partner consultations points, National Interministerial Committees) and composition are etc. ) adequately described. 32 Are supervision / Yes Supervision / oversight arrangements are clear and appropriate, and in HS oversight arrangements accordance with GEF and UNEP standard policies and practices. The clear and appropriate? project document also describes the composition and role of the PMU, PSC, Coordination Group, focal points, etc. Management, Addressed by HS Execution and PRC Partnership Arrangements 33 Have the capacities of No The capacities of partners are not explicitly assessed in the project HS partners been document but partners are selected based on their known capacities adequately assessed? based on, for example, their respective areas of expertise and activities related to environmental and natural resources management in the region. Selected partners have excellent capacities for execution of relevant project activities. 34 Are the execution No The execution arrangements are clear and roles and responsibilities HS arrangements clear and within UNEP are clearly defined (including TORs of all Project are roles and management staff). responsibilities within UNEP clearly defined? 35 Are the and No The roles and responsibilities of external partners are clear and HS responsibilities of properly specified in each component and in programme external partners implementation and institutional framework. properly specified? Financial Planning / Addressed by S budgeting PRC 36 Are there any obvious Partially Detailed budgets are presented in the project document. No S deficiencies in the deficiences and irregularities are observed. budgets / financial planning? (coherence of the budget, do figures add up etc.) Has budget been Yes Work and associated budgets are included in the project S reviewed and agreed to document, which has been reviewed by key stakeholders, and the fact be realistic with key that the project was ultimately endorsed by the GEF CEO indicates that project stakeholders? the budget was considered realistic. 37 Is the resource No Resource utilization appears to be cost effective. S utilization cost effective? 38 How realistic is the No Resource mobilization strategy/financing mechanism is to be resource mobilization developed during the project. Annex N of the project document strategy? presents a Review of existing financial constraints and measures and proposal for a UNEP/GEF programme on strengthening sustainable environmental financial mechanism for the implementation of the NAPS. 39 Are the financial and Partially Financial and administrative arrangements are clearly described and S administrative are consistent with UNEP policies and practices. Flows of funds to the arrangements including project components and activities are clearly described. flows of funds clearly described?
partner consultations etc. ) points, National Interministerial Committees) and composition are adequately described. 32 Are supervision / oversight arrangements clear and appropriate? Yes Supervision / oversight arrangements are clear and appropriate, and in accordance with GEF and UNEP standard policies and practices. The project document also describes the composition and role of the PMU, PSC, Coordination Group, focal points, etc. HS Management, Execution and Partnership Arrangements Addressed by PRC HS 33 Have the capacities of partners been adequately assessed? No The capacities of partners are not explicitly assessed in the project document but partners are selected based on their known capacities based on, for example, their respective areas of expertise and activities related to environmental and natural resources management in the region. Selected partners have excellent capacities for execution of relevant project activities. HS 34 Are the execution arrangements clear and are roles and responsibilities within UNEP clearly defined? No The execution arrangements are clear and roles and responsibilities within UNEP are clearly defined (including TORs of all Project management staff). HS 35 Are the and responsibilities of external partners properly specified? No The roles and responsibilities of external partners are clear and properly specified in each component and in programme implementation and institutional framework. HS Financial Planning / budgeting Addressed by PRC S 36 Are there any obvious deficiencies in the budgets / financial planning? (coherence of the budget, do figures add up etc.) Partially Detailed budgets are presented in the project document. No deficiences and irregularities are observed. S Has budget been reviewed and agreed to be realistic with key project stakeholders? Yes Work and associated budgets are included in the project document, which has been reviewed by key stakeholders, and the fact that the project was ultimately endorsed by the GEF CEO indicates that the budget was considered realistic. S 37 Is the resource utilization cost effective? No Resource utilization appears to be cost effective. S 38 How realistic is the resource mobilization strategy? No Resource mobilization strategy/financing mechanism is to be developed during the project. Annex N of the project document presents a Review of existing financial constraints and measures and proposal for a UNEP/GEF programme on strengthening sustainable environmental financial mechanism for the implementation of the NAPS. 39 Are the financial and administrative arrangements including flows of funds clearly described? Partially Financial and administrative arrangements are clearly described and are consistent with UNEP policies and practices. Flows of funds to the project components and activities are clearly described. S