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

(a) To endorse the concept for the proposal AFB/NIE/Coastal/2010/1, in accordance with the operational policies and guidelines;

(b) To request the secretariat to transmit technical review sheet, contained in document AFB/PPRC.1/3, to Centre de Suivi Ecologique (CSE);

(c) To further request the secretariat to transmit to the CSE the observations made by the members of the PPRC on the project when discussing it at the first meeting of the PPRC and listed under item (d) below and contained in annex III to the present report; and

(d) To encourage the CSE to submit a fully-developed project proposal, and to provide to the Adaptation Fund Board the clarifications requested in the technical review sheet, and in the comments of the PPRC, specifically:

i. The project references several other adaptation projects in Senegal which deal directly or indirectly with coastal areas but it does not specify how it would be additional. The project proposal should provide more details on how it is linked to the other projects.

ii. There are few technical specifications for the proposed infrastructure or management interventions. As these interventions are expected to require most of the project budget, their technical feasibility is a key question. The project proposal needs to provide more details.

iii. The project management structure requires clarification. This would need to be elaborated in the final project document, especially the distinction between implementing and executing entities. It should be considered whether the project should be modified to a programme instead. Also, horizontal coordination between location-specific components should be explained in more depth.

iv. Explanation on the participation of non-governmental organizations, in particular the Women‘s Association, should be provided.

v. The choice of specific locations and communities as well as other beneficiaries is not explained, which does not allow evaluating the exact expected impact of the project on resilience. Such explanation should be provided.

vi. There is need for further information on how the project addresses the risks created by climate change; inclusion of an assessment of risks would be helpful. Also, some elements, e.g. the component for Joal, seem to address issues such as waste management and the clearing of canals, and it is not clearly explained how these would contribute to adaptation.

vii. The proposal also addresses the issue of regulation. It should be explained how such regulations could be put in place when setting that as a milestone.

viii. The long-term sustainability of the project results after the project end should be explained.