Pacific Program -Regional Track/ PPCR Strategic Program

Implementing Organization SPREP

Implementing MDB ADB

Annual Reporting Period

From: April 30, 2012 (PPCR endorsement date)

To: March 31, 2014

Components:

Component 1Title

Mainstreaming CCA and related DRR into national and local development policies and plans.

Component 3 Building and supporting Pacific Island Countries’ capacity to respond to climate change risks.

Reporting Sheet- Core Indicator 1 Reporting date:__25_/__07_/__2114_.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PPCR CORE INDICATOR 1: DEGREE OF INTEGRATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NATIONAL, REGIONAL, INCLUDING SECTOR PLANNING

1. Please describe actions taken by the PPCR Regional Track during the reporting period (April 1- March 31)1 to support Small Island Developing State (SIDS) efforts to integrate climate change into national/sectoral/local development programs?

PreliminaryThe Pacific PPCR Regional Track TA was mobilized 01 November 2013 and the Inception Meeting was held 21-22 January 2014. As such, it is too early at this stage to report on the degree (depth) of integration of climate change in national/ regional and sectoral planning. This Report describes actions taken from the date of mobilization on the 01 November 2013 through to 31 March 2014. It establishes the baseline for the next report due 31 March 2015. The Inception Report and First Semi Annual Report also provide the details to supplement this summary report.

Note: The M and E toolkit describes PPCR pilot countries as those that have a national SPCRs (national investment plan) (For definitional purposes Caribbean Regional Track PPCR pilot countries are also national SPCR countries. However in the Pacific, Pacific Regional Track PPCR includes pilot countries that do not have national SPCRs. They are Kiribati (SPC), Federated States of Micronesia (Kosrae) (SPREP and SPC) and Tuvalu (SPREP). The national SPCR countries are PNG, Samoa and Tonga. The toolkit makes proviso for this by also recognizing that the regional program should also report activities carried out in non-PPCR pilot countries such as FSM and Tuvalu. On the other hand under Component 3 of the Pacific Regional SPCR all Pacific island countries are part of the Regional Technical Backstopping Mechanism and will report on all RTSM related national activities.

The following actions were taken during the reporting period 01 November 2013 to 31 March 2014 to support Small Island Developing State (SIDS) efforts to integrate climate change into national/sectoral/local development programs under the ADB/SPREP Components 1 and 3.

1. Identification by SPREP of the Pacific Regional Track pilot countries to support the integration of climate change into national/sectoral/local development programs

At a joint SPREP/SPC planning meeting held 07 November 2013, taking into account the Supplementary Report Prepared by the PPCR Expert Group (PPCR/SC.3/3/Add.1 May 11, 2009) and, the Climate Investment Fund Guidance Note on PPCR Regional Programs April 2009, SPREP identified FSM (Kosrae State and Tuvalu) and SPC identified FSM (Kosrae) and Kiribati as the pilot countries where the integration of climate change into national/sectoral/local development plans work would be demonstrated.

An important consideration for both organizations in the choice of pilot sites was identifying locations where SPREP/SPC already have prior activities and linkages with national institutions which could expedite entry points and to be able to extend their present to mainstreaming. This is also a preferred strategy as one would not need to start from scratch and to be able to piggy back to other resources and partners considering limited resources. In addition it 1 For the first reporting year, cumulative results from the endorsement date of the regional track PPCR investment plan will be reported

was also believed results from the selected pilots could be successfully replicated in other countries in the region, taking into account documented baselines, the resources available and the project timelines (end date 30 June 2016). In identifying FSM (Kosrae State) and Tuvalu SPREP considered the following selection criteria: (a) vulnerability of the pilot sites to climate change and disaster related risk; (b); sites where SPREP was confident of demonstrating improved capacity to respond to climate change impacts and related natural disasters from a known baseline; (c); areas within the selected countries where other development partner-supported adaptation assistance is already underway, to leverage considerably greater impact on the ground; d)sites with prior requests from the country to SPC and/or SPREP for assistance. Both FSM (Kosrae and Tuvalu) have requested direct assistance of the kind that will be delivered under the TA; (e) ability of SPC and SPREP to provide TA to the affected sites. SPREP has been active in both sites for example in the JNAP process in Tuvalu and the PACC work in Kosrae; (f);Importance of working in a common pilot site to demonstrate in-country linkages between components. Kosrae is common to both SPREP and SPC; (g) Proactive local presence to promote the project. SPREP has experienced success on the ground because of the proactive involvement of nationals in Kosrae and Tuvalu; (h) Recommendations of the PPCR Sub-Committee in 2009. The overriding criterion used by the Expert Group in determining countries for the regional track pilots was population coupled with vulnerability. The selection of Kosrae and Tuvalu is consistent with the methodology of the Expert Group ;(i)The time frames involved, requiring a focus on two pilot sites, cognizant that there is scope under the RTSM for TA to non-pilot site countries.

