water resources;

Prepare guidelines on provincial – level CC integration; Provide technical support to consultants preparing funding proposals for GCF.

Required skills and expertise:

A university degree (Master’s) in a subject related to environment/development economics, natural resource management or environmental sciences, project management;

Minimum five (5) years of experience in policy analysis, advice and capacity development related to climate finance, and public policy/finance/budget management in developing countries;

At least five (5) years of experience working with ministries, national or provincial institutions that are concerned with natural resource and/or environmental management;

Experience in policy development and familiarity with governmental institutions; Expertise and experience in climate change and relevant sectors such as energy, forestry, agriculture, water and cross-

cutting issues such as gender. Experience in working with participatory approaches; Fluency in oral and written French and English is a must; Excellent communication and writing skills are required; Excellent computer skills, with MS. Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint).

Financial and Administrative Assistant (SB4)

Under the guidance and supervision of the Climate Change Finance Expert / Project Manager, the Financial and Administrative Assistant will have the following specific responsibilities:

Keep records of project funds and expenditures, and ensure all project-related financial documentation are well maintained and readily available when required by the Project Manager;

Review project expenditures and ensure that project funds are used in compliance with the Project Document and GoI financial rules and procedures;

Validate and certify FACE forms before submission to UNDP; Provide necessary financial information as and when required for project management decisions; Provide necessary financial information during project audit(s); Review annual budgets and project expenditure reports, and notify the Project Manager if there are any discrepancies or

issues; Consolidate financial progress reports submitted by the responsible parties for implementation of project activities; Liaise and follow up with the responsible parties for implementation of project activities in matters related to project

funds and financial progress reports.

Required skills and expertise:

A Master’s degree in accounting/ financial management; At least five years of relevant work experience preferably in a project management setting involving multi-lateral/

international funding agency. Previous experience with UNDP or UN project will be a definite asset; Proficiency in the use of computer software applications particularly MS Excel; Excellent command of French; fluency in English and local languages are an advantage.

Annex E: Terms of References for UNDP Staff

60 | P a g e

Terms of Reference for the Regional NAP Advisor

These Terms of Reference detail the provision of technical support the UNDP-GEF team based in the UNDP Regional Hubs will extend towards the execution/implementation of the GCF-funded project, “Enhancing research and policy linkages to advance National Adaptation Planning in Guinea.”

The UNDP-GEF will provide the following technical services through the partial engagement of a Regional NAP Advisor, P4, equivalent to approximately 2 days per month, for a duration of 20 months. The costs incurred for the provision of the services described herein shall be recovered from the project budget. This technical assistance will be provided in the following areas:

(a) Provide inputs to the Guinean NAP team on: a. current themes and new developments on adaptation planning at the UNFCCC and their relevance to

national development strategies (Guinea Vision 2040, PNDES); b. global and regional experiences on countries’ alignment of their NAPs/NDCs and SDG related workstreams; c. efforts to ensure Guinean NAP activities are aligned and coordinated with national, regional and global

development agenda. (b) Provide sensitization and mentoring to the national NAP team on global and regional best practices and experiences

on adaptation planning as they relate to specific outcomes of this project – through face to face missions and virtual briefings on:

a. methods for integration of climate change into planning and budgeting; b. sub-national and sectoral integration of climate adaptation; c. gender analysis and gender mainstreaming into adaptation planning; d. public-private partnerships; and e. monitoring and evaluation of adaptation.

(c) Identify research and specialized institutions that can partner with Republic of Guinea to advise its Research Policy Working Group on:

a. Climate Risks and Vulnerability Assessments; b. updating climate scenarios and future projections; c. gender differentiated and economic impact analyses for prioritization of adaptation interventions.

