Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel Report to the 56 th Meeting - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel Report to the 56th Meeting of the GEF Council

“Shaun the Sheep” aired 2006-2016, and was broadcast in over 180 countries.

STAP AP Pane anel l Me Membe mbers s an and Advi viser sers

Ferenc Toth Climate Change Adaptation Rosie Cooney Biodiversity Jamidu Katima Chemicals & Waste Graciela Metternicht Land Degradation Saleem Ali Climate Change Mitigation Blake Ratner International Waters Rosina Bierbaum Chair Thomas Lovejoy Adviser to Chair Mark Stafford Smith Adviser to Chair

New w sc scien ience ce Im Impact act Programs rograms Four

• ur paper

apers STAP P wor

• rk

k progr rogram am Obser servation ations s on

• n GE

GEF work

• rk program

rogram

NEW NEW SCIENCE IENCE

Th The e Global lobal Ri Risks sks La Land ndscape scape 20 2019 19

Source: World Economic Forum Global Risks Perception Survey 2018-2019

IP IPBES: BES: Key f y findings indings

• 1 million species at risk of extinction
• Key drivers : land/sea use change; exploitation;

climate change; pollution, and invasive species

• As production of food, fiber, and energy increase,
• ther services of nature (such as regulating

climate) are decreasing

• 75% of land area and 66% of oceans significantly

altered

• Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities

important in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity

Photo: Mossy frog (Theloderma corticale) by mgkuijpers Photo: Blue Seastar on Seagrass" by ead72

IP IPBES: BES: Key findings y findings

• Most of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets likely to be missed
• Continuing loss of biodiversity, coupled with climate change,

threaten achieving most of the UN SDGs

• Business-as-usual scenarios show worsening loss of biodiversity
• Nature-based solutions for climate change can be beneficial for

biodiversity (e.g., restoration with native species), but can be detrimental (large scale bioenergy replacing native vegetation)

• Transformative changes need inclusive governance systems,

evolution of economic systems, multi-sectoral planning, incentives for sustainable production and consumption, etc.

Photo: Sloth by janossygergely

IP IPCC CC: : May 2019: 19: Refinemen inement to t

• the 200

006 6 Gu Guidel idelines ines for

• r Nat

atio ional nal Gr Green enho hous use e Ga Gas s In Invent ntories

• ries

Mainly an update of the 2006 guidelines. Examples relevant to the GEF:

• calculation of soil carbon stock and storage under different

management regimes, emission factors for rice cultivation

• methane emissions estimation from landfills at solid waste

disposal sites

• methane, nitrous oxide and CO2 from incineration and open

burning of waste The IPCC agreed to develop methodologies for short-lived climate forcers like black carbon and other air pollutants

IP IPCC CC: : Cli limat ate e Chan ange ge an and La Land; d; Ocea cean n an and Cryosphere

• sphere in

in a a Changing anging Cli limat mate

• August 2019: Climate Change and Land
• September 2019: Ocean and Cryosphere

in a Changing Climate

GCA CA MESSAGE: GE:

Adaptation is about integrating climate risk into growth and development It is about pursuing growth and development differently and better

GC GCA Com

• mmissioner

missioners s met met May 21; ; Next xt me meetin ting g Ju July ly 9-10 10

• DISASTER RISK REDUCTION: $1 in investment saves $6 in avoided loss (U.S. study)
• NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS: Mangroves 2-5x more cost-effective than engineered solutions
• INFRASTRUCTURE: Upgrading infrastructure has a benefit cost ratio > 4 (developing countries)

GCA CA MESSAGE: GE: The he econ

• nom
• mic

ic case for for ada dapt ptation tion is clear r and nd com

• mpe

pelling lling

GCA CA Products Products

• 50 p. Synthesis (high-level document for policymakers); UNGA September 2019
• 150 p. Technical document, delivered at the UNFCCC COP, November 2019

Synergy rgy with GEF di dire rectio tions: ns:

• nature

ure-base based d solutions, ions, citie ies, s, water er, , foo food, d, and d an incre creas ased ed foc focus us on kno nowle wledge dge, , Inn nnovatio ation, n, gover vernan nance ce, , and nd fi finance nance

FINANCE GOVERNANCE KNOWLEDGE INNOVATION

Global Chemicals Outlook II (GCO-II)

Suggest gested ed GEF Actio ions ns Support projects that address regulatory and institutional gaps Promote the integrated approach in GEF investments Increase engagement with the private sector Invest in projects focused on the life cycle and circular economy

Im Impact pact Progra rograms ms

Photo: Camilo Bruno Photo: Thomas Mangelsen Photo: Pascal Maitre

6 STAP AP Cri riteria eria to p

• promo

romote e in innovati ation,

• n, in

integrati gration

• n,

, an and tran ansf sform

• rmati

ation

• n in

in the IP IPs

• Innovation
• Barriers to transformation
• Maximize GEBs, manage trade-offs, including climate risk
• Multi-stakeholder processes
• Theory of change
• Monitoring, evaluation, learning, and knowledge management

6 I 6 IP Crit iteria: eria: in inno novation; ation; an and d bar arrier riers

• Inno

novation ation

+ All IPs identified innovations

• More types of innovation? How to scale? All scalable?
• Ba

Barrier ers s to tr tran ansformat mation ion

+ Barriers usually described

• Implications for program design? Vested interest barriers?