2. Endorsement of the Pacific Regional Track Pilot countriesHaving identified the countries SPREP would pilot the next step was receiving endorsement from the FSM and Tuvalu governments.

(a) Endorsement was received form Governor of Kosrae State through the establishment of a Kosrae PPCR Steering Committee as annexed in the Inception Report;

(b) Endorsement was received from The Government of Tuvalu as annexed in the Inception Report.

3. National Consultations to assist in the development of the Situation Analysis

After endorsement was received the next step was to undertake research (collect documentation, consultations, and participatory workshop) for a review of climate change and disaster risk integration work in Kosrae State, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM as well as Tuvalu.

Kosrae: Degree of integration of climate change into national/sectoral/local development programs

A participatory workshop was conducted in Kosrae in the first week of March 2014. The objectives of this workshop were broadly to:

• better understand the processes and procedures for developing and implementing public policies and projects in Kosrae;

• better understand what tools and methodologies are used to support policy processes in Kosrae; and• solicit Government officials input and ideas on how these processes and tools could be strengthened, and

how climate risk considerations could potentially be integrated.

The workshop was organised into three sessions. The first session used a policy cycle approach to help understand and map out the policy procedures followed by Kosrae State Government. The second session explored what 'tools' Kosrae Government officials use to help undertake the various policy procedures. The final session investigated how existing policy tools incorporate risk considerations and how this could be improved/strengthened.Information generated from the workshop will be used to help select and design capacity building initiatives to be implemented under Component 1 the PPCR Pacific Region, Kosrae pilot. The report of the workshop may be found in the First Semi Annual Report.

Tuvalu : Degree of integration of climate change into national/sectoral/local development programs

A similar planning exercise for Tuvalu was held in June 2014 and will be reported against in the next annual report.

4. A Draft Situation analysis developed for Kosrae

At the end of the reporting period the situation analysis for Kosrae was still in draft form. It was subsequently finalized in June 2014 and has been presented to Kosrae State and FSM National Government (PPCR Steering Committee) for their endorsement of preferred integration activities.

2. Please describe actions taken by the PPCR Regional Track during the reporting period (April 1- March 31) to integrate climate change into regional development programs?

Collaboration with regional development programs (Component 2)Before attempting to integrate climate change into other regional development plans in the Pacific, the first priority has been to ensure the Pacific Regional Track program being designed and implemented by 2 different regional organisations is internally consistent and the 3 different components feed into each other as part of a single program. As the ADB/SPREP Inception Meeting noted “…the need to work closely with SPC will be critical to the success of the overall regional track work….”To this end there have been joint planning meetings between SPC and SPREP to identify the pilot sites, identify the inter-linkages between the various components and agreeing on the exact nature of mainstreaming proposed to be carried out by each organisation to ensure there is no duplication of effort between Components 1 and 2 in particular, joint country missions to FSM and Kiribati to secure national endorsement as the selected Pacific track pilot countries, sharing of information and reviewing of work plans, situation analysis and project design documents.

The Pacific –Cost Benefit Analysis InitiativeThe PPCR Pacific Regional Track is a key partner in the P-CBA, a joint regional initiative to address the needs of Pacific island countries to access tools that can support their climate-resilient decisions and adaptation strategies. At the Pacific Climate Change Roundtable in July 2013, officials in Pacific island governments recognized the value of economic analysis to assess options and shape and their work. Partners include the Asia Development Bank (ADB), the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), UNDP, Deutsche Gesellshaftfür Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), the USAID ADAPT Asia-Pacific Project and the University of the South Pacific (USP).

The P-CBA initiative builds on existing experiences such as the cost-benefit analysis work program conducted as part of the Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change (PACC) programme and the related trainings carried out by SPC.The P-CBA targets government officials from Central planning or Finance ministries that are involved in project management and climate resilient development activities and it has a learning-by-doing approach: theoretical trainings will be followed by the mentoring of government officials to conduct cost-benefit analysis on project proposal(s) or on-going initiatives. The results of these analyses will serve as concrete support to government activities providing guidance on project formulation and implementation.

