technical assistance consultant’s report · 2017. 10. 4. · pacc pacific adaptation to climate...

Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report __________________________________________________________________________________________

Project Number: 46449-001 July 2017 Main Report, Annex 1

REG: Implementation of the Strategic Program for Climate Resilience: Pacific Region (Financed by the CIF Strategic Climate Fund)

This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. (For project preparatory technical assistance: All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design).

Prepared by

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP)

Apia, Samoa

2 | P a g e

Technical Assistance Report

STRATEGIC PROGRAM FOR CLIMATE RESILIENCE

(SPCR) PACIFIC REGIONAL TRACK

Project Number: 46449 Implementation of the Strategic Program for Climate Resilience: Pacific Region (Financed by the ADB Strategic Climate Fund) Regional–Capacity Development Technical Assistance (R-CDTA)

Final Report July 2017

3 | P a g e

(i) ABBREVIATIONS ADB Asian Development Bank

AF Adaptation Fund

AFB Adaptation Fund Board

CAAC Central Agency Appraisal Checklist

CBA Cost Benefit Analysis

CC Climate Change

CCA Climate Change Adaptation

CCCPIR Coping with Climate Change in the Pacific Island Region

CIF Climate Investment Funds

CROP Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific

DMC Developing member country

DMF Design and Monitoring Framework

DRR Disaster risk reduction

DRM Disaster risk management

EDF European Development Fund

FFA Forum Fisheries Agency

GCCA-PSIS Global Climate Change Alliance: Pacific Small Island States Program

GIS Geographic information system

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaftfür Internationale Zusammenarbeit

GCF Green Climate Fund

ISAAC US Institutional Programme on Strengthening in Pacific island countries

KfW Kreditanstaltfür Wiederaufbau

KSL Kosrae State Legislature

KSG Kosrae State Government

KSGO Kosrae State Government Officials

MDB Multilateral Development Bank

MEF Monitoring Evaluation Framework

MS Mainstreaming Specialist

MWTI Ministry of Works Transport and Infrastructure

NACCC National Advisory Council for Climate Change

ODA Overseas Development Assistance

OM RTSM/RRF Operations Manual

PACC Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change

P-EIA Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment

PIFS Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat

PM Program Manager (SPCR Regional Track)

PNG Papua New Guinea

PI Performance Indicator(s)

PFMS Procurement Financial Management Specialist

P-CBA Pacific Cost Benefit Analysis

PCCP Pacific Climate Change Portal

PPCR Pilot Program for Climate Resilience

PREP Pacific Resilience Program

RRF Rapid Response Fund

R-CTA Regional Technical Capacity Assistance

RTSM Regional Technical Support Mechanism

RTSM-C Regional Technical Support Mechanism -Coordinator

PREP Pacific Resilience Program

SCF Strategic Climate Fund

SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community

SPCR-PR Strategic Program for Climate Resilience: Pacific Regional Track

SPREP Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme

TA Technical Assistance

USP University of the South Pacific

WARD Working Arm of the CROP CEO Sub-Committee on Climate Change and Disaster

Resilient Development (WARD) [formally WACC]

WB World Bank

4 | P a g e

(ii) TABLE OF CONTENTS

(i) ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 3

(ii) TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. 4

(iii) CHRONOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................... 6

(iv) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 8

PART A .....................................................................................................................................................................

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 12

1.1 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ............................................................................................................. 13

1.2 PRE-INCEPTION .......................................................................................................................................... 14

1.3 INCEPTI0N MEETING ............................................................................................................................. 15

PART B .....................................................................................................................................................................

2.0 IMPLEMENTATION AGAINST DESIGN MONITORING FRAMEWORK OUTCOME AND OUTPUTS ..... 15

2.1 OUTCOME ...................................................................................................................................................... 15

2.1.1 OUTCOME PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 1 .............................................................................................. 16

EFFECTIVE INTEGRATED CCA AND DRR RESPONSE SYSTEM WITH GENDER-SENSITIVE INDICATORS IS OPERATIONAL IN SELECTED PACIFIC DMCS ............................................................................................. 16

2.1.2 OUTCOME PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2 ............................................................................................. 17

A WORKING REGIONAL MECHANISM FOR RESPONDING TO CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND RELATED EXTREME EVENTS THAT CAN CONTRIBUTE TO DISASTERS IS ESTABLISHED ......................................... 17

2.2 OUTPUTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 18

2.2.1 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 1.1 ............................................................................................................. 19

AT LEAST 6 GENDER-SENSITIVE CCA AND DRR INTEGRATION ... MAINSTREAMING TOOLS (3 PER SELECTED COUNTRY) ....................................................................................................................................... 19

2.2.2 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 1.2 .............................................................................................................. 23

AT LEAST 4 POLICIES DEVELOPED OR STRENGTHENED (2 PER COUNTRY) TO INCLUDE CCA AND DRR

AND GENDER CONSIDERATIONS IN AT LEAST 2 SECTORS (FOOD SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE) FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES DEVELOPED ................................................................................................... 23

2.2.2.1 KOSRAE: OVERALL PROGRESS TOWARD PI 1.2 ............................................................................... 23

2.2.3 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 1.3 ............................................................................................................. 30

CCA AND DRR ARE INCLUDED IN NATIONAL AND LOCAL BUDGETS FOLLOWING THE PROCESSES OUTLINED IN THE SELECTED COUNTRIES ..................................................................................................... 30

2.2.3.1 KOSRAE: OVERALL PROGRESS TOWARD PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 1.3 ................................ 30

2.2.3.2 TUVALU: OVERALL PROGRESS TOWARD PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 1.3 .............................. 32

2.3 OUTPUT 2. PACIFIC DMCS’ CAPACITY TO RESPOND TO CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS BUILT AND SUPPORTED THROUGH STRENGTHENED ADAPTIVE CAPACITIES AND SUPPORT FACILITIES, SUCH AS RTSM AND RRF ................................................................................................................................................... 34

2.3.1 OVERALL PROGRESS TOWARD PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2.1 AND 2.2 ................................ 34

2.3.2 METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERMINE SATISFACTORY RATING ................................................... 43

2.3.3 SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................. 43

2.3.4 NATIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY REPORTS PACIFIC REGIONAL ORGANIZATION REPORTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 44

PART C ................................................................................................................................................................. 45

3.0 SUMMARY FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE PROJECT AS AT 31 JULY 2017 ........................................ 45

PART D ................................................................................................................................................................. 46

4.0 LESSONS LEARNED FROM PROJECT DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION ......................................... 46

5 | P a g e

PART E .....................................................................................................................................................................

5.0 CONCLUDING COMMENTS AND PROGRAM SUSTAINABIITY ........................................................... 49

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................................. 51

APPENDIX 1: DESIGN MONITORING FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................... 52

DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................... 52

6 | P a g e

(iii) CHRONOLOGY

2011 Pacific Regional SPCR proposal was jointly prepared by CROP agencies, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and World Bank (WB) under PPCR Phase 1.1 The proposal was endorsed to the Climate Investment Funds(CIF) by the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS).

25 April 2012 PPCR Sub-Committee approves Implementation of the Strategic Program for Climate Resilience (SPCR): Pacific Region.

16-17 October 2012 ADB convened a regional consultation with CROP agencies. The workshop discussed the status of preparations for the implementation of the Regional SPCR.

14-15 November 2012

ADB mission to Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) to detail TA design and implementation arrangements.

30 April 2013 ADB Board approved Project No 46449 Implementation of the Strategic Program for Climate Resilience: Pacific Region.

11 September 2013 ADB and SPREP signed agreement whereby ADB will administer and SPREP implement the Pacific Regional Track (components 1 and 3).

01 Nov 2013 PPCR Consultants subcontracted to SPREP mobilised. 7-8 Nov 2013 CROP Agencies Planning Meeting to clarify respective roles and status of SPCR-PR

implementation. Agreement between SPREP and Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) on pilot countries for regional track.

29 November 2013 Kosrae State Governor Hon Lyndon H Jackson issued an Executive order establishing a PPCR Steering Committee for the TA and co-opting the people who will form part of this committee.