6 IP Cri riter eria ia: : ri risk sks; s; an and st stak akeholder eholder en enga gagem gement ent

• Ma

Maxi ximi mize e GEB EBs, s, ma manage age tr trad ade-offs, fs, including cluding cl clima mate e risk

+ Risks usually well-described

• Explicitly addressed? How to manage trade-offs? Implications for

design?

• Mu

Mult lti-st stak akeholde holder processe

• cesses

+ All had a strong emphasis on multi-stakeholder processes

• Child projects engaged? Barriers to engagement?

6 I 6 IP Crit iteria: eria: th theo eory y of

• f chang

hange; e; an and d ME MEL/KM L/KM

• Theor

heory y of Change ange

+ TOCs generally strong on goals

• Causal links clear? TOCs for value chains, child projects? Pathways

identified? Assumptions spelt out?

• Monit

itor

• ring,

ing, evalua aluation, tion, le lear arning, ning, knowle wledge ge man anagem agemen ent

+ Central element of all IPs

• Metrics and indicators? How will learning support adaptive

management? How to track M&E outcomes to KM?

FOU OUR P R PAPERS ERS

Durability ility Clima imate e risk k screenin ning Local l commons

• ns

Land nd degra radation dation ne neutr tralit ality

Achie ieving ving Mor

• re

e En Enduring uring Outcomes comes From rom GE GEF In Investments estments

• A request from the GEF secretariat
• Build on STAP’s findings on

‘integration’ and climate risk screening.

• A comprehensive analysis of the

literature is on the STAP website.

Photo: Shawn W.

http://www.stapgef.org/achieving-more-enduring-outcomes-gef-investment

Wh Why y a a foc

• cus

us on

• n Du

Durability rability is is warrant arranted ed

• Enduring impacts need to persist in the face of long-term external changes, e.g. climate
• Transformational change does not necessary imply greater durability
• Larger investments do not necessarily guarantee transformational success
• Transformation needs to be embedded in planning from the outset
• Systems change for transformation requires innovation
• Greater innovation brings the likelihood of higher failure rates

Relationshi elationship p betw betwee een n some

• me ter

erms ms

Project ct Program (multiple projects) GEBs Other long-term benefits Project

• utput

puts Outcome comes (project scope) Output puts (program scope) Imp mpacts cts (project scope)

Un Unscale led pro roje ject Project lifetime Program lifetime

GEF investment phase Decreasing influence of GEF (period for ensuring a good ToC) (period for judging durability) Impa mpacts cts (wider scope) Outcomes comes (wider scope)

(a) Project achieves local impacts but fails to endure (c) Project scales, but scaling does not endure (due to poor design or unforeseen changes) (d) Project scales durably (e.g. success demonstrated and private sector or policy self-interest takes over) (e) Multiple projects integrated in a program to wide impact durably (e.g. major part of value chain affected or multi- country policy change achieved) Period of GEF-dominated funding Subsequent scaling path as set up by initial funding Time (b) Project achieves enduring local impact only Impact ‘local’ scaled

From outputs to enduring impacts and delivery of GEBs

Council

• uncil nee

eeds s to d

• dec

ecide ide on

• n it

its ap appetit tite e for

• r ri

risk sk

Innovati tion

• n

Hig igh Low

Impa mpact ct

Low Hig igh

Avoid

• id

Minimi nimise se

Preferre rred Acc cceptabl ptable

STAP’s recommendations on Durability

• 1. Council needs to articulate an explicit risk appetite
• 2. Apply systems thinking
• 3. Develop a clear rationale and robust theory of change
• 4. Choose the innovations
• 5. Analyze the barriers to, and enablers of, transformation
• 6. Maximize GEBs, manage trade-offs, including climate risk
• 7. Develop multi-stakeholder platforms
• 8. Establish a monitoring, evaluation, learning, and knowledge

management process

NOTE: Most of these amplify the Integration and Climate Risk Screening papers!

