Feedback for GEF/STAP on Climate Screening Tools Background The - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feedback for GEF/STAP on Climate Screening Tools

Background

• The GEF Council provided Guidance in 2010

requesting climate risks to be addressed in projects.

• GEF-7 proposes policy for mainstreaming climate

risk screening.

○

At UNFCCC COP 22 (2016) GEF was requested “to take into consideration climate risks in all its programs and

• perations, as appropriate, keeping in

mind lessons learned and best practices”.

Building on STAP evaluation of use of climate data in GEF-5 and GEF-6 projects (2016-2017):

Future climate information either missing or cursory. Impacts mentioned but rarely a plan for ameliorating them included Climate risk timeframe: project duration vs expected GEBs. If climate risk assessments are done, tend to occur well after the development of project

• bjectives.

Goal of this year’s analysis:

Assist GEF in screening for climate risks across projects and programmes.

• Evaluate approved GEF-6 PIFS and CEO-

endorsed projects using WB and AID climate screening tools to see how well they identified potential risks and responded to them

• Recommend ways future projects can be

improved by incorporating climate risks as the project is developed.

Group 1 Project Overview

ID 8005 Armenia ID 6943 Azerbaijan ID 6947 Belarus ID 6927 Egypt ID 6923 Eritrea ID 9058 Latin America & Caribbean ID 6949 Tajikistan ID 6924 Vietnam Project Focus Biodiversity Biodiversity Forestry Climate Change Climate Change Biodiversity Biodiversity Climate Change Project Partner IFAD UNDP Ministry of Forestry IFAD UNDP IADB UNDP AsDB Submission Date January 2014 August 2014 November 2014 August 2014 September 2014 March 2015 August 2014 August 2014 Amount Funded from GEF $ 3.9 M $ 4.16 M $ 2.73 M $ 7.8 M $ 9.05 M $ 10 M $ 4.18 M $ 4.57 M

ID 6955 Chile ID 9037 Kyrgyzstan ID 9537 Morocco ID 6945 Costa Rica ID 8031 Uzbekistan ID 6940 Laos ID 6951 Morocco ID 6964 West Africa ID 9267 Myanmar Project Focus Climate Change Agriculture Forestry Agriculture Water Climate Change Biodiversity Land Use Biodiversity Forestry Climate Change Water Biodiversity Forestry Project Partner FAO World Bank FAO UNDP UNDP UNDP EBRD VBA ADB Submission Date August 2014 May 2015 June 2016 August 2014 March 2015 August 2014 August 2014 March 2014 November 2016 Amount Funded from GEF $ 2.5 M $ 4.11 M $ 8.6 M $ 5.0 M $ 6.2 M $ 10.8 M $ 6.1 M $ 7.2 M $ 4.6 M

Group 2 Project Overview

Group 3 Project Overview

ID 6958 Kyrgyzstan ID 6960 Turkmenistan ID 6970 Pacific Islands ID 7993 Belarus ID 8021 Zambia ID 9047 Mediterranean & Black Sea ID 9051 Moringa Africa ID 9360 West Africa Project Focus

Forestry Biodiversity Climate Change Fishery

Biodiversity Forestry Biodiversity Finance Fishery Forestry Biodiversity Climate Change IAP Fishery Forestry Agriculture

Project Partner

UNDP UNDP World Bank UNDP AfDB EBRD AfDB World Bank

Submission Date

August 2014 August 2014 August 2014 December 2014 February 2015 December 2014 March 2015 May 2016

Amount Funded from GEF

$ 4 M $ 3 M $ 6.3 M $ 4.2 M $ 7.3 M $ 15 M $ 12 M $ 10 M

World Bank Tool: Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages

• Guided step-by-step risk assessment process

(exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity)

• Useful to understand bigger picture and

interconnection between sectors

• World Bank Country Adaptation Profiles

extremely useful, when available

• Contains list of possible hazards
• CC Knowledge Portal provides climate data

Disadvantages

• Requires level of climate and

environmental knowledge

• Difficult to select the most relevant project-

level tool for certain projects

• Impossible to screen an entire region
• Allows for bias when evaluating non-

physical components and social, economic, and political factors

• While professionally designed, the output

is difficult to understand

USAID Tool: Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages

• Climate Risk Management portal offers

detailed country/regional summaries

• Breaks projects into smaller components
• Facilitated a more guided discussion with a

team

• Good for regional analysis
• The tool is easily available and good for
• ffline use

Disadvantages

• Matrix is not designed to address non-

climate stressors

• Some sections are redundant or confusing

to understand

• Does not allow for a comprehensive

analysis of the project components and the risk to the components

• Tool is not intuitive or user friendly

Strong and Weak Projects

Strong Projects

• 1. Clearly stated and laid out climate change risks in PIF; had clear objectives to

address climate change, further explained and justified in PRODOC, e.g., drought.

