Georgia: Developing Climate Resilient Flood and Flash Flood Management Practices to Protect Vulnerable Communities in Georgia (UNDP) (GEO/MIE/DRR/2010/4, US $5,136,500)

Having considered the comments and recommendations of the Project and Programme Review Committee, the Adaptation Fund Board decided to:

(a) Not approve the project document, as supplemented by the clarification response provided by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to the request made by the technical review;

(b) Request that UNDP reformulates the proposal taking into account the following issues:

(i) The proposal should elaborate the actual adaptation benefit, as opposed to the general development benefits, of the project; which should be quantified to the greatest extent possible, and also explain why the described project approach was chosen instead of other possible ways of allocating similar funds;

(ii) The proposal should provide an analysis on the viability or risks related to the proposed insurance scheme, and describe where that type of scheme would draw examples from;

(iii) The basis for “direct” beneficiaries should be clarified in terms of economic, agricultural, or ecosystem-based benefits The proposal should quantify expected results to be achieved in the 1,200 km to be covered by agroforestry,  and  other bioengineering measures;

(iv) The proposal should explain how the goal setting of this project takes into account the previous and on-going projects, as well as how lessons learned from those projects would be used to help set the goals of this project and be integrated into the learning and knowledge management activities of this project. It should also be explained how coordination with other initiatives during the project would be arranged;

(v) The proposal should provide more information on the community consultations in the target regions, including information on their timing, the main issues discussed, community approval of planned project activities, and any feedback that was used to inform the development of the project;

(vi) The proposal should explain how long-term maintenance will be assured by the government of Georgia, as stated in terms of adequacy of staff and allocations; and

(vii) The proposal should clarify the ability of the proposed coordinating executing entity to coordinate activities related to infrastructure development as well as the other areas not listed under its mandate.

(c) Request UNDP to transmit the observations referred to in paragraph (b) above to the Government of Georgia, on the understanding that a revised project document might be submitted at a later date.