23 December 2013 Contract Variation No.1 Allows provision for advances for workshops, studies and surveys as well as substantiation requirements.

7 January Letter of Endorsement received from the Government of Tuvalu providing official endorsement of Tuvalu as one of the pilot countries for the mainstreaming work.

21-22 Jan 2014 Inception Meeting convened and TA Design Monitoring Framework approved (Note it was revised to take into account that there are two pilot DMCs and the performance indicators adjusted to reflect this fact. A tentative stocktake of CROP Agency experts provided. Draft RTSM Operations Manual provided.

17 and 20 February 2014

Working Arm of the CROP CEO Sub-Committee on Climate Change and Disaster Resilient Development (WARD) meeting provided feedback and guidance into the role, scope and function of the RTSM as well as a definition of ‘rapid response’ to inform the development of the RTSM Operations Manual.

24- 25 March, 2014 SPC/SPREP planning meeting where PM joined SPC in coping mission to develop SPC/WBG Project Appraisal Document in Kiribati.

13 June 2014 WARD emphasised the importance of having funds in the RRF once the RTSM/RRF was launched. Recommended provision of advance facility of US$500,000 be replenished on 60% budget expended basis upon production of all relevant travel, per diem and remuneration documentation to ADB. Recommended for ADB’s consideration the use of output based contracts (combining the fee, travel and DSA) as an alternative to paying daily rates for individual consultants. WARD agreed that the fee rates should be based on the complexity of the assignment and not the nationality of the expert and that providing daily rates below the market rate will not attract good experts.

14 June 2014 RTSM Operations Manual (OM) approved by CROP CEOs the recommendation of the WARD.

24 June 2014 CIF Secretariat, MDB (ADB) and the PMs of the Caribbean and Pacific Regional Track programs met to progress the development of the SPCR Regional Monitoring and Reporting Toolkit.

June 2014 Situation Analysis to identify mainstreaming tools to be trialled completed for Kosrae. 25 July 2014 SPCR PR PPCR Monitoring and Reporting toolkit for CIF sent to ADB. 29 July 2014 RTSM launched. RTSM webpage accessible via the Pacific Climate Change Portal went

online to coincide with the launch of the RTSM. September 2014 Situation Analysis to identify mainstreaming tools to be trialled completed for Tuvalu. 25 September-3 October 2014

RTSM promoted via plenary working paper and side event during 24th SPREP Meeting in Majuro, Marshall Islands.

19 November 2014 Consultancy for Mainstreaming workshop (CBA training), FSM (USPx 2). 9 December 2014 Consultancy for Mentoring support of coastal zone management CBA study, Kosrae. 15 December 2014 Consultancy for Mentoring Support for CBA water sector in Kosrae.

1 (ADB. 2011. TA7827-REG: Strengthening Climate Risks and Resilience Capacity of Pacific Developing Member Countries. Manila.)

7 | P a g e

10 February 2015 Contract Variation No.2 (replacement Finance Procurement Management Specialist retained) Cost Estimates, Out of Pocket expenses revised to reflect expenditure and proposed remaining activities.

March 2-15 ABD approval of RTSM Operations Manual (Version 1.8) ADB Mission SPREP.

28 April 2015 Contract Variation No.3 Contract Variation No.4 Created a dedicated budget line for the Rapid Response Fund to operationalise the RTSM (previously listed as Contingency) to provide for remuneration, per diem allowance travel of experts.

18 June 2015 Consultancy for Evaluation Specialist to lead preparation of Monitoring and Evaluation Frameworks for the Agriculture Sector of the Kosrae Strategic Development Plan.

17 June 2015 Consultancy to lead conduct CBA of RE proposal in Tuvalu . 22 June 2015 1st RTSM expert Mobilised – FSM. 2 July 2015 Contract Variation No.4 Revised footnote for Rapid Response Fund to operationalise the

RTSM; adjusted out of pocket expenses and revised cost estimates. 18 September 2015 2nd RTSM expert mobilised- Tonga. 8 October 2105 Consultancy to lead preparation MEF for Master Plan for RE and EE in Tuvalu. 15 October 2015 3rd RTSM expert mobilised-Tonga. 21 October 2015 Contract Variation No.5 to reflect SPREP new bank beneficiary details when Bank South

Pacific acquired Westpac. Budget provision for RTSM IT support. 4 November 2015 Consultancy for preparing MEF for inland road to support community relocation, FSM. 24 November 2015 Consultancy to develop MEF for National Agriculture Sector Plan, Tuvalu. 29 January 2016 4th RTSM expert mobilised- Nauru, Climate Readiness proposal for GCF readiness funds. 12 February 2016 5th RTSM expert mobilised- FSM. Monitoring Evaluation Framework road for AF proposal. 10 March 2016 6th RTSM expert mobilised- Vanuatu. Climate Change Portal. 10 March 2016 7th RTSM expert mobilised- Vanuatu, Climate Change Services Framework. 18 May 2016 8th RTSM expert mobilised- FSM- Preliminary EIA. 18 May 2016 9th RTSM expert mobilised- Fiji Technology Needs Assessment. 3 June 2016 Contract Variation No.7 Provided for contract extension to 1 June 2017 (Operational

Closure). September 2016 Progress on the RTSM was reported to the SPREP Meeting in September and to the

WARD meeting in October 2016. Members were invited to consider the sustainability of the RTSM (and mainstreaming activities beyond the project end date of 1 June 2017.

October 2016 WARD recommended “…that as RTSM was a CROP owned mechanism, that WARD promote and lobby for support to ensure the sustainability of the RTSM beyond 01 June 2017 and report back on their efforts at the next WARD meeting…” CROP agencies would add to experts from their organizations on the RTSM roster of experts as CROP agencies are currently under-represented in comparison to ‘external experts’. The WARD also agreed on the need to link the mainstreaming tool work with the WB PREP component with particular emphasis on the use of these tools by the PREP component.

9 November 2016 Contract Variation No.8 (replacement Finance Procurement Management Specialist retained and contract extended to 31 July 2017address outstanding administrative/financial matters). Cost Estimates, Out of Pocket expenses revised to reflect expenditure and proposed remaining activities.

17 November 2016 10th RTSM expert mobilised Tuvalu Trust Fund Survival Deed. 11th RTSM expert mobilised- Fiji, Climate Change Portal upgrade. 12 February 2017 12th RTSM expert mobilised-Fiji. National Framework for Climate Services. 22 March 2017 13th RTSM expert mobilised-Nauru, Review of Water Priorities and Climate Change. 14 April 2017 14th RTSM expert mobilised- Samoa, Review of National Infrastructure Strategic Plan. 14 April 2017 15th RTSM expert mobilised- Samoa, Database Ministry Works, Transport, Infrastructure. 16-17 May 2017 Final Workshop convened. 2 June 2017 Contract Variation No.9 extends PM to 31 July 2017. 7 July 2017 Contract Variation No.10 replaces SPREP Authorised SPREP Representative. 31 July 2017 Project Ends.

8 | P a g e

(iv) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. Description

Pacific developing member countries (DMCs) are generally dispersed and remote, with fragile environments, small and scattered populations, and face similar challenges. They are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and related disasters, which adversely affect livelihoods and represent for many, the greatest challenge to their development aspirations. An independent expert group constituted by the PPCR Sub-Committee, recommended the Pacific as one of two vulnerable regions (the Caribbean being the other) to participate in the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) under the Strategic Climate Fund, a multi-donor trust fund within the Climate Investment Funds (CIF).2 The Pacific Regional SPCR (SPCR-PR) concept endorsed by the CIF had three complementary components which were planned to be delivered through the Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific (CROP) agencies: (i) component 1, mainstreaming climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR); (ii) component 2, identifying and implementing practical CCA and DRR knowledge and experiences; and (iii) component 3, building and supporting Pacific DMCs‘ capacity to respond to climate change risks. Asian Development Bank (ADB) would administer components 1 and 3 while the World Bank (WB) was designated to lead the administration of component 2. The detailed project design for the TA Design Monitoring Framework (DMF) was developed on this basis.3

B. Expected Impact, Outcome and Outputs

The impact of the Pacific Regional SPCR would be increased resilience of Pacific DMCs to climate variability and climate change. Its outcome would be the improved capacity of Pacific DMCs to respond to climate change impacts and related natural disasters. The technical assistance (TA) had two main outputs: (i) CCA and DRR mainstreamed in national and local development policies and plans, and (ii) Pacific DMCs‘ capacity to respond to climate change built and supported. The TA would focus on priority sectors (food security and infrastructure) of selected Pacific DMCs, and contribute to attaining their sustainable development aspirations. It would provide countries with cost-effective support best offered on a regional basis, and will complement ongoing CCA and DRR initiatives of other development partners and PPCR national track countries.