At the P-CBA Planning Meeting in January 2014, Suva, government officials from Finance, Planning and Environment Ministries of 7 Pacific Island Countries (PICs) gathered to shape P-CBA based on countries’ needs and existing capacities and identify further support from donors. The meeting identified key focal points, supported the establishment of country teams, informed the design of CBA course content and delivery mechanism, defined preliminary country CBA work-plans (including technical, institutional and resourcing aspects), and identified further

support by development partners. All the presentations and relevant materials can be found at the P-CBA website . A detailed initiative design has subsequently been completed by the end of April 2014.

Note, this initiative/activity was progressed immediately (i.e. ahead of completing the Situation Analysis for FSM ans Tuvalu), in order to take advantage of the interest and momentum generated from the PACC CBA pilot and because cost-benefit analysis has been identified as a priority mainstreaming tool for FSM and Tuvalu2. The collaboration with PIFS, SPC, USP, GIZ and UNDP on this work will also generate substantial synergies and help to avoid potential duplication of efforts further down the line.

Logical Framework Approach (LFA)The Pacific Regional Track work is supporting a regional development initiative, The Logical Framework Approach (LFA), being progressed by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), through its European Union funded Global Climate Change Alliance: Pacific Small Island States (GCCA: PSIS) project in collaboration with the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP). The Logical Framework Approach (LFA) is a widely used project management tool to professionalize and bring greater accountability to the development field (Wield, 2003).Following a regional workshop on Climate Finance and Proposal Preparation held in Apia, Samoa, 26 – 27 October 2012, and supported by the Asia-Pacific Adaptation Network (APAN), Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) and SPC, six of the countries (Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue and Tuvalu) involved in the GCCA: PSIS project expressed their interest in having a national training workshop on project proposal preparation using the logical framework approach. The PPCR Pacific Regional track contribution will focus on extending and continuing the regional log frame analysis work with a focus on integrating climate risk considerations into the log-frame analysis.

Draft Strategy on Climate and Disaster Resilient for the Pacific (SRDP)The Pacific Regional Track work has also been involved in the development of the SRDP as it has evolved (participation in meetings, commenting on the text) and will ensure that its work links to the Strategy when it is finalized.

3. What have been the key achievements and successes in this undertaking?

While it is premature at this early stage of the program to identify key achievements and successes, the following observations are made.

There has been excellent cooperation and collaboration between SPREP and SPC to progress the regional track program as evidenced by the joint planning missions to countries and sharing of ideas and information;

Contact has been made with the relevant authorities to progress the integration work in country and in both FSM and Tuvalu reception has been positive with letters of endorsement, the establishment of a PPCR Steering Committee in Kosrae, positive turn out and discussion in the national and state consultation and full cooperation of designation in country focal points in relation to the provision of information to inform the development of the situation analysis;

There has been agreement among a number of key development partners to pull resources together to address countries mainstreaming/integration priorities as a team rather than as a separate organization potentially duplicating the same activities and taxing the very limited absorptive capacity in country in terms of human resources and institutional arrangements. This may be evidenced through the agreement to work together to progress regional initiatives such as the Pacific-Cost Benefit Analysis, the Log-Frame work and the Draft Strategy on Climate and Disaster

2FSM (Kosrae) and Tuvalu have formally submitted expressions of interest to participate in the P-CBA and build theircapacity in the use of cost-benefit analysis as a key mainstreaming tool. This EOI followed a presentation on theproposed initiative at the Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PPCR) in July 2013 and, in the case of FSM, bilateralmeetings between SPREP and Kosrae State Government. FSM have also made several previous requests to SPREPto support them build capacity in cost-benefit analysis in Kosrae.

Resilient for the Pacific (SRDP)

4. What have been the key challenges?

Defining the scope of the interventionPolitical systems in the Pacific vary with some countries having unitary systems of government such as Tuvalu whereas others such as FSM have Federal/State systems of government. It is necessary to identify precisely where the intervention will be made to integrate climate change and disaster risk into development programs. Is it at the national, sectoral and local level because it cannot be at all three given the resources available for the integration work. In Tuvalu the regional track work proposes to focus at the sectoral level whereas in FSM the work will focus on integration at the State level (Kosrae). However but if it is at one of those levels the challenge then becomes spreading the integration work out into the broader national development picture ie to other states, sectors and communities in the country.