(d) Provide mentoring and advice to the Guinean NAP team on crowding in private sector for adaptation by bringing regional and global good practices on:

a. Convening, catalysing and capitalizing private finance;b. Identifying entry points for MSMEs, MNCs and/or investors;c. Identifying private sector engagement tools;d. Providing inputs on REB (Bauxite Environment Network) biennial action plan by promoting linkages to

Guinea’s NAP and NDC.(e) Peer review knowledge products developed under the Guinean NAP project, including support to the development of

technical guidelines, institutional assessments, public-private dialogue action plan. (f) Support the integrated monitoring and evaluation of all performance aspects, including technical, financial and

operational aspects of the portfolio and contribute to quarterly reports and preparation of projects’ bi-annual progress reports.

The costs will be charged against the Staff lines of the project budget and will amount to 25,000.00 USD/year.

61 | P a g e

Annex F: UNDP risk log

# Description of the Risk

Potential consequence

Countermeasures/Management response

Type: Risk Category

Probability and Impact

(1-5)

Responsible party

1 Lack of capacity within DNE and other government agencies to implement NAP support project

Project implementation is delayed and less than effective

The project has a major capacity building component aimed at strengthening human resources in the DNE and priority sector agencies. These capacity building activities have been designed to respond to specific gaps and weaknesses and will incorporate lessons learned from other capacity development projects.

Organizational P=2I=3

NAP project team, UNDP, Government

2 Government will not have funds to sustain the nation-al arrangements once the project ends

Project sustainability is endangered

The project is designed to formulate mechanisms for scaling up investments and addressing financial gaps through outcome 3, including a strategic plan for investment.

Financial P=2I=4

Government, UNDP

3 Inter-ministerial coordination is lacking

Uncoordinated implementation leads to delayed implementation and suboptimal results

The project’s activities have been designed to formulate and institutionalize an effective mechanism of horizontal coordination.

Organizational P=2I=3

Government

4 Resistance from sector ministries and minimal sharing of information

Ineffective coordination and knowledge sharing decreases effectiveness and impact of NAP process

To address this issue, the project has strong outreach/training to the various ministries and agencies, including at the local level to demonstrate the utility of the NAP process.

Political P=2I=3

Government

5 Reluctance from the private sector in engaging with the project

To address this issue, activities under outcome 3 specifically target the private sector. Appeals to the Code of Ethics and government regulations can also be referenced.

Political P=1I=3

Government

6 Potential delay in start-up from procurement, project team set-up, governmental clearances

Project implementation is delayed and less than effective

The project has been specifically designed to accommodate this potential risk and the implementation timeframe has been increased from 18 to 24 months. Furthermore, announcements for experts will be advertised

Organizational P=2I=3

UNDP

62 | P a g e

# Description of the Risk

Potential consequence

Countermeasures/Management response

Type: Risk Category

Probability and Impact

(1-5)

Responsible party

immediately following the first disbursement. The CO will also make use of the regional office to disseminate the information to a wider pool of candidates to maximize the chance of recruiting best candidates and avoid potential delays.

63 | P a g e

Annex G: UNDP Project Quality Assurance Report

PROJECT QA ASSESSMENT: DESIGN AND APPRAISALOVERALL PROJECT

EXEMPLARY (5)

HIGHLY SATISFACTORY (4)

SATISFACTORY (3)

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT (2)

INADEQUATE (1)

At least four criteria are rated Exemplary, and all criteria are rated High or Exemplary.

All criteria are rated Satisfactory or higher, and at least four criteria are rated High or Exemplary.

At least six criteria are rated Satisfactory or higher, and only one may be rated Needs Improvement. The SES criterion must be rated Satisfactory or above.

At least three criteria are rated Satisfactory or higher, and only four criteria may be rated Needs Improvement.

One or more criteria are rated Inadequate, or five or more criteria are rated Needs Improvement.

DECISION APPROVE – the project is of sufficient quality to continue as planned. Any management actions must be addressed in a timely

manner. APPROVE WITH QUALIFICATIONS – the project has issues that must be addressed before the project document can be approved.

Any management actions must be addressed in a timely manner. DISAPPROVE – the project has significant issues that should prevent the project from being approved as drafted.