C. Delivery of Inputs and Conduct of Activities

The Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) was engaged by ADB, through single source selection, to manage the project. The team of experts engaged by ADB through SPREP were: a project manager who provided overall direction, coordination and supervision of the day-to-day project activities, one project coordinator for output 1 or mainstreaming activities, a regional technical support mechanism coordinator who managed the output 2 or Regional Technical Support Mechanism (RTSM) activities, and a procurement and financial management specialist who attended to financial-related matters and in recruiting short-term consultants for the project. The short-term experts who were engaged through subcontracts assisted the mainstreaming and RTSM coordinators in the project implementation. The TA also supported the engagement of a SPCR Coordinator whose role was to liaise among ADB, WB, Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) and other CROP agencies. Overall, the consultants engaged by SPREP rendered a total of 151.72 person

2 Supplementary Report of the Expert Group to the Sub-Committee for the Pilot Program on Climate Resilience: South Pacific Region Country Selection Prepared by Rosa T. Perez and Nobuo Mimura 2 on behalf of the Expert Group for the Pilot Programme on Climate Resilience. April 2009. 3 See Annex 1 for DMF and progress at TA completion date.

9 | P a g e

months to implement the project, 24.05 inputs from national experts and 127.67 months from international specialists.

D. Evaluation of Outputs and Achievement of Outcome

Output 1: Mainstreaming climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) into national policies and plans. Three mainstreaming tools incorporating CCA and DRR elements have been developed and tailored for Federated States of Micronesia State (FSM) Kosrae State and Tuvalu, the two Pacific DMCs that have been selected as pilot countries for Output 1. The three mainstreaming tools are: (i) cost-benefit analysis (CBA); (ii) monitoring and evaluation (M&E); and (iii) central agency appraisal checklist (CAAC). These tools have been continuously tested, revised and improved through training workshops and case studies to suit the needs of the two pilot countries. A total of 16 training and capacity building workshops in the use and application of the tools were conducted to help concerned government officials understand, develop and apply the mainstreaming tools to the development, implementation, and review of their own national, sectoral policies, plans, projects and budgets for sustainability. The tools were used in 18 case study applications (11 in FSM and 7 in Tuvalu in food security, road, water and other infrastructure related sectors). Using the mainstreaming tools, six policies (3 per country) have been developed/strengthened. A participatory evaluation survey conducted in February 2017 on the utility of the processes followed and the tools developed, as well as the Final Workshop held 16-17 May 2017, indicated that the beneficiaries rated the mainstreaming work as very satisfactory. Output 2: Building and supporting the DMC's capacity to respond to climate change risks. The RTSM, aimed to help DMCs better respond to climate change impacts, was established 29th July 2014 with a launch of the RTSM website at the Pacific Island Forum Leaders meeting held in Palau. The website allowed countries to request online RTSM assistance and also provided for an online RTSM Roster of Experts. The RTSM Operations Manual OM was approved in March 2015 and the first TA deployment was made to FSM in June 2015. The project funded and implemented 15 technical assistance requests from 7 Pacific DMCs: FSM (3), Fiji (3), Nauru (2), Samoa (2), Tonga (2), Tuvalu (1) and Vanuatu (2). Subcontracts were issued to experts from the RTSM Roster of Experts in the Pacific Climate Change Portal https://www.pacificclimatechange.net that numbered 330 at TA completion date. Three of the mainstreaming activities and three RTSM TAs helped FSM secure a US$9 million grant from the Adaptation Fund (AF) for its Enhancing the Climate Change Resilience of Vulnerable Island Communities in Federated States of Micronesia Project. The RTSM facility also played a critical role to enable experts to produce the essential technical studies and documentation required to access funds from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) for: Nauru US$300,000 (climate readiness funds), Vanuatu (Climate Information Services for Resilient Development project US$23 million). Tonga’s Tonga Coastal Resilience Project Proposal proposal for US$50 million is under GCF consideration as of July 2017. The RTSM had also assisted Fiji, Samoa and Tuvalu address immediate priority needs contained in their national strategic and sector plans that would build resilience to CCA and DRR. In informal and formal evaluations, the beneficiaries have rated the RTSM and CCA/DRR knowledge management tools generated from it, as very satisfactory.

https://www.pacificclimatechange.net/

10 | P a g e

E. Overall Assessment and Rating

The mainstreaming and RTSM outputs were rated very satisfactory by the beneficiaries who expressed a strong interest to see TA of this nature continued as reflected in the TA Final Meeting Report and Outcomes Statement attached as Annex 1 and Annex 2 respectively. While good progress has been made to build national capacity, promote integration of the mainstreaming tools, train people in their use, enhance CCA/DRR national/sectoral coordination mechanisms, it is unlikely that the effort can be sustained without reinforcement and further intervention in the piloted DMCs. Knowledge management tools have been prepared for uptake in the pilot countries and regionally. The tools will be shared with the Regional Coordination Secretariat based in the PIFS and distributed to countries and through the Pacific Climate Change Portal. There has been interest in using the tools through ongoing programs in the region, such as the US Institutional Strengthening in PICs to Adapt to Climate Change (ISACC) Project in Tuvalu, and The Pacific Resilience Program (PREP) of the WB and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). The 27th SPREP Meeting has also directed its Secretariat to ensure that the mainstreaming tools and approach developed under the SPCR-PR are built into the suite of SPREP technical services to assist its members address CCA and associated DRR. In response, PPCR Core indicators have been integrated into SPREPs Strategic Plan 2017-2026 (Matrix of Strategic Regional and Organisational Goals). Although the RTSM was piloted 15 times and proved catalytic in providing substantial additional climate investments for a number of DMCs, no donor or development partner has (expressions of interest aside) been prepared to invest in the RTSM to ensure its sustainability. Greater commitment and coordination among CROP to promote the RTSM arguably made a difference to interested donors and development partners. Weighing the factors mentioned above, the TA is given an overall assessment and rating of satisfactory.

F. Major Lessons

During the detailed project preparation, for an ambitious programme involving MDBs, CROP agencies, advisory grouping of 11 countries, regional and national track countries and a regional coordination secretariat (such as the SPCR-PR) , it is imperative that all Parties coordinate and communicate with each other during the process of detailed project preparation. The SPCR-PR is a case where the coordination and communication required fell very short and the program developed in silos. This design flaw affected project implementation especially where national/regional linkages where meant to occur. The formulation and implementation of future regional TA for the Pacific in relation to mainstreaming and RTSM should build on the methodology and approaches used in this TA that countries have found to be very useful in terms of incorporating CCA/DRR into their development planning processes and enhancing their climate investments. Accessing climate funds for example from the AF, GCF, Global Environment Fund (GEF), European Development Fund (EDF.11) and bi-lateral funding is a key driver for pilot countries to use tools and request RTSM TA. An obvious next step is to link tools with programs to support National Implementing Entity (NIE) accreditation and implementation. Development partners and CROP agencies have a critical role to assist in the use of the PPCR-PR tools, especially CBA and developing M&E frameworks for large scale projects as capacity constraints are a fact of life for small PIC Governments.

11 | P a g e

G. Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions The relevant knowledge management products developed under this TA are shared with relevant institutions and development partners though the Pacific Climate Change Portal https://www.pacificclimatechange.net. Development partners and CROP Agencies utilize the methodology and generic tools developed under this TA for mainstreaming, to other states and sectors within the pilot countries (for example Chuuk, Pohnpei and Yap) and throughout the Pacific islands region generally. Development partners consider providing further technical and financial support to ensure that the RTSM facility is continued.