Keeping expectations realistic and compensation for workThe Pacific Regional Track (USD$10million) seeks to value add to existing initiatives and is not a stand alone project in its own right. Unlike the national track pilot countries who receive over USD30million each, there is a limited budget for mainstreaming, integration work on the regional level. Expectations need to be kept realistic and within the parameters of what can be delivered with the available funding. In particular no funds have been budgeted for a national PPCR focal point and the challenges is ensuring the integration work remains on track in country in the absence of the regional PPCR consultants. This has become an issue in Kosrae for example where the personnel driving the PPCR work and who are busy with their own work seek to be compensated for their time in coordinating meetings and work associated with the PPCR. Although this project is regionally driven, the importance of having a dedicated national counterpart is also critical to the works success.

5. What opportunities of improvement do you see?

The areas identified as presenting challenges in 4 above are also areas where there are opportunities for improvement.

At this stage it is perhaps too soon to discuss opportunities for improvement.

Reporting Sheet- Core Indicator 2 Reporting date:__25_/__07_/__2014_.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Please describe actions taken by the PPCR Regional Track during the reporting period (April 1- March 31) to strengthen capacities of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and/or the region, including regional institutions to mainstream climate resilience.

It is a little too soon provide a detailed list of actions to strengthen the capacities of SIDs and/or the region, including regional organizations to mainstream climate change but the following provides some initial areas where PPCR regional track has provided or plans to provide assistance in relation to:

Strengthening the capacities of SIDs

Kosra e

Current Governance/ co-ordination arrangements for mainstreaming natural disaster riskThe Executive Branch is the arm of Kosrae Government responsible for carrying out or administering the legislative and executive policies of the Government of the day. It is made up of two Offices (Office of the Governor, and Office of Attorney General); five larger Departments (Administration & Finance, Education, Health, Resources & Economic Affairs, and Transport & Infrastructure); and a number of Authorities, Boards and Bureaus. One of these Authorities is the Kosrae Island Resource Management Authority (KIRMA). To date, KIRMA has been the main Government organisation that has promoted and co-ordinated mainstreaming of natural disaster risk. This has primarily been through the Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change (PACC) project unit. Amongst other initiatives, the PACC unit has co-ordinated efforts to ;(a). amend the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations, requiring assessments to consider the effects of climate change and potential adaptation options (mentioned in section 4) and; (b), develop legislation requiring the Department of Transport and Infrastructure (DT&I) to incorporate consideration of projected changes in climatic conditions in design and implementation of public infrastructure projects (mentioned in section 4).

The PACC project unit (staff of 3) is acting as the lead unit on climate change in Kosrae. It also represents Kosrae on the National Climate Change Country Team (NCCCT) - a multi-agency working group to support implementation of climate change-related projects3. The PACC unit does not however have an official mandate for leading co-ordination of climate change-related matters .3 The NCCCT has both an advisory role and limited delegated decision-making power. It's membership is made up of the four States; the Department of Transport, Communication and Infrastructure; the Department of Foreign Affairs; the Department of Resources and Development; and the Department of

PPCR CORE INDICATOR 2: EVIDENCE OF STRENGTHENED GOVERNMENT CAPACITY AND COORDINATION MECHANISM TO MAINSTREAM CLIMATE RESILIENCE

Action taken in PPCR Regional Track pilot countries

KosraeThe PPCR led in country consultations have led to promising efforts to strengthen institutional arrangements for co-ordinating and implementing natural disaster risk mainstreaming type initiatives in Kosrae. In particular, there has been some initial movements to merge the Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change Unit (a project-based co-ordination unit) of the Kosrae Island Resource Management Authority and the Disaster Management Unit of the Office of the Governor into a joint climate change and natural disaster risk management co-ordination unit based within the Office of the Governor. However, to date, there has not been any in-depth assessment of the specific functions and responsibilities of this joint unit, its staffing needs, other operational costs, and the budget available to support the unit. Further work is needed to ensure these reforms are progressed, effective, and sustainable and the PPCR will play a key role in this initiative.