Example: Egypt ID6927 (climate change; IFAD) Food security, Rural incomes for women

• 2. Explicitly identifies climate risks and how to address. Responds to external factors

and potential changes to the environment, national/local capabilities, and socioeconomic conditions. Detailed analysis, used UNDP screening tool.

Example: Kyrgyzstan ID6958 (MFA; UNDP) Integrated Management Approach Forests/Habitats

• 3. Established plans to upkeep and monitor climate hazards beyond project

implementation time frame; stakeholder group to coordinate on climate change; communication strategy to help communities prepare. Progress reports annually, information system, training.

Example: Chile ID6955 (climate change: FAO) Fisheries, Aquaculture, Coasts

Weaker Projects

• 1. Site selection to improve coastal fisheries doesn’t include climate change and

sealevel rise as a consideration.

Example:South Pacific Islands ID6970 (IW/Biodiv; WB) Sustainable Fishery in International Waters

• 2. Lacked key capacity building and information gathering elements that would

improve climate change resilience/disaster preparedness, recovery, and early warning systems.

Example: Kyrgyzstan ID9037 (Ag/Forestry; WB) Sustainable Forest Management; Institutions

• 3. Vague in explaining climate change response practices to identified issues such as

water shortages, flooding, monitoring; PRODOC only 18 pages.

Example: Vietnam ID6924 (Climate Change; AsDB) Reduce urban vulnerability

• 1. Consider requiring screening tool
• 2. Clarify what’s needed in the PIF on climate risk
• 3. Consider adding a new section to the PRODOC to discuss how risks addressed
• 4. MFA/regional project considerations
• 5. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

Possible Recommendations for GEF/STAP

• 1. Consider Requiring a Climate Screening Tool
• Regardless of focal area or funding amount to meet Council’s 2010 Request
• Caution against requiring 1 tool because the projects the GEF funds vary widely
• Aspects of a good screening tool

○ Intuitive to use ○ Available in offline versions ○ Provide multiple examples on how the tool is used ○ Provide sources on where to find climate risk information

• In addition to reviewing the World Bank and USAID tools, we looked at:

○ OECD’s Harmonising Climate Risk Management Adaptation Screening and Assessment Tools for Development Cooperation ○ ISD CRiSTAL ○ UK CIP Wizard tool

• 2. Clarify what’s needed in the PIF
• Could include a “climate

change hazard table”

• The applying agency can

select relevant climate hazards to the project area

○ Note: the hazards listed in this table are not the full list

• Once hazards are

determined, the agencies evaluate and fill out the corresponding boxes

Hazard Historical Trend Future Trend Exposure Level Notes Temperature ^ 0.5 to 0.9 C per decade since 1970 ^ 1 to 2 C increase by 2050 High Project located in the desert Precipitation Drought Sea Level Rise Storm Surge Strong Winds Desertification ….. Other (Please Describe)

• 3. Consider adding a New Section to the PRODOC
• Introduce clarifying questions to the PRODOC:

a. Of the climate risks identified in the PIF, which of these will impact this project component and how? b. Does this project component mitigate the risks from a? If so, how? If not, why? c. Does this project component allow for adaptation to the risks from a? If so, how? (prompt thinking)

• Questions b and c flag the need to have implementing agencies think about a

“Plan B” if the project is not producing the outputs expected

• The GEF should continue to think about where and when the project cycle

there should be consideration of a “Plan B”, be it the PIF or PRODOC or at some other mid-point in the implementation.

• 4. MFA/Regional Project Considerations
• MFA and Regional projects are inherently complex projects that either tackle

multiple countries or multiple focal areas, but they also have the potential to amplify and improve project outcomes by creating ‘systems’ benefits across more than one focal area and in support of more than one MEA.

• Two recommendations:
• 1. Standardize the level of detail on action for regional projects
• 2. Require MFA projects to discuss component interaction

ID 6955 Chile ID 9037 Kyrgyzstan ID 9537 Morocco ID 6945 Costa Rica ID 8031 Uzbekistan ID 6940 Laos ID 6951 Morocco ID 6964 West Africa ID 9267 Myanmar Project Focus Climate Change Agriculture Forestry Agriculture Water Climate Change Biodiversity Land Use Biodiversity Forestry Climate Change Water Biodiversity Forestry Project Partner FAO World Bank FAO UNDP UNDP UNDP EBRD VBA ADB Submission Date August 2014 May 2015 June 2016 August 2014 March 2015 August 2014 August 2014 March 2014 November 2016 Monitoring Evaluation Learning Capacity Building

• 5. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

Questions?

Full paper and link to all detailed analyses available!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cd49MjdUJkUYV-92i-w35r_CpE4d7vg5PTN3FfSwa3E/edit?usp=sharing