RATING CRITERIASTRATEGIC

1. 2. Does the project’s Theory of Change specify how it will contribute to higher level change? (Select the option from 1-3 that best reflects the project): 3: The project has a theory of change with explicit assumptions and clear change pathway describing how the

project will contribute to outcome level change as specified in the programme/CPD, backed by credible evidence of what works effectively in this context. The project document clearly describes why the project’s strategy is the best approach at this point in time.

2: The project has a theory of change. It has an explicit change pathway that explains how the project intends to contribute to outcome-level change and why the project strategy is the best approach at this point in time, but is backed by limited evidence.

1: The project does not have a theory of change, but the project document may describe in generic terms how the project will contribute to development results, without specifying the key assumptions. It does not make an explicit link to the programme/CPD’s theory of change.

*Note: Management Action or strong management justification must be given for a score of 1

3 2

1

2

EvidenceProject

DocumentSections I

& III

3. 4. Is the project aligned with the thematic focus of the UNDP Strategic Plan? (select the option from 1-3 that best reflects the project): 3: The project responds to one of the three areas of development work18 as specified in the Strategic Plan; it

addresses at least one of the proposed new and emerging areas19; an issues-based analysis has been incorporated into the project design; and the project’s RRF includes all the relevant SP output indicators. (all must be true to select this option)

2: The project responds to one of the three areas of development work1 as specified in the Strategic Plan. The project’s RRF includes at least one SP output indicator, if relevant. (both must be true to select this option)

1: While the project may respond to one of the three areas of development work1 as specified in the Strategic Plan, it is based on a sectoral approach without addressing the complexity of the development issue. None of the relevant SP indicators are included in the RRF. This answer is also selected if the project does not respond to any of the three areas of development work in the Strategic Plan.

3 2

1

2

EvidenceProject

Document Section III

RELEVANT

18 1. Sustainable development pathways; 2. Inclusive and effective democratic governance; 3. Resilience building19 sustainable production technologies, access to modern energy services and energy efficiency, natural resources management, extractive industries, urbanization, citizen security, social protection, and risk management for resilience

64 | P a g e

PROJECT QA ASSESSMENT: DESIGN AND APPRAISAL5. 6. Does the project have strategies to effectively identify, engage and ensure the meaningful participation of

targeted groups/geographic areas with a priority focus on the excluded and marginalized? (select the option from 1-3 that best reflects this project): 3: The target groups/geographic areas are appropriately specified, prioritising the excluded and/or

marginalised. Beneficiaries will be identified through a rigorous process based on evidence (if applicable.)The project has an explicit strategy to identify, engage and ensure the meaningful participation of specified target groups/geographic areas throughout the project, including through monitoring and decision-making (such as representation on the project board) (all must be true to select this option)

2: The target groups/geographic areas are appropriately specified, prioritising the excluded and/or marginalised. The project document states how beneficiaries will be identified, engaged and how meaningful participation will be ensured throughout the project. (both must be true to select this option)

1: The target groups/geographic areas are not specified, or do not prioritize excluded and/or marginalised populations. The project does not have a written strategy to identify or engage or ensure the meaningful participation of the target groups/geographic areas throughout the project.

*Note: Management Action must be taken for a score of 1, or select not applicable.

3 2

1

2

EvidenceProject

Document Section III

7. 8. Have knowledge, good practices, and past lessons learned of UNDP and others informed the project design? (select the option from 1-3 that best reflects this project): 3: Knowledge and lessons learned (gained e.g. through peer assist sessions) backed by credible evidence from

evaluation, corporate policies/strategies, and monitoring have been explicitly used, with appropriate referencing, to develop the project’s theory of change and justify the approach used by the project over alternatives.

2: The project design mentions knowledge and lessons learned backed by evidence/sources, which inform the project’s theory of change but have not been used/are not sufficient to justify the approach selected over alternatives.

1: There is only scant or no mention of knowledge and lessons learned informing the project design. Any references that are made are not backed by evidence.