12 | P a g e

PART A

1.0 INTRODUCTION TA 8360 Strategic Program on Climate Resilience- Pacific Regional Track (SPCR-PR) is

financed by the ADB Strategic Fund under the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) under the Strategic Climate Fund (SCF), a multi-donor trust fund within the CIF. It is non-

UNFCCC Financial Mechanism funded by the contributions of the countries referred to in the

chart below.

Table 1: Global Climate Change Architecture

*Source: Climate Investment Fund, PPCR Monitoring and Reporting Workshop, Washington D.C April 26-28, 2017

This report is structured as follows.

Part A provides background information that describes how the TA design evolved from the

CIF approved concept paper through to the ADB project document and the process involved

in the lead up to and finalisation of the DMF (blueprint for implementation) agreed to at the inception meeting 21-22 January 2014.

Part B reports on the implementation of the TA against its intended outcomes and outputs as

set out in the DMF.

Part C provides the summary financial report of the project as at 31 July 2017.

Part D Addresses the lessons learned from the key administrative, financial and technical

issues that arose during the implementation of the project.

Part E Provides a concluding commentary and sustainability of the work progressed.

13 | P a g e

1.1 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT The SPCR-PR approved by the PPCR Subcommittee April 30, 2012, meeting 4, was designed

as a regional program involving certain regional inter-governmental organisations of the

Pacific to support more effective integration of climate change adaptation and related disaster risk reduction for Pacific island countries to become resilient to climate change and climate-

related disasters.5

The SPCR-PR project proposal tendered to the CIF envisaged three component interventions intended to complement and reinforce each other. The TA would be delivered utilizing existing regional organizations (CROP agencies) and mechanisms.6 Component 1 related to mainstreaming was to be implemented by SPREP; Component 2 - identifying and applying practical climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction knowledge and experience, was to be implemented by the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and SPC; and Component 3 was to be implemented by PIFS. An Advisory Committee made of 11 countries was envisaged to provide strategic oversight to the program. Supporting them would be a Coordination Secretariat established to facilitate coordination between the regional components managed by ADB and WB and between the regional and national tracks as well as M&E of the overall Regional SPCR. At PIFS 16-17 October 2012, ADB convened a regional consultation with CROP agencies. The workshop discussed the status of preparations for the implementation of the Regional SPCR. Inputs of CROP agencies and development partners in the finalization of the design and monitoring framework (DMF) for the Regional SPCR were obtained as well as consensus on the appropriate implementation arrangements for the Regional SPCR particularly the Components 1 and 3, to be managed by ADB. Whereas PIFS had been identified to implement Component 3 in the proposal to the PPCR, there were discussions that PIFS assume the Coordination Secretariat role and leave the implementation function to SPREP and SPC.7 An ADB mission to SPREP headquarters from 14-15 November 2012 held detailed discussions with SPREP on the implementation arrangements including the procurement of consulting services, program management, and funds flow arrangements for the proposed SPCR regional track; orientation of SPREP officials and staff on ADB’s procurement guidelines and procedures and contracting arrangements between ADB and SPREP for Components 1 and 3. 8 On 30 April 2013, the ADB Board of Directors approved the TA 46449 Implementation of the Strategic Program for Climate Resilience: Pacific Region and its DMF. The ADB/SPREP contract whereby SPREP was contracted to ADB to implement the TA was signed on 11th September 2013.9 Under Clause 13, effectiveness date was set 01 November 2013. This was the date a team of consultants sub-contracted to SPREP to carry out the TA were mobilized. The project was originally scheduled to run until 01 August 2016 but was subsequently extended until 31 July 2017.

4 Strategic Program for Climate Resilience for the Pacific Program-Regional Track PPCR/SC.10/7 April 13 2013, Climate Investment Funds. 5 It was jointly prepared by the ADB, WB, and the CROP Agencies through broad-based consultations, including meetings with Pacific DMCs.

6 PPCR/SC.10/7 April 13 2013 page 6. 7 Aide Memoir ADB Consultation Mission for SPCR, SPREP Headquarters, Apia, Samoa, 14-15 November 2012

8 The Mission comprised Maria Lourdes Drilon, Senior Natural Resources Economist/Mission Leader, PARD; Galia Ismakova, Senior Procurement Specialist, COSO; Elvira Ablaza, Consultant/Project Formulation Specialist.

9 Contract Number 107535-s52166.

14 | P a g e

1.2 PRE-INCEPTION On 7-8 November 2013, a SPCR-PR planning meeting was held between SPREP, SPC and

PIFS to understand the respective roles and activities of each organisation as well as the role

of the Coordination Secretariat. The meeting also discussed how the program would roll out given that the ADB/SPREP components had commenced implementation phase, whereas

WB/SPC component 2 were in project preparation phase and a Coordination

Secretariat/Advisory Committee had not been established. In terms of national SPCR track

implementation (important for promoting linkages between the regional and national tracks), the meeting noted that only Samoa was in implementation phase, whereas Papua New

Guinea (PNG) and Tonga were in design phase.

The planning meeting also discussed the work to be generated under components 1 and 2 as there were inconsistencies in the activities to be carried out under these 2 components. This

inconsistency had been picked up by an independent reviewer as part of the PPCR Sub-

Committee concept approval process and where in response, CROP agencies and the MDBs

had responded that these details would be addressed during the project preparation stage.10

The November 2013 planning meeting records that for the purposes of progressing ahead,

Component 1 would focus on developing and strengthening mainstreaming tools to ensure that CCA/DRR is part of the national and sectoral policy and budgetary planning processes.

Component 2 would generate the data and data analysis tools that can be used to input to the

project and policy development process. Component 3 would address the RTSM operational

policies, procedures that would define technical assistance and rules for the deployment of experts who could also be deployed to carry out Component 1 and 2 work.11

Another important feature of the pre-inception workshop was agreement between SPC and SPREP in relation to the pilot countries they would work in, taking into account the recommendations of Supplementary Report of the PPCR Expert Group and the associated Guidance Note on PPCR Regional Programs12. The meeting agreed that while the findings of the expert group were important, it was also important that SPC and SPREP pilot locations where they believed they could successfully demonstrate results taking into account the resources available and the time scale involved. Based on agreed selection criteria13, SPC identified Kosrae and Kiribati (Kiritimati Island) while SPREP identified Kosrae and Tuvalu. The two agencies agreed that having a common site (Kosrae) was important for demonstrating the linkages in components 1 and 2.

10 PPCR/SC.10/7 April 13, 2012 Independent Reviewer: Catherine Bennett “…The major concern regards Component 1 and the support for practical implementation of mainstreaming. The lesson learnt being that SPREP have been supporting national level policy, but it needs to be operationalised through developing and strengthening practical tools. However under the detailed discussion of Component 2 (SPC) there is reference to Component 2 activities “underpinning the strategic plans being developed through Component 1”.

11 Aide Memoir CROP Agencies Planning Meeting held at the SPC, Suva, Fiji, 7-8 November 2013. 12 Climate Investment Funds. 6, April 2009. Guidance Note on PPCR Regional Programs

[PPCR/SC.3.3/Add.1]12 13 (a) documented vulnerability of the pilot site to climate change and disaster related risk; (b) sites where SPC and SPREP were 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;(e) Ability of SPC and SPREP to provide TA to the affected site; (f) Importance of working in a common pilot site to demonstrate in-country linkages between components; (g) Proactive local presence to promote the project; (h) Recommendations of the PPCR Sub-Committee in 2009; (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.

15 | P a g e

1.3 INCEPTI0N MEETING

The logic and purpose of having a regional track program was canvassed during the inception meeting drawing on the rationale used by the PPCR Expert Group that had highlighted that in

the Pacific, some countries needs were best resolved through regional approaches where a

country lacked resources, knowledge and capacity to address a certain issue such as

developing tools and methodologies to assess vulnerability and where training with respect to application of such tools could be best realised through a regional TA.