TuvaluThe Government of Tuvalu (GoT) is undertaking several inter-related programs to strengthen climate and disaster risk governance arrangements, including information and knowledge management, to support development efforts that are resilient to climate change and disaster risks. These programs include, but are not limited to, the: (a) the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience: Pacific Regional Track (PPCR-PR), supported by the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB); (b), Coping with climate change in the Pacific Island Region (CCCPIR) program, supported by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ); and (c), Pacific Disaster Net supported by SPC and the Pacific Climate Change Portal supported by SPREP.

As part of the PPCR-PR and CCCPIR programs, a participatory workshop was conducted to examine the current institutional arrangements for the coordination and implementation of climate change programs and the information and knowledge management systems that support effective decision making by these institutional structures. A focus of the workshop was to explore how individuals and committees with roles and responsibilities for climate change coordination and implementation ensure effective collaboration, information and knowledge sharing, learning and avoid duplication. This workshop was carried out outside the reporting period in June 2014.

2. Please describe actions taken by the PPCR Regional Track during the reporting period (April 1- March 31) to strengthen an island’s national coordination mechanism or strengthen the regional coordination mechanisms to mainstream climate change.

Strengthening the regional coordination mechanisms to mainstream climate change.

Current Governance/ co-ordination arrangements for mainstreaming natural disaster riskThe Working Arm of the CROP CEO s sub-committee on climate change and disaster resilient development (WARD) is a regional coordination mechanism of the regional inter-governmental organizations of the Pacific brought together by the CROP CEOs specifically to address climate change and disaster risk that cuts across

Justice.

the sectors they operate in to various degrees. The PPCR Regional Track work has featured in all meetings of the WARD and its predecessor the WACC dating back to its origins in 2010. A product of the WACC was the development of a joint CROP (USP, SPC, FFA, SPREP) concept and design document to the PPCR Sub-Committee in 2011. [Also mention role of WARD in the Draft Strategy on Climate and Disaster Resilient for the Pacific (SRDP). It is important PPCR mentions this strategy as it is a document that we will need to refer to in the future so PPCR is seen as undertaking work in close collaboration with existing/planned initiatives]

Action taken by the PPCR Regional Track

With the approval of the SCPR Pacific Regional Track program in April 2012, the collaboration between SPC and SPREP has been further enhanced through their joint approaches to the design of SPCR Pacific Regional Track components 1 and 2 where there have been joint country missions, joint planning meetings and utilization of methodologies (such as the Integrated Vulnerability Assessment) and reviewing of situation analysis and project appraisal documents to keep each other informed and up to date.

The RTSM and its associated RRF is a regional development program established specifically in response to calls from the Smaller Island States Leaders and the Pacific Climate Change Roundtable to supplement national efforts through technical assistance in the area of climate change and related disaster risk reduction. The development of the RTSM/RRF from concept to design has benefited greatly from the strategic oversight provided by the WARD. For example guidance and input into the development and finalization of the Operational Manual for the RTSM/RRF that details the scope of activities that will be covered for climate change and disaster risk TA, the approval process, procurement procedures to be followed, procedures for becoming an expert on the roster of experts, eligibility issues related to who can benefit from the initial tranche allocated to the RRF, monitoring and evaluation and TA reviews.

As a result of this PPCR initiative countries will be able to request and receive TA from climate change and disaster risk experts to address their food security and infrastructure needs from a network of experts that includes CROP experts as well as other recognized experts from around the world and especially from the Pacific. The added value of the PPCR intervention is accessibility to a pre-approved list of experts ready to respond to requests from Pacific island countries in addition to the experts housed in the regional organizations to assist countries. This removing the need to search for relevant expertise, introduces streamlined procurement processes common to all agencies instead of the expense of individual procurement, responds to a need on a timely basis and provides grant financing to address priority needs of Pacific island countries.

Pacific Climate Change PortalThe Pacific Regional Track work has enhanced the profile of the Pacific Climate Change Portal (PCCP) through the RTSM and its associated RRF that features on the PCCP websites. The PCCP will also have links to the Pacific SPCR national track country work (community based grants facilities, vulnerability assessments and other knowledge management products) that will be shared among the Pacific and Caribbean regions generally.

3. What have been the key successes in these above undertakings?

At the National Level: Identification of the IssuesEven at this early stage it is clear where the issues are around strengthening national coordination mechanisms for co-ordinating and implementing natural disaster risk mainstreaming initiatives in both Kosrae State and Tuvalu.