*Note: Management Action or strong management justification must be given for a score of 1

3 21

2

EvidenceProject

Document Sections II

& III

9. 10. Does the project use gender analysis in the project design and does the project respond to this gender analysis with concrete measures to address gender inequities and empower women? (select the option from 1-3 that best reflects this project): 3: A participatory gender analysis on the project has been conducted. This analysis reflects on the different

needs, roles and access to/control over resources of women and men, and it is fully integrated into the project document. The project establishes concrete priorities to address gender inequalities in its strategy. The results framework includes outputs and activities that specifically respond to this gender analysis, with indicators that measure and monitor results contributing to gender equality. (all must be true to select this option)

2: A gender analysis on the project has been conducted. This analysis reflects on the different needs, roles and access to/control over resources of women and men. Gender concerns are integrated in the development challenge and strategy sections of the project document. The results framework includes outputs and activities that specifically respond to this gender analysis, with indicators that measure and monitor results contributing to gender equality. (all must be true to select this option)

1: The project design may or may not mention information and/or data on the differential impact of the project’s development situation on gender relations, women and men, but the constraints have not been clearly identified and interventions have not been considered.

*Note: Management Action or strong management justification must be given for a score of 1

3 2

11.1

13.2

EvidenceProject

Document Sections III

& V

15.16.Does UNDP have a clear advantage to engage in the role envisioned by the project vis-à-vis national partners, other development partners, and other actors? (select from options 1-3 that best reflects this project): 3: An analysis has been conducted on the role of other partners in the area where the project intends to work,

and credible evidence supports the proposed engagement of UNDP and partners through the project. It is clear how results achieved by relevant partners will contribute to outcome level change complementing the project’s intended results. If relevant, options for south-south and triangular cooperation have been considered, as appropriate. (all must be true to select this option)

2: Some analysis has been conducted on the role of other partners where the project intends to work, and relatively limited evidence supports the proposed engagement of and division of labour between UNDP and partners through the project. Options for south-south and triangular cooperation may not have not been fully developed during project design, even if relevant opportunities have been identified.

1: No clear analysis has been conducted on the role of other partners in the area that the project intends to work, and relatively limited evidence supports the proposed engagement of UNDP and partners through the

3 2

1

3

EvidenceProject

Document Sections III, IV and

V

65 | P a g e

PROJECT QA ASSESSMENT: DESIGN AND APPRAISALproject. There is risk that the project overlaps and/or does not coordinate with partners’ interventions in this area. Options for south-south and triangular cooperation have not been considered, despite its potential relevance.

*Note: Management Action or strong management justification must be given for a score of 1

SOCIAL & ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS

17. Does the project seek to further the realization of human rights using a human rights based approach? (select from options 1-3 that best reflects this project): 3: Credible evidence that the project aims to further the realization of human rights, upholding the relevant

international and national laws and standards in the area of the project. Any potential adverse impacts on enjoyment of human rights were rigorously identified and assessed as relevant, with appropriate mitigation and management measures incorporated into project design and budget. (all must be true to select this option)

2: Some evidence that the project aims to further the realization of human rights. Potential adverse impacts on enjoyment of human rights were identified and assessed as relevant, and appropriate mitigation and management measures incorporated into the project design and budget.

1: No evidence that the project aims to further the realization of human rights. Limited or no evidence that potential adverse impacts on enjoyment of human rights were considered.

*Note: Management action or strong management justification must be given for a score of 1

3 21

2

EvidenceProject

Document Section III

8. Did the project consider potential environmental opportunities and adverse impacts, applying a precautionary approach? (select from options 1-3 that best reflects this project): 3: Credible evidence that opportunities to enhance environmental sustainability and integrate poverty-

environment linkages were fully considered as relevant, and integrated in project strategy and design. Credible evidence that potential adverse environmental impacts have been identified and rigorously assessed with appropriate management and mitigation measures incorporated into project design and budget. (all must be true to select this option).

2: No evidence that opportunities to strengthen environmental sustainability and poverty-environment linkages were considered. Credible evidence that potential adverse environmental impacts have been identified and assessed, if relevant, and appropriate management and mitigation measures incorporated into project design and budget.

1: No evidence that opportunities to strengthen environmental sustainability and poverty-environment linkages were considered. Limited or no evidence that potential adverse environmental impacts were adequately considered.