The Inception Meeting agreed to the DMF (blueprint to guide implementation) presented to it

(based on the PPCR Results Logic) and its associated monitoring and reporting toolkit) and to the minor revisions in scope (where pilot countries for the mainstreaming work were reduced

to two from three pilot countries) 14 The inception meeting also provided clarity on the Pacific

DMCs eligible for TA (Open only to ADB and SPREP members). Some of the key issues and

recommendations were the need to base remuneration of experts not on their nationality but on their expertise, the ineligibility for RTSM assistance of Pacific DMCs not members of the

ADB (Niue) as well as the need for CROP agencies to identify key personnel to liaise with

RTSM.

PART B

2.0 IMPLEMENTATION AGAINST DESIGN MONITORING FRAMEWORK

OUTCOME AND OUTPUTS

2.1 OUTCOME

Design Summary Performance Targets and Indicators with Baselines

Data Sources and Reporting Mechanisms

Assumptions and Risks

Outcome

Improved capacity of Pacific DMCs to respond to climate change impacts and related extreme events that can contribute to disasters

By 2016: 1. Effective integrated CCA and DRR response system with gender-sensitive indicators is operational in selected Pacific DMCs. 2. A working regional mechanism for responding to climate change impacts and related extreme events that can contribute to disasters is established.

National development plans and budgets Sector plans and policies

Project monitoring reports

Coordination secretariat reports

Maps and GIS data sets in government departments

Local government and program records

Assumptions

Critical CCA and DRR

knowledge is available,

accessible, and widely

disseminated in the

Pacific.

Commitment of Pacific

DMCs to regional

cooperation remains

strong.

14 At the SPREP/SPC November 2013 joint planning meeting and in the Inception Meeting, it was agreed that given the time and resources needed to develop, trial and replicate the mainstreaming tools nationally and in selected sectors, it was best to focus on 2 rather than 3 pilot countries.

16 | P a g e

2.1.1 OUTCOME PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 1

EFFECTIVE INTEGRATED CCA AND DRR RESPONSE SYSTEM WITH GENDER-

SENSITIVE INDICATORS IS OPERATIONAL IN SELECTED PACIFIC DMCS

To meet the Outcome Performance Indicator 1 (PI.1), the mainstreaming work focused on strengthening integration of climate change and disaster risk considerations into 'mainstream' policymaking and related budgetary and decision-making processes (i.e. 'climate change and disaster risk mainstreaming'). The main rationale for this is to help ensure that climate change and disaster risks are systematically considered as part of normal policy-making in the overall national development agenda so that government interventions are resilient to these risks and thus more effective and efficient at achieving their intended (development) objectives. To promote integration, the mainstreaming work concentrated on working with government officials to improve their capacity to understand, develop and apply the mainstreaming tools to the development, implementation, and review of their own national, sectoral policies, plans, projects and budgets. This approach recognised that it was critical to build national capacity/skill set to be able to apply tools as part of an effective integrated CCA and DRR response system.

The mainstreaming activities selected for implementation in Kosrae and Tuvalu were

endorsed by their respective governments and targeted CBA, M&E and CAAC. Key considerations for selecting and designing these activities included:

(i) Focus on standardised policy tools. Due to the low capacity to undertake 'normal'

policy making and budgetary processes, and utilise related policy analysis methodologies, templates, and tools, a focus on standardised policy tools was

considered appropriate for the early stages of mainstreaming work in these DMCs, and

broad capacity building in using these tools - not just a focus on climate change and

disaster risk elements.

(ii) Replicability. The selected tools could be applied to many different sectors,

including infrastructure and food-security related sectors, and are suitable for uptake by other DMCs. They could also be tailored to policies of different scale and

complexity. These characteristics mean that they have the potential to contribute to

transformational change as intended by the PPCR; and,

(iii) Complementarity. The activities selected clearly and strongly link with one another

and reinforce key analytical concepts and considerations. This is especially important

for the Kosrae and Tuvalu context where there are limited officials available to manage

policy making and budgetary processes - and hence adopt new concepts and approaches.

The methodology used to roll out the mainstreaming tools consisted of:

(a) Situation analysis. These were completed for FSM in June 2014 and for Tuvalu in

September 2014. The purpose of the situation analysis is to help inform what

'mainstreaming' initiatives will be implemented under these programmes. They would also be used to help inform 'mainstreaming' initiatives supported by other development

partners and programmes;

(b) development of brief guidance materials for each tool;

(c) in-country training workshops;

(d) mentoring to support government officials prepare and implement frameworks for food security and infrastructure related sector plans, programs, and projects; and

17 | P a g e

(e) mentoring to help apply the tools to selected case studies.

At the end of the TA, good progress was made in Kosrae and Tuvalu toward an effective

integrated CCA and DRR response system with gender-sensitive indicators. This comes

through in the independent participatory report of the utility of the tools which are described

as generally clear and understandable, well suited to local context and flexible to reflect the project circumstances and capacity constraints. The report is Annex 3.15 The utility of the tools

is also to be found in the many surveys taken over the course of the TA workshops.16 However,

the importance of reinforcing the work in order to ensure sustainability also comes across in

the reports. In the sectors of application it may be said that while a good start has been made, there is much more work to be done to have an effective, integrated CCA/DRR response

system.

The CBA, M&E and CAAC mainstreaming tools designed for Kosrae and Tuvalu are finalised and are ready for dissemination to PPCR and non PPCR countries via the Pacific Climate

Change Portal17. Training in their use and application to selected national, sector and project

case studies conducted as part of the policy development processes that are a critical part of

an effective integrated response system in Kosrae and Tuvalu is concluded.

While the emphasis of the mainstreaming work has been in Kosrae and Tuvalu, the expertise

delivered under this project was also built into the suite of technical services that SPREP

provides to assist its members address CCA and associated DRR. For example through the project team being involved in SPREP strategic planning activities to promote and formalise

the use and application of the tools developed under the SPCR-PR into the SPREP project

cycle.

2.1.2 OUTCOME PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2

A WORKING REGIONAL MECHANISM FOR RESPONDING TO CLIMATE

CHANGE IMPACTS AND RELATED EXTREME EVENTS THAT CAN

CONTRIBUTE TO DISASTERS IS ESTABLISHED

This outcome PI was achieved. The RTSM established itself as a working mechanism for

responding to CCA/DRR events to address the priority needs of Pacific DMCs and significantly scale up countries CCA/DRR investments. This is consistent with overall PPCR objectives of

adding value, moving away from business as usual type interventions and promoting

transformational change. For example in Kosrae, the RTSM and the mainstreaming work was

pivotal in providing the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (MEF), Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment (P-EIA), CBA and CAAC information required by the AFB

to enable FSM to secure funding of US$9 million for their “Enhancing the climate change

resilience of vulnerable island communities in Federated States of Micronesia” project.

In Vanuatu, the RTSM TA provided a national climate services framework that was critical to

obtaining a US$23 million dollar grant approval by the GCF for a Climate Information Services

for Resilient Development project. In Nauru, the RTSM TA made it possible for Nauru to

position itself to access GCF financing of US$500,000. Tonga is also poised to benefit from

15 SPREP / ADB Participatory evaluation of PPCR mainstreaming tools, Final Report, April 2017. 16 As reporting in the preceding bi-annual reports. 17 https://www.pacificclimatechange.net

18 | P a g e

the AF (US$50 million) with assistance provided by 2 RTSM TAs. For Fiji, Samoa and Tuvalu,

the RTSM TAs also addressed CCA/DRR priorities linked to their national development

strategies and plans (for example development of climate services frameworks, assessments, review and updating sector plans or trust fund survival deeds) all of which provided

opportunities for further investment opportunities.

The RTSM OM set out procedures to follow to request and receive RTSM assistance, and

provided the Working Group of the CROP CEOS on Climate Change and Resilient

Development (WARD) with ownership and strategic oversight of the RTSM and created a

Project Committee to deal with the day to day operational aspects (administration, procurement, contractual management) of the RTSM. The OM was endorsed by CROP CEOs

on the 11 June 2014 and by the ADB in March 2015.

An online roster of experts or an online RTSM application process to facilitate TA’s was developed in collaboration with the Pacific Climate Change Portal (owned by CROP and

administered by SPREP) capitalising on PPCR objective of using existing mechanisms and

institutions to support country needs. The portal will also be used as the vehicle to disseminate

knowledge management tools developed under the project to non PPCR countries as contemplated in the TA project document.