KosraeIn Kosrae there a number of agencies that have been identified to drive this work and the issue is agreeing on the most appropriate institutional arrangement that will allow for mainstreaming across all government sectors. In Kosrae as in Tuvalu, the work is not starting from scratch but is drawing on experiences and lessons learned from previous climate change adaptation, natural disaster risk management, and development projects and programs implemented in the Pacific region. The mainstreaming work will based on the following 5 principles that have been learnt in this learning by doing process. Interventions should be kept:

1. Simple and streamlined, recognizing the absorptive capacity constraints in Kosrae especially relating to human resources;2. Careful and realistic, taking appropriate time to consult, work through Government systems and build Kosrae ownership of initiative selection and implementation;3. Collaborative and co-ordinated, working with other development partners on high quality initiatives in order to ensure consistent messaging and minimize consultation and workshop burdens on PICTs (a significant challenge for small PICTs in particular);4. Replicable in other FSM States and other PICTs, and supported by rigorous evaluation; and,5. Closely align with other PPCR-PR activities, in order to formulate a coherent package of reforms to improve the quality of (development) policy making in Kosrae.

While these may not be described as ‘successes’, a platform has nevertheless been built on from which to work on.

TuvaluIn Tuvalu there are many climate change and disaster risk management initiatives being progressed, a lack of coordination among government sectors and very limited national capacity to strengthen national coordination mechanisms. However Tuvalu has recently established the National Advisory Committee on Climate Change (NACCC) to oversee the coordination of climate change programs and the PPCR Regional Track will be working closely to support the work of this committee.

In addition the PPCR Situation Analysis work has been progressed in partnership that incorporates other climate change and disaster risk initiatives of the ADB (GEF project) GIZ-CCCPIR, and (SPREP J-NAP initiative as well as SPC work in food security and infrastructure)

While these may not be described as ‘successes’, a platform has nevertheless been built on from which to work on.

At the Regional LevelAs a result of this PPCR initiative there has been a noticeable shift in relationships among WARD members form a more guarded and territorial approach to mandates and areas of competency to a more open and collegiate atmosphere of contributing and owning a mechanism that reflects common ownership of the CROP.

4. What have been the key challenges?

National Level

KosraeThese are provided in detail in the Situation Analysis but may be summarized as follows:

(1) Institutional Arrangements for mainstreaming climate change and disaster risk activities are not clearly differentiated and delineated;

(2) There is currently no inter-agency Committee or similar within Kosrae which is responsible for co-ordinating climate-risk related initiatives across Kosrae Government organizations;

(3) Mainstreaming of natural disaster risk is the coordinated by the Kosrae Island Resource Management Authority (KIRMA) but this has primarily been through the Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change (PACC) project unit;

(4) The PACC project unit (staff of 3) is acting as the lead unit on climate change in Kosrae. It also represents Kosrae on the National Climate Change Country Team (NCCCT) - a multi-agency working group to support implementation of climate change-related projects. However the PACC unit does not have an official mandate for leading co-ordination of climate change-related matters in Kosrae and does not have resources allocated to it for undertaking this function outside of the PACC activities. The PACC project concludes at the end of 2014.

(5) There is also a Disaster Management Unit (DMU) which is part of the Office of the Governor. The focus of the DMU (staff of 1) activities is disaster preparedness, response and recovery. No substantive work has been undertaken to date relating to co-ordinate or implement of natural disaster risk reduction activities in Kosrae. The DMU represents Kosrae on the National Disaster Taskforce;

(6) Following the Joint Regional Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management Platform Meeting in Fiji in July 2013, there has been some movements to merge the PACC Unit and DMU into a Joint Climate Change and DRM Co-ordination Unit based at the Office of the Governor. However, to date, there has not been detailed consideration given to (a), the specific functions and responsibilities of the proposed Joint Unit; (b) the staffing and resourcing needs of the Joint Unit; and (c), the most suitable office/department/agency within which to operate such a Joint Unit.

(7) Furthermore, there is currently no inter-agency Committee or similar within Kosrae which is responsible for co-ordinating climate-risk related initiatives across Kosrae Government organizations.