STAP AP gu guid idance ance on

• n cl

climat imate e ri risk sk scre creening ening

• The importance of addressing climate risk was

recognized by the GEF Council in 2010

• In December 2018, the Council approved a new

safeguard policy which said that, “short- and long- term risks posed by climate change …[should be]… considered systematically in screening, assessment and planning processes…”

• This guidance builds on climate questions in

STAP’s screening guidelines (June 2018)

Photo: Mauricio Lima

Clim limat ate e ri risk scre reening: ening: re revie iew of G f GEF agency ncy meth ethods ds

STAP review indicates that risk screening is variable across GEF agencies

Agency Identifies climate risks Considers how risks might affect project's objectives Recommends action to ameliorate climate risk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

• Criteria

Cli limat ate e ris isk k scr cree eening: ning: 4 s 4 step eps

Four steps in a climate risk assessment (IPCC): N.B. Assessing climate risk is an integral part of designing a project, not a risk treatment post-design, after which options are likely to have narrowed

Hazard Identification Evalaution of Vulnerability and Exposure Risk Rating Risk Management

Examples Examples of

• f cl

climat imate e ris isks ks

• Water:

r: ranges of marine organisms shifting to higher latitudes (up to 40 km per year) creating novel ecosystems

• Chemical

icals: +1°C estimated to increase the volatility of POPs by 10-15%, e.g. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

• FOL

OLUR: R: significant reductions in global production of wheat, rice, maize, and soybeans, for each 1°C increase in global mean temperature

• Amazo

zon: global warming of 3°– 4°C may result in a significant dieback of the forest

Cli limat ate e ris isk k scr cree eening: ning: ne next t step eps

• Environmental and social safeguards: June and December 2019 GEF

Secretariat will assess agencies against new policy

• STAP will convene a workshop with the GEF Secretariat and agencies

to promote learning, compare screening efforts, and discuss best practices

• STAP will be reporting on climate risk screening for each work

program.

Lo Loca cal l co comm mmon

• ns

s for

• r gl

glob

• bal

al benef nefits: its: in indigenous igenous an and co comm mmunity unity- bas ased ed ma manag agement ement of

• f wil

wild sp species ecies, , for

• rests

sts an and drylands ylands

• A discussion at the International Dialogue on the

Global Commons in 2016

• Based on an extensive review of literature related

to outcomes of community-based natural resource management and environmental

• utcomes

Photo: Child from Tupi Guarani tribe by filipefrazao http://www.stapgef.org/local-commons-global-benefits-indigenous-and-community-based-management-wild- species-forests-and

Local cal commons mmons for r gl global bal ben enef efits its

• A large portion of the Earth’s land area is communally -

managed or used by local communities

• Governance is often weak
• Lack of legally recognized tenure
• De facto “open access” areas susceptible to destruction

and degradation

• Strengthening community rights to manage land and

resources is a promising approach

Photo: Deforestation. Logging of rainforest in Borneo, Malaysia" by Richard Carey

STAP’s recommendations

• Assess the presence of IPLCs and current rights to use and manage

land resources

• Problem analysis should pay particular attention to tenure issues

driving negative environmental outcomes

• Consider how shifting rights, incentives and capacity could be

transformative

• Some fundamental design characteristics including: encourage

secure land and resolve tenure for IPLCs; enable communities to gain from sustainable use of wild resources; and, support inclusive, equitable and effective community governance

Photo: Community meeting at Mumbwa Game Management Area by Virginia Gorsevski http://www.stapgef.org/local-commons-global-benefits- indigenous-and-community-based-management-wild-species- forests-and

La Land De nd Degradation radation Ne Neutr trality ality: :

• Fundamental aim for LDN is to ensure no net loss
• f healthy and productive land
• LDN will be achieved through a combination of

avoid, reduce, reverse land degradation

• 122 countries have committed to LDN
• GEF supporting countries on LDN
• Offer practical guidance for LDN projects
• Guidelines at UNCCD COP 14 Delhi

Photo: Peter Minang Photo: Guillaume Nadeau /ECOTIERRA

La Land nd De Degr gradatio adation n Neu eutrality: trality: draf aft t gu guid idelines elines

Support of LDN in the land degradation focal area and the IPs for FOLUR and Drylands. STAP agreed with the GEF secretariat that guidelines should be developed Guidelines will be presented at the UNCCD COP 14th in September 2019

Photo: goldenscope.com

STAP’s work program

STAP’s work program

• Land degradation neutrality guidelines: September 2019
• Remote sensing
• Climate risk screening workshop
• Blockchain workshop
• Multi-stakeholder dialogues
• Theory of change
• Implications of the Global Commission on Adaptation for the GEF

Observations on the GEF’s work program

Ob Obser ervations ations on

• n th

the Jun e June e wor work k program rogram

On climate risk:

• Some projects contained preliminary climate risk screening
• Some projects did not consider how future climate change would affect project
• bjectives or durability
• Some projects considered climate risk only in terms of hazards or extreme events
• Some identified climate risks, but did not present ameliorative measures
• In LDCF/SCCF projects, there is scope to build adaptive (natural resource and

livelihood investments), absorptive (disaster risk management), and transformative (improved governance and enabling conditions) capacity

Photo: Jurgen Otto

The he En End! d! Qu Questions? estions?