The RTSM also demonstrated how regional organisations, multilateral development banks,

development partners can work together to support country climate change priorities and taking the administrative burden (example burden of procuring, contracting, managing

experts) of the countries especially for this with smaller administrations.

2.2 OUTPUTS

Design Summary Performance Targets and Indicators with Baselines



1. Climate change

adaptation and

disaster risk

reduction are

integrated and

mainstreamed

into national and

local policies and

plans, resulting in

climate

responsive

development planning.

By end of project, in 2 pilot Pacific DMCs:

PI 1.1 At least 6 gender-sensitive CCA and

DRR integration and mainstreaming tools (3 per selected country)

(e.g., checklists, guidelines) available at

national and sector levels are studied and programmed for replication.

PI 1.2 At least 4 policies developed or

strengthened (2 per country) to include CCA

and DRR and gender considerations in at least

2 sectors (food security and infrastructure)

following the guidelines developed.

PI 1.3 CCA and DRR are included in national and local budgets following the processes outlined in the selected countries.

Country and sector technical reports or project plans

Government‘s policy issuances

Country and sector financial and budget reports

Project implementation timetable (showing completion date was shortened versus planned, or delayed)

CCA and DRR

mainstreaming is not prioritized in the national government agenda. High turnover of

qualified and

trained staff in

CROP agencies

and the public

sector causes

project

implementation delays.

19 | P a g e

2.2.1 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 1.1

AT LEAST 6 GENDER-SENSITIVE CCA AND DRR INTEGRATION

MAINSTREAMING TOOLS (3 PER SELECTED COUNTRY) As of 31 July 2017, three mainstreaming tools have been developed for Kosrae as well as for

Tuvalu. Each tool has been developed using an explicit gender sensitive lens as advocated in

The Pacific Gender and Climate Change Toolkit. The emphasis of the tools is to analyse

climate change and disaster risk elements, where appropriate - reflecting the situation in Kosrae and Tuvalu where climate events (e.g. extreme tide events, drought) impact on a wide

range of different development policies, often substantially. Moreover, in the medium and long-

term future, these risks are expected to further increase under the effects of human-induced

climate change, presenting a major development challenge.

To promote awareness and build capacity in the use of the tools a total of 16 training workshops were carried out in Kosrae (8) and Tuvalu (8) (documented in Appendix 1). The

tools were trialled through case study applications supported by mentoring TA. They were progressively updated and finalised based on feedback from users and colleagues18.

The Pacific –Cost Benefit Analysis for Natural Resource Management in the Pacific- A Guide

(Second Edition) was developed in collaboration with SPC, PIFS Deutsche Gesellschaft für

Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). This tool describes the purpose of CBA to inform

strategic decision-making and its use as an analytical framework for appraising or evaluating

a project. Annex 4.

Kosrae

In Kosrae, the focus of the mainstreaming work was to support the Kosrae State Government (KSG) reform program to improve the resilience and effectiveness of its overseas development

assistance (ODA). This work led to the development of a Co-ordination of ODA Policy (Policy

No.35) and related Procedure for Requesting and Receiving ODA (Procedure No. AD103). To

facilitate the operation of these reforms a series of policy analysis tools and guidelines were developed.

MAINSTREAMING TOOLS DEVELOPED

Table A

CAAC Improving the effectiveness of Overseas Development Assistance in Kosrae: Guidance note for appraising ODA proposals

'Central agency appraisal' is the analysis of the adequacy, feasibility, and quality of a new policy proposal from a whole-of-government /society point of view and whether governments should invest in the policy proposal. This tool was applied to a project proposal to the Adaptation Fund Board to increase coastal communities’ capacity to adapt to coastal flooding risks in the Malem and Utwe areas.

Annex 5

Kosrae ODA Handbook A guide to assist KSG officials fulfil their requirements under the ODA Policy and Procedure. Also intended to be used to help align and harmonise development partner procedures with KSG systems - consistent with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.

Annex 6

18 Refers to the colleagues in Commonwealth Secretariat, PIFs, USP, GIZ, SPC, SPREP, UNDP, USAID

20 | P a g e

CBA Improving the effectiveness of overseas development assistance in Kosrae: CBA workplan tool

The specific CBA tool that was used and adopted as part of the PPCR-PR to support of conduct of CBA studies is the 'CBA workplan tool'. It follows a logical and systematic sequence of steps to undertake a CBA encouraging a multi-disciplinary approach to ensure all relevant information and data are included in the analysis and the assumptions employed in the analysis are valid. Its purpose is to help government officials responsible for preparing a policy proposal to efficiently manage a CBA study in a way that fully meets the policy-making needs of the KSG

Annex 7

Improving the effectiveness of ODA in Kosrae: guidance note for developing a MEF

This document is the supporting guidance note to assist with development of Monitoring and Evaluation Frameworks for ODA project/programs. Sets out how M&E will be performed over the lifespan of a policy (more specifically, programs or projects)

Annex 8

Improving the effectiveness of overseas development assistance in Tuvalu: CBA workplan tool

CBA tool that was used and adopted as part of the PPCR-PR was the 'CBA workplan tool'

Annex 9

Improving the effectiveness of ODA in Tuvalu: Guidance note for developing a MEF

Sets out how M&E will be performed over the lifespan of a policy (more specifically, programs or projects). Developed to take into account CCA/DRR and tailored to integrate with the existing governance arrangements in place (eg…develop a MEF where for a plan there is none; (for example Master Plan for Renewable Electricity and Energy Efficiency in Tuvalu and the Tuvalu National Agriculture Sector Plan) and to support learning for adaptive management + policy design and resource allocation for future government interventions for example the case study to reduce the volume of green waste going to Funafuti landfill)

Annex 10

Improving the effectiveness of ODA in Tuvalu: Guidance note for assessing and appraising policy risk

This document is the supporting guidance note to assist with assessment and appraisal of policy risk. The primary target audiences for this guidance note are officials who are responsible for preparing ODA proposals and reviewing and appraising new ODA proposals, including risk elements

Annex 11

Risk Matrix Tool (Guidance note for undertaking (policy) risk assessment and appraisal)

Used to understand how and to what extent the range of risk events are expected to affect a policy and to determine the most appropriate measure(s) to treat them (if any) - so the policy stands the best chance of achieving its intended development objectives. Adaptions have been made to tailor the guidance note accompanying the tool to the specific government system in place in Tuvalu so it is clear how the tool is used and that it coherently integrates with the existing governance arrangements in place. Examples of this are (i) to explain how risk assessments are used within the Tuvalu ODA procedures and related budgetary processes; (ii) to make reference to relevant parts of the Te Kakeega III: National Strategy for Sustainable Development; and (iii) to include a specific emphasis on assessing climate change and disaster types of risk. The tool further includes a section to assist central agency officials—as part of their roles to appraise new policy proposals—to check that risk assessment work is done properly and that risk treatment measures included in ODA policy design are cost-effective and supported by sound evidence. This guidance is intended to support the use of the existing 'GoT Development Criteria for Policy Eligibility Matrix' tool.

Annex 12

21 | P a g e

TECHNICAL CASE STUDIES

Table B

CBA CBA of Water Infrastructure in Kosrae

Case study application looked at improving water quality in Lelu, Kosrae State. Includes CBA Study, Water Pricing quality paper Water Quality Problem Briefing Paper Analysis of water issues by municipality Review policies/ practices internationally and Pacific

Annex 13

Annex 13.1 Annex 13.2 Annex 13.3 Annex 13.4

CBA of coastal zone management in Kosrae

CBA to assess coastal threats being faced along the Malem to Utwe coastal corridor and viability of proposal to establish an interior road that links Malem to Utwe, by-passing the need for citizens to rely on the 4.5 kilometre coastal road for access while ensuring the safety of people in the coastal area.