Tuvalu

(1) The National Advisory Committee on Climate Change NACCC is a new institution and the proposed supporting unit has not been established which would provide support to enable it to fulfil its coordination mandate;

(2) Some members of the NACCC committee may not have been actively engaged in climate change issues before and may need support to perform their role effectively;

(3) The role of coordination is often not well understood and institutions tasked with coordination are often involved in project implementation. This can lead to poor collaboration with line ministries that have the specific technical expertise in areas relevant to the project;

(4) Many different institutions are involved in implementing climate change projects, some of which work in similar technical areas, but the exchange of information between them to support effective collaboration and coordination is often lacking. Joint steering committees (such as the joint PACC-IWRM steering committee) can help to identify areas where collaborative work can be done;

(5) There are many project steering committees and many government officials often sit on several steering committees. This limits their ability to proactively steer and guide programs as they have many other roles and responsibilities;

(6) There are no established mechanisms for ensuring that all projects and programs report to decision makers in a coordinated way;

(7) Although government officials often sit on the project steering committee for CSO projects, there are often no established formal channels through which CSO projects report their activities to government other than via information sharing at steering committees

(8) The information and knowledge management systems in most institutions are weak and their

capacity to provide decision makers with the information that they need is therefore constrained

Regional Level

Regional organizations are not the only actors supporting countries to strengthen national coordination mechanisms for climate change and disaster risk. There are numerous individual climate projects underway across the region being implemented and/or supported by a wide range of external organizations each with their own institutional arrangements (including bilateral development partners, multinational development banks, non-government organizations, regional programs and others). While many of these projects have delivered and continue to deliver useful outcomes and benefits, it is evident that many of the projects are not well integrated and coordinated within and across sectors, they are often not linked to sector/national development policies and strategies, and many do not fully take into account other important cross-sectoral causes of vulnerability. A number are facing difficulties in terms of effectively absorbing programming and coordinating the support being provided due to the limited human resource bases in some countries but also because of the project-by-project technical assistance delivery model that has been adopted by most development partners. Such stop start approaches are not sustainable or scalable.

5. What opportunities of improvement do you see?

Against this backdrop presented above, an opportunity for improvement is for countries and regional organizations as well as countries to secure and dedicate resources to allow for programmatic approaches encompassing various project activities across multiple sectors over a medium to long term period, that are directly linked to sectoral/national climate change and economic development plans and offer many technical and administrative advantages for member PICTs.

Reporting Sheet- Core Indicator 3 Reporting date:__27_/__07_/_14__.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PPCR CORE INDICATOR 3: QUALITY AND EXTENT TO WHICH CLIMATE RESPONSIVE INSTRUMENTS/INVESTMENT MODELS ARE DEVELOPED AND TESTED

1. Which climate responsive instruments/investment models have been developed and tested by the PPCR Regional Track during the reporting period (Nov 1- March 31)?

The Regional Technical Backstopping Mechanism (RTSM)

The RTSM is a joint CROP initiative progressed by the WARD that was established specifically to respond to calls from the Smaller Island States Leaders and the Pacific Climate Change Roundtable to supplement national efforts through technical assistance in the area of climate change and related disaster risk reduction. Hosted in the Pacific Climate Change Portal www.pacificclimatechange.netand strategically guided by the WARD, the RTSM will provide technical assistance to requesting countries and territories on a needs and timely turn around basis. During the reporting report, the RTSM investment model was progressed through the development of the Operational Manual.

RRFThe Rapid Response Fund (RRF) is the funding mechanism of the RTSM. The RRF will be established with initial funding from the Pacific Regional SPCR to enable the fast deployment of requested TA to Pacific DMCs. It will fund services from relevant independent experts, and travel and per diem costs of experts from partner organizations and national governments. Partners will include organizations that have committed to provide TA from existing staff within their respective agencies, e.g., CROP agencies, the United Nations, and the multilateral development banks. The partners involved are expected to increase over time, but initially, it will be important to allow the CROP agencies to develop the RTSM by building on each agency’s specific comparative advantages. The RRF could evolve into a financing facility through contributions of Pacific governments, CROP agencies, and/or other international and regional development partners.

The RTSM and RRF are being established with oversight and coordination by the Working Arm of the CROP CEO Sub-Committee on Climate Change and Disaster Resilient Development (WARD) and under the guidance of the CROP Executives Sub-Committee on Climate Change and Disaster Resilient Development.

The RRF is initially capitalised with USD$1,182,000.00 million from the Climate Investment Fund administered through the Asian Development Bank. While the ADB funding is only available to finance technical assistance to 14 ADB Developing Member Countries (DMCs), coverage of RRF will expand as new donors and partners come onboard. The RRF is open to all donors and development partners who may wish to join as a partner.

