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 operations, 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 objectives.
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 ID 6943 ID 6947 ID 6927 ID 6923 ID 9058 ID 6949 ID 6924 Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Egypt Eritrea Latin Tajikistan Vietnam America & Caribbean Biodiversity Biodiversity Forestry Climate Climate Biodiversity Biodiversity Climate Project Focus Change Change Change IFAD UNDP Ministry of IFAD UNDP IADB UNDP AsDB Project Partner Forestry Submission January August November August September March 2015 August August 2014 Date 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 Amount $ 3.9 M $ 4.16 M $ 2.73 M $ 7.8 M $ 9.05 M $ 10 M $ 4.18 M $ 4.57 M Funded from GEF
Group 2 Project Overview ID 6955 ID 9037 ID 9537 ID 6945 ID 8031 ID 6940 ID 6951 ID 6964 ID 9267 Chile Kyrgyzstan Morocco Costa Uzbekistan Laos Morocco West Myanmar Rica Africa Climate Agriculture Agriculture Climate Biodiversity Biodiversity Climate Water Biodiversity Project Focus Change Forestry Water Change Land Use Forestry Change Forestry Project FAO World Bank FAO UNDP UNDP UNDP EBRD VBA ADB Partner Submission August May 2015 June 2016 August March 2015 August August March November Date 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2016 $ 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 Amount Funded from GEF
Group 3 Project Overview ID 6958 ID 6960 ID 6970 ID 7993 ID 8021 ID 9047 ID 9051 ID 9360 Kyrgyzstan Turkmenistan Pacific Belarus Zambia Mediterranean Moringa West Islands & Black Sea Africa Africa Forestry Fishery Fishery Project Forestry Fishery Climate Change Biodiversity Forestry Climate Change IAP Forestry Biodiversity Biodiversity Focus Finance Biodiversity Agriculture Project World World UNDP UNDP UNDP AfDB EBRD AfDB Partner Bank Bank Submission August December February March May August 2014 August 2014 December 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 Date Amount Funded $ 4 M $ 3 M $ 6.3 M $ 4.2 M $ 7.3 M $ 15 M $ 12 M $ 10 M from GEF
World Bank Tool: Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages ● ● Guided step-by-step risk assessment process Requires level of climate and (exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity) environmental knowledge ● Useful to understand bigger picture and ● Difficult to select the most relevant project- interconnection between sectors level tool for certain projects ● Impossible to screen an entire region ● World Bank Country Adaptation Profiles extremely useful, when available ● Allows for bias when evaluating non- physical components and social, ● Contains list of possible hazards economic, and political factors ● While professionally designed, the output ● CC Knowledge Portal provides climate data is difficult to understand
USAID Tool: Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages ● ● Matrix is not designed to address non- Climate Risk Management portal offers climate stressors detailed country/regional summaries ● Breaks projects into smaller components ● Some sections are redundant or confusing to understand ● Facilitated a more guided discussion with a team ● Does not allow for a comprehensive analysis of the project components and ● Good for regional analysis the risk to the components ● The tool is easily available and good for offline use ● 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
Possible Recommendations for GEF/STAP 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
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 wha t’s needed in the PIF Hazard Historical Future Trend Exposure Notes ● Could include a “climate Trend Level change hazard table” Temperature High ^ 0.5 to 0.9 C ^ 1 to 2 C Project per decade since increase by located in the ● The applying agency can 1970 2050 desert select relevant climate Precipitation hazards to the project area Drought ○ Note: the hazards listed in this Sea Level Rise table are not the full list Storm Surge ● Strong Winds Once hazards are Desertification determined, the agencies ….. evaluate and fill out the Other (Please corresponding boxes 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
Recommend
More recommend