*Note: Management action or strong management justification must be given for a score of 1

3 2

1

3

EvidenceProject

Document Section III

9. Has the Social and Environmental Screening Procedure (SESP) been conducted to identify potential social and environmental impacts and risks? The SESP is not required for projects in which UNDP is Administrative Agent only and/or projects comprised solely of reports, coordination of events, trainings, workshops, meetings, conferences and/or communication materials and information dissemination. [if yes, upload the completed checklist. If SESP is not required, provide the reason for the exemption in the evidence section.]

Yes NoDoes not apply to

GCF Readiness

NAP projects

MANAGEMENT & MONITORING

10. Does the project have a strong results framework? (select from options 1-3 that best reflects this project): 3: The project’s selection of outputs and activities are at an appropriate level and relate in a clear way to the

project’s theory of change. Outputs are accompanied by SMART, results-oriented indicators that measure all of the key expected changes identified in the theory of change, each with credible data sources, and populated baselines and targets, including gender sensitive, sex-disaggregated indicators where appropriate. (all must be true to select this option)

2: The project’s selection of outputs and activities are at an appropriate level, but may not cover all aspects of the project’s theory of change. Outputs are accompanied by SMART, results-oriented indicators, but baselines, targets and data sources may not yet be fully specified. Some use of gender sensitive, sex-disaggregated indicators, as appropriate. (all must be true to select this option)

1: The results framework does not meet all of the conditions specified in selection “2” above. This includes: the project’s selection of outputs and activities are not at an appropriate level and do not relate in a clear way to the project’s theory of change; outputs are not accompanied by SMART, results-oriented indicators that measure the expected change, and have not been populated with baselines and targets; data sources are not

3 21

2

Evidence Project

Document Section V

66 | P a g e

PROJECT QA ASSESSMENT: DESIGN AND APPRAISALspecified, and/or no gender sensitive, sex-disaggregation of indicators.

*Note: Management Action or strong management justification must be given for a score of 1

11. Is there a comprehensive and costed M&E plan in place with specified data collection sources and methods to support evidence-based management, monitoring and evaluation of the project?

Yes (3)

No (1)

12. Is the project’s governance mechanism clearly defined in the project document, including planned composition of the project board? (select from options 1-3 that best reflects this project):

3: The project’s governance mechanism is fully defined in the project composition. Individuals have been specified for each position in the governance mechanism (especially all members of the project board.) Project Board members have agreed on their roles and responsibilities as specified in the terms of reference. The ToR of the project board has been attached to the project document. (all must be true to select this option).

2: The project’s governance mechanism is defined in the project document; specific institutions are noted as holding key governance roles, but individuals may not have been specified yet. The prodoc lists the most important responsibilities of the project board, project director/manager and quality assurance roles. (all must be true to select this option)

1: The project’s governance mechanism is loosely defined in the project document, only mentioning key roles that will need to be filled at a later date. No information on the responsibilities of key positions in the governance mechanism is provided.

*Note: Management Action or strong management justification must be given for a score of 1

3 2

1

3

EvidenceProject

Document Sections

IV and VIII

13. Have the project risks been identified with clear plans stated to manage and mitigate each risks? (select from options 1-3 that best reflects this project):

3: Project risks related to the achievement of results are fully described in the project risk log, based on comprehensive analysis drawing on the theory of change, Social and Environmental Standards and screening, situation analysis, capacity assessments and other analysis. Clear and complete plan in place to manage and mitigate each risk. (both must be true to select this option)

2: Project risks related to the achievement of results identified in the initial project risk log with mitigation measures identified for each risk.

1: Some risks may be identified in the initial project risk log, but no evidence of analysis and no clear risk mitigation measures identified. This option is also selected if risks are not clearly identified and no initial risk log is included with the project document.