2. Did these climate responsive instruments/investment models appropriately incorporate the needs of the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and/or regional organizations into their design and implementation?

The needs of SIDs are being addressed through the RTSM and its associated RRF as follows:(a) The RTSM and its associated RRF are a response to calls by Pacific Island Leaders for TA on climate change

and associated disaster risk reduction from recognized experts through a grant facility on a timely basis.(b) The RTSM focuses on food security and infrastructure. These are priority areas where SIDs are at their

most vulnerable as documented in their various national climate change policies and planning documents.(c) The RTSM is structured to meet members requests for assistance on a timely basis which was an

important issue for Pacific SIDs.(d) The RRF is a grant facility that is attractive to Pacific SIDs.(e) The RTSM is set up to assist members identify experts that fit the needs of the countries without the

administrative burdens of having to find these experts themselves.(f) The RTSM /RRF is set up so that the Regional organizations bear the administrative and financial burden

of operating it. This directly supports Pacific SIDs many of who have limited human and institutional capacity to run yet another climate change initiative.

(g) The sustainability of the RRF operations beyond the initial 1.182 million is tasked with the WARD rather being made a responsibility of countries. This is a real help for Pacific SIDs who reap the benefit but are assisted by their regional organizations to do the work to secure the resources to help the countries.

The needs of regional organizations are being addressed as follows:

(a) The RTSM/RRF provides additional expertise that might not be readily available from the regional organizations to assist their member countries and territories.

(b) CROP agencies have almost identical membership among the Pacific island countries and territories. Working collaboratively to address Pacific SIDs priority food security and infrastructure needs demonstrates that CROP agencies are responding to collectively cross cutting issue of climate change and disaster risk reduction that each agency has some degree of expertise in.

3. Did these climate responsive instruments/investment models appropriately incorporate gender considerations into their design and implementation?

In relation to Component 2 RTSM RRF Investment model will be formally launched 31 July 2014.Gender considerations will be incorporated in the design and implementation of the RTSM as part of the TOR of all the RTSM experts that provide TA in country.

Table 4- Core Indicator 4 Reporting date:___25/__07_/_14__. PPCR Core Indicator 4:extent to which vulnerable households, communities, businesses and public sector services use improved PPCR supported tools, instruments, strategies, activities to respond to climate variability and climate change

For the Regional Track, this indicator translates into:PPCR Core Indicator 4’:Extent to which PPCR pilot countries*, non-pilot countries and regional organizations use improved PPCR supported tools, instruments, strategies, activities to respond to climate variability and climate change*PPCR pilot countries are being considered as thosethat have a national SPCR

Only complete for the categories targeted by the tool, instrument, strategy, or activity

Identify the improved PPCR-supported tool, instrument, strategy, activity below. PPCR Country

Please describe how PPCR

countries use

this

Non-PPCR Country

Please describe how non-

PPCR countries use this?

Regional Organization/Institutio

n

Please describe

how Regional

Organizations/Institutions use

this?

Others (If applicable) Please describe how the other uses

this?

These are the same as those identifiedfor core indicator 3 Baseline Expected

Results* Baseline Expected Results* Baseline Expected

Results* Baseline Expected Results*

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n

1 RTSM 0

Experts provide

TA, Knowledg

e products

generated PPCR

shared through

RTSM/PCCP

Samoa, Tonga, PNG share knowledge Products with RTSM. Use TA from RTSM experts at own cost

0 20TAs TA from experts

PIFs. SPREP,

SPC, USP (4)

5 (FFA)

WARD to provide strategic guidance and oversight

0 3

EU, GIZ, UNDP to be guided by WARD RTSM and lend support by TA

2 RRF 1.182millionNew and

additional Funding

45 Regional Organisati

ons

Resource Mobilisation

0 3

FUNDING from 3 additional partners EY,

GIZ, UNDP to provide additional financing noting other partnerships as well ie… Australia, NZ, USA, France, Japan.

* Expected Results at the Regional Track SPCR completion date

Lessons Learned: What have been the key successes when PPCR countries, non PPCR countries, and other regional organizations have used the improved tool, instrument, investment strategy, activity?

1 As the RTSM and RRF is not operational- launch date planned for 31 July 2014, no key successes can be reported against at this time.

What have been the key challenges and what opportunities for improvement do you see?

3 . Not operational but key challenge will be ensuring sustainability of fund and the administration of the RTSM/RRF in this early stages.