Annex 14

Preliminary CBA for water supply options in Malem, Kosrae State, FSM

CBA includes the identification, scoping and estimation of the benefits and costs of alternative options – all compared to the current water supply situation. This also includes the relative performance of each option under a number of uncertain future outcomes including the potential impacts of climate change. The project will assist in decision-making in FSM and will also assist with future applications under the GCF.

Annex 15

Preliminary CBA for water supply on Ifalik atoll, Yap, FSM

Same description as above Annex 16

M&E

MEF for the Agriculture Sector of the Kosrae Strategic Development Plan

It sets out how MEF for the agriculture section has been designed, how data will be collected and analysed, and how lessons learned will be documented and communicated. Support learning about key interventions within the agriculture section of the KSDP which in turn will inform strategic decision-making about how these interventions can be improved and what agriculture-related priorities should be included in the KSDP when it is revised in 2017

Annex 17

Evaluation of program to improve farmer access to vegetable seeds- Kosrae

Case study application of the M&E framework. Generated a number of learnings that can inform improvements to the program going forward. It helped to clarify the overall program objective (longer-term impact level), determine various sub-objectives that need to be achieved to reach the overall goal (end-of-program outcome level), and formulate clear strategies to logically achieve each of the sub-objectives

Annex 18

MEF for the Malem-Utwe inland road and relocation initiative

Case study application to increase coastal communities’ capacity to adapt to coastal flooding risks in Malem and Utwe

Annex 19

Tuvalu

CBA Green waste management in Tuvalu CBA report

Case study application to assess options to address green waste management problems in Tuvalu. The CBA will inform the prioritisation and refinement of solid waste management options to be included in the forthcoming National Integrate Waste Policy and Strategic Action Plan

Annex 20

22 | P a g e

Use of biogas as an alternative energy source in Tuvalu- preliminary CBA report

Case study application addressed increasing access to affordable and reliable energy (for cooking) in outer islands of Tuvalu. Also to inform a major European Union funded project Sustainable Community-Based Biogas Schemes for Domestic Energy and Improved Livelihoods where up to 40 digesters will be installed, operated, and evaluated over the two-year project.

Annex 21

M&E

MEF for the Tuvalu community biogas project

Provides the MEF for the Tuvalu Community Biogas project. The purpose of this framework is to guide monitoring and evaluation of the project in a structured and systematic fashion. Emphasis on supporting learning, particularly lessons for informing adaptive management of the programme as it is being implemented and informing design of future (related) programmes

Annex 22

MEF for Green Waste Management in Funafuti, Tuvalu

Provides the MEF for the ‘Funafuti green waste programme’. Purpose and emphasis same as for biogas project above.

Annex 23

CAAC Funafuti green waste management program- risk matrix assessment

Matrix outlining nature and magnitude of possible CCA/DRR associated with Funafuti green waste management program and provides risk treatment strategies.

Annex 24

Tuvalu community biogas project risk matrix assessment

Matrix outlining nature and magnitude of possible CCA/DRR associated with biogas project and provides risk treatment strategies.

Annex 25

Headline Knowledge Management Products19

Table C

Resilient and effective development using PPCR-PR policy analysis tool

Overview of the analytical tools that have been adapted and strengthened for the small Pacific island country context as part of the PPCR-PR. It describes the process of tool selection and adaption, thoroughly explains the elements of each tool to facilitate utility, and demonstrates their successful application through the use of case study examples. The report also highlights key contextual factors to consider for effective adoption of the analytical tools by prospective users.

Annex 26

Resilient and effective development using PPCR policy analysis tool- Kosrae

Explains the process followed for selecting the tools that were developed (i.e. adapted and strengthened). They outline the activities taken to pilot and refine the tools in the pilot sites. The generic purpose of each analytical tool and how they can be used to support policy making and related decision-making processes is described. The KMP explain how the tools have been used to inform policy-making and related decisions as well as some of the experiences and insights gained from piloting the tools. Based on these experiences, it outlines some complementary reform work that would support effective operationalisation of the tools in Kosrae.

Annex 27

Resilient and effective development using PPCR policy analysis tool- Tuvalu

As above Annex 28

19 The Headline Knowledge Management Products hyperlinked to the mainstreaming tools may be found at https://www.pacificclimatechange.net



AT LEAST 4 POLICIES DEVELOPED OR STRENGTHENED (2 PER

COUNTRY) TO INCLUDE CCA AND DRR AND GENDER CONSIDERATIONS

IN AT LEAST 2 SECTORS (FOOD SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE)

FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES DEVELOPED

The methodology being used to carry out this work is through participatory application of the tools, carrying out case study applications of tools on priority sector plans, programs and

projects; communication of the recommendations/results of this work to decision makers and

then formal improvement of the framework. While the PI requires that a policy [plan] be

‘strengthened’, this is a higher-level result (technically an outcome) of completing and communicating the case study applications. That is, completed CBA reports, M&E framework

documents, and appraisal comments are analytical inputs to the policy/planning process - but

that Governments (and other relevant stakeholders) must accept and utilise these analytical

inputs for them to translate to policy (and budgetary) changes. The policies and/or plans that have been strengthened for Kosrae taking into account CCA/DRR and gender considerations

are:

1) The Infrastructure Development Plan (IDP) of the Kosrae Strategic Development Plan;

2) Agriculture Sub-sector plan within the Kosrae Strategic Development Plan;

3) Kosrae Co-ordination and Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) Policy and

related Procedures.

The policies and/or plans that have been strengthened for Tuvalu taking into account

CCA/DRR and gender considerations are:

1) The Master Plan for Renewable Electricity and Energy Efficiency in Tuvalu;

2) National Integrated Waste Policy and Strategic Action Plan;

3) Tuvalu Agriculture Corporate Plan.

Although TA was provided to strengthen the National Agriculture Sector Plan through the

development of an MEF, this work could not be progressed as planned for.

2.2.2.1 KOSRAE: OVERALL PROGRESS TOWARD PI 1.2 The purpose of Table E and F below is to explain how and to what extent policies are

strengthened through the application of the mainstreaming tools.

TABLE E Policy (policy/strategy/project)

Tool that has inputted to policy development

Key/specific input from tool Climate and Disaster Risk related considerations Policy change that has occurred as a result of the analytical input

Infrastructure Development Plan (IDP) of the Kosrae Strategic Development Plan

CBA of Malem-Utwe road

Demonstrated the Malem-Utwe road is a high priority infrastructure investment. Outlined a number of specific recommendations to improve the design of the related investment. E.g. complementary measures to address other non-public infrastructure-related barriers that are constraining Kosrae households capacity to relocate to safer areas (in particular strategies to address access to credit and poorly functioning land markets) EIA is needed to properly assess potential environmental impacts of the inland road.

The CBA showed that the coastal inland road is the most economically viable option under the range of different future coastal flooding hazard scenarios. The CBA further highlighted that several other barriers that are affecting communities’ capacity to relocate (e.g. access to finance) will also need to be addressed if the road investment is to achieve its intended objectives of reducing coastal flooding risks to coastal communities.

Malem-Utwe road was elevated from number 5 to number 2 on the IDP infrastructure priority list. Corresponding project/funding proposal now incorporates complementary measures to address other non-public infrastructure-related barriers that are constraining Kosrae households capacity to relocate to safer areas.

M&E of Malem-Utwe road

Informed additional strategies to be incorporated into the related Project/Funding proposal (particularly through logic model exercise), building on the CBA study. In addition to the strategies outlined in the CBA section above, this includes ecosystem-based adaptation measures to reduce flooding/landslide risks to the new road itself, human lives, and other 'assets' that relocate to upland areas.

Understanding of Climate change and disaster risks was factored in to the development of the M&E framework and key evaluation questions or sub-questions specifically pertaining to climate change and disaster risk were formulated. These evaluation questions in turn provide direction and focus for the activities and analyses of the M&E work. Advice for formulating monitoring indicators to measure climate change and disaster risk elements was also provided.

Malem-Utwe road proposal now incorporates complementary measures to address other non-public infrastructure-related barriers that are constraining Kosrae households capacity to relocate to safer areas and reduce flooding/landslide risks to the new road, human lives, and other 'assets' that relocate to upland areas - through environmental/ecosystem measures. Actual operationalisation of M&E framework (to support adaptive management and learning for future IDP plans) not yet started as project is awaiting funding approval.