*Note: Management Action must be taken for a score of 1

3 21

2Evidence

Project Document Sections III and Annex

F

EFFICIENT

14. Have specific measures for ensuring cost-efficient use of resources been explicitly mentioned as part of the project design? This can include: i) using the theory of change analysis to explore different options of achieving the maximum results with the resources available; ii) using a portfolio management approach to improve cost effectiveness through synergies with other interventions; iii) through joint operations (e.g., monitoring or procurement) with other partners.

Yes (3)

No (1)

15. Are explicit plans in place to ensure the project links up with other relevant on-going projects and initiatives, whether led by UNDP, national or other partners, to achieve more efficient results (including, for example, through sharing resources or coordinating delivery?)

Yes (3)

No (1)

16. Is the budget justified and supported with valid estimates?

3: The project’s budget is at the activity level with funding sources, and is specified for the duration of the project period in a multi-year budget. Costs are supported with valid estimates using benchmarks from similar projects or activities. Cost implications from inflation and foreign exchange exposure have been estimated and incorporated in the budget.

2: The project’s budget is at the activity level with funding sources, when possible, and is specified for the duration of the project in a multi-year budget. Costs are supported with valid estimates based on prevailing rates.

1: The project’s budget is not specified at the activity level, and/or may not be captured in a multi-year budget.

3 21

2

EvidenceProject

Document Sections VII and IX

67 | P a g e

PROJECT QA ASSESSMENT: DESIGN AND APPRAISAL17. Is the Country Office fully recovering the costs involved with project implementation?

3: The budget fully covers all project costs that are attributable to the project, including programme management and development effectiveness services related to strategic country programme planning, quality assurance, pipeline development, policy advocacy services, finance, procurement, human resources, administration, issuance of contracts, security, travel, assets, general services, information and communications based on full costing in accordance with prevailing UNDP policies (i.e., UPL, LPL.)

2: The budget covers significant project costs that are attributable to the project based on prevailing UNDP policies (i.e., UPL, LPL) as relevant.

1: The budget does not adequately cover project costs that are attributable to the project, and UNDP is cross-subsidizing the project.

*Note: Management Action must be given for a score of 1. The budget must be revised to fully reflect the costs of implementation before the project commences.

3 21

2

EvidenceProject

Document Section VII

EFFECTIVE

18. Is the chosen implementation modality most appropriate? (select from options 1-3 that best reflects this project): 3: The required implementing partner assessments (capacity assessment, HACT micro assessment) have been

conducted, and there is evidence that options for implementation modalities have been thoroughly considered. There is a strong justification for choosing the selected modality, based on the development context. (both must be true to select this option)

2: The required implementing partner assessments (capacity assessment, HACT micro assessment) have been conducted and the implementation modality chosen is consistent with the results of the assessments.1: The required assessments have not been conducted, but there may be evidence that options for implementation modalities have been considered.

*Note: Management Action or strong management justification must be given for a score of 1

3 2

1

3

EvidenceReadiness

Framework Grant

Agreement between UNDP

and Donor (GCF) + No

implementing partner

19. Have targeted groups, prioritizing marginalized and excluded populations that will be affected by the project, been engaged in the design of the project in a way that addresses any underlying causes of exclusion and discrimination?

3: Credible evidence that all targeted groups, prioritising marginalized and excluded populations that will be involved in or affected by the project, have been actively engaged in the design of the project. Their views, rights and any constraints have been analysed and incorporated into the root cause analysis of the theory of change which seeks to address any underlying causes of exclusion and discrimination and the selection of project interventions.

2: Some evidence that key targeted groups, prioritising marginalized and excluded populations that will be involved in the project, have been engaged in the design of the project. Some evidence that their views, rights and any constraints have been analysed and incorporated into the root cause analysis of the theory of change and the selection of project interventions.

1: No evidence of engagement with marginalized and excluded populations that will be involved in the project during project design. No evidence that the views, rights and constraints of populations have been incorporated into the project.

3 2

1

3

EvidenceProject

Document Section III

20. Does the project conduct regular monitoring activities, have explicit plans for evaluation, and include other lesson learning (e.g. through After Action Reviews or Lessons Learned Workshops), timed to inform course corrections if needed during project implementation?

Yes (3)

No(1)

21. The gender marker for all project outputs are scored at GEN2 or GEN3, indicating that gender has been fully mainstreamed into all project outputs at a minimum.

*Note: Management Action or strong management justification must be given for a score of “no”

Yes(3)

No(1)

EvidenceProject

Document Section III

22. Is there a realistic multi-year work plan and budget to ensure outputs are delivered on time and within allotted resources? (select from options 1-3 that best reflects this project):

3 2 1

68 | P a g e

3: The project has a realistic work plan & budget covering the duration of the project at the activity level to ensure outputs are delivered on time and within the allotted resources.

2: The project has a work plan & budget covering the duration of the project at the output level. 1: The project does not yet have a work plan & budget covering the duration of the project.

2EvidenceProject

Document Sections VII &

Annex C

SUSTAINABILITY & NATIONAL OWNERSHIP

23. Have national partners led, or proactively engaged in, the design of the project? (select from options 1-3 that best reflects this project): 3: National partners have full ownership of the project and led the process of the development of the project

jointly with UNDP. 2: The project has been developed by UNDP in close consultation with national partners. 1: The project has been developed by UNDP with limited or no engagement with national partners.

3 21

2EvidenceProject

Document Section III

24. Are key institutions and systems identified, and is there a strategy for strengthening specific/ comprehensive capacities based on capacity assessments conducted? (select from options 0-4 that best reflects this project): 3: The project has a comprehensive strategy for strengthening specific capacities of national institutions based on

a systematic and detailed capacity assessment that has been completed. This strategy includes an approach to regularly monitor national capacities using clear indicators and rigorous methods of data collection, and adjust the strategy to strengthen national capacities accordingly.

2.5: A capacity assessment has been completed. The project document has identified activities that will be undertaken to strengthen capacity of national institutions, but these activities are not part of a comprehensive strategy to monitor and strengthen national capacities.

2: A capacity assessment is planned after the start of the project. There are plans to develop a strategy to strengthen specific capacities of national institutions based on the results of the capacity assessment.

1.5: There is mention in the project document of capacities of national institutions to be strengthened through the project, but no capacity assessments or specific strategy development are planned.

1: Capacity assessments have not been carried out and are not foreseen. There is no strategy for strengthening specific capacities of national institutions.

3 2.52 1.5

1

2.5

Evidence Project

Document Sections III

& V

25. Is there is a clear strategy embedded in the project specifying how the project will use national systems (i.e., procurement, monitoring, evaluations, etc.,) to the extent possible?

Yes (3)

No (1)

26. Is there a clear transition arrangement/ phase-out plan developed with key stakeholders in order to sustain or scale up results (including resource mobilisation strategy)?

Yes (3)

No (1)

69 | P a g e

i Additional notes:

The four natural regions are corresponding to the eight administrative regions: Conakry, Boke, Kindia, Mamou, Faranah, Kankan, Labe, Nzerekoreii AFDB (2017), African Economic Outlook, Guinea.iii CEA (2015), Profil pays-Guinée.iv Ministère du Plan (2012), Enquête légère pour l’évaluation de la pauvreté.v MMGE (2002), First National Communication.vi MAEEEF (2007), NAPA.vii GFDRR database (consulted in March 2018).viii MAEEEF (2007), PANAix Ibid.x Effet 3.3.5. La recherche et l’Innovation technologique sont promuesxi NAPAxii Respectively by the projects “Adaptation to Climate Change in the Konkouré Watershed through Integrated Natural Resource Management and the Promotion of Climate-Smart Technologies”, and “Strengthening the resilience and adaptation to climate change of the Guinean coastline”xiii from the project “Strengthening farmers communities’ livelihoods resilience against climate changes in the Guinean Prefectures of Gaoual, Koundara and Mali” – see initiatives supporting adaptation planningxiv GEF (2016), Project terminal evaluation.xv See guidance here: https://popp.undp.org/UNDP_POPP_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY/Public/FRM_Financial%20Management%20and%20Implementation%20Modality_Direct%20Implementation%20Modality.docx?web=1