25 | P a g e

Provides framework to support adaptive management of the project as it is being implemented and learning for other inland road infrastructures planned for the future.

Central agency appraisal of draft Kosrae component of AF proposal (which focusses on Malem-Utwe road segment)

Draft project proposal to Adaptation Fund did not provide adequate information to explain the other barriers that are currently constraining autonomous relocation of households to inland areas (e.g. various issues relating to land ownership and access to finance) and how these will be addressed.

The central agency appraisal tool included specific climate and disaster risk-related checklist questions to ensure that the nature and extent of the climate change risks were well understood, to ensure that appropriate risk-treatment measures have been incorporated into the policy design to deal with these risks, and to check the additional costs of the risk treatment measures had been estimated.

The proposal has now been approved by the AF Board. Project/Funding proposal now incorporates complementary measures to address other non-public infrastructure-related barriers that are constraining Kosrae households’ capacity to relocate to safer areas.

CBA of Lelu water infrastructure proposal.

Shows that Lelu water infrastructure proposal to upgrade the Lelu water system is not a worthwhile investment and should not be pursued as a high priority infrastructure investment. Also that Kosrae Government Resources would be better allocated to a different infrastructure proposal (eg..various phases of inland road development) Shows that extreme rainfall risk - and associated uncertainties - does not materially change need for or design of water infrastructure investment. Also outlines that complementary measures to ensure pricing of water infrastructure/services and

Heavy rainfall risks - and associated uncertainties under the affects of human-induced climate change - expected to affect water quality in Lelu were found to be material but do not however change conclusions made about prioritisation or design of the Lelu water infrastructure investment.

Kosrae State Government not pursuing Lelu Water System Improvement (very expensive engineering option) proposal as a result of detailed CBA (presented in the Fourth Semi Annual Report). The findings were communicated to decision-makers in a paper prepared for Cabinet 6 July 2016. This strengthened the Infrastructure Development Plan (IDP) - within the broader Kosrae Strategic Development Plan (KSDP) - by demoting an investment that is not economically viable and not sustainable.

26 | P a g e

governance of service delivery is needed for any water infrastructure investment in Kosrae to achieve intended objectives - should this be pursued.

Agriculture Sub-sector of the Kosrae Strategic Development Plan

M&E This M&E framework is a living document that will improve design of strategies aimed at enhancing farmers access to seeds and seedlings; and in turn, inform decisions on what activities/result areas should - and should not - be included in the KSDP when it is next revised in 2017.

Climate change and disaster risks understanding was factored in to the development of the M&E framework and key evaluation questions or sub-questions specifically pertaining to climate change and disaster risk were formulated. These evaluation questions in turn provide direction and focus for the activities and analyses of the M&E work. Advice for formulating monitoring indicators to measure climate change and disaster risk elements was also provided.

M&E framework will inform decision-making in relation to strategies that will be included in the KDSP-when it is next revised in 2017- to improve farmers access to vegetable seeds (noting no M&E Framework existed before)

Kosrae Co-ordination and Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) Policy and related Procedures

All tools + Situation Analysis

Informed that a range of supporting tools (Guidance Notes, checklists, templates etc) are needed to support implementation of the forthcoming Policy and Procedures - especially to implement climate change and disaster risk provisions - and this should be formally linked to ODA Policy and Procedure.

Informed that climate change and disaster risk should be considered in all new ODA proposals and this should be explicitly mentioned in the new ODA Policy and Procedure that was being drafted at the time.

New ODA Policy and Procedure endorsed/signed on 4/1/2016 requires that all ODA proposals must now include in their design consideration of climate risks (refer provision 9c of the policy document). The Mainstreaming Specialist supported the development of a ODA Handbook which makes explicit reference to the PPCR Mainstreaming tools and climate change and disaster risk assessment elements. The Handbook will also provide other templates (e.g. quarterly progress reporting templates) etc. that will make explicit mention of climate change and disaster risks where appropriate.

Table F Policy (policy/strategy/project)

Tool that has inputted to policy development

Key/specific input from tool Climate and Disaster Risk related considerations (questions answered and decisions)

Policy change that has occurred as a result of the analytical input

Master Plan for Renewable Electricity and Energy Efficiency in Tuvalu

M&E framework for Master Plan

Systematic approach to support learning for improvement as the Plan is being implemented.

adaptive management), including on key climate change and disaster risks related to coastal flooding and wind (cyclone) factored into M&E Framework.

Master Plan now being actively monitored - and broader M&E framework followed - to support adaptive management of the Plan, including on key climate change and disaster risk elements.

CBA of biogas infrastructure project proposal

The CBA study confirmed that investment in household biogas systems will generate a net economic gain for society and that government and development partners should proceed with this investment. Also outlined some non-climate-related considerations to be reviewed for the designed and monitored - especially relating to governance and incentives for upscale/replication.

The CBA study showed that coastal flooding hazards will materially impact the achievement of project benefits if risk is not properly managed. Design modifications were subsequently incorporated into project design to ensure that household biogas systems are not located in areas most exposed to coastal flooding hazards and that pig dung that is contaminated by floodwater is not used as input in biogas systems. Informed inclusion of drought response measures to be included into technical training elements of project design. This would include use of 'green waste' as a temporary substitute for water. It would also ensure that existing rainwater tank infrastructure is properly maintained and that contingency storage is available when droughts occur.

Pilot project design revised/strengthened to include key 'climate-proofing' design elements (e.g. locate systems away from areas most exposed to coastal flooding hazards).

CBA will be used as an input for the review of the Master Plan when it will be done in 2018 - in particular, whether biogas systems should be a higher priority in the Plan and whether it should be upscaled.

M&E of biogas pilot project

Informed additional strategies/outputs to be incorporated into the project design (particularly through logic model exercise), building on the CBA study. In addition to the strategies outlined in the CBA section above, this includes a measure to reduce barriers to uptake, relating to access to credit/finance.

Provides framework to support adaptive management of the project as it is being implemented

An appreciation of the extent were key climate risk reduction strategies effective in preventing related damages and losses from any climate hazard events (storm surge, cyclone, drought - if these events occurred during project implementation)? What worked well and what did not work so well? Why?

Pilot project design revised/strengthened to include key 'climate-proofing' design elements (e.g. locate systems away from areas most exposed to coastal flooding hazards) and a measure to reduce barriers to uptake relating to access to credit/finance.

28 | P a g e

and learning for other inland road infrastructures planned for the future. This project-level M&E aligns with and inputs to the plan-level M&E mentioned above.

Central Agency Appraisal

Risk matrix prepared, drawing from the CBA and M&E inputs.

Climate change and disaster risk is emphasised in the generic Risk Matrix tool by providing specific guidance for assessing climate change and disaster types of risk in particular. Appraisal of risk matrix (following the checklist questions) confirmed the climate change and disaster risk assessment for the proposal has been adequate and that adaptation measures incorporated are appropriate. It further confirmed that M&E framework to support adaptive management and learning about climate and disaster risk elements is adequate. Confirmed that the risk treatment measures recommended in CBA of biogas infrastructure project proposal (i.e. location of biogas systems away from flooding hazard zones) are appropriate. Confirmed that the risk treatment measures recommended in CBA study (i.e. location of biogas systems away from flooding hazard zones) are appropriate.

Re-affirmed merits of including 'climate-proofing' design elements (e.g. locate systems away from areas most exposed to coastal flooding hazards) in project design and adequacy of related M&E framework.

National Integrated Waste Policy and Strategic Action Plan

CBA of options to address green waste problem

The CBA considered four different options to achieve the policy objective of reducing the volume of green waste going to the Funafuti landfill. The CBA found that only options that include activities to convert green waste into compost (for use in agriculture production) are economically viable. The CBA further found that the preferred option is expected to be resilient to potential changes in cyclone and drought frequency. That is,

Confirmed that the risk treatment measures recommended in CBA study (i.e. location of biogas systems away from flooding hazard zones) are appropriate. Informed inclusion of cyclone/storm-surge resilient design measures for composting facility, including additional capacity for peak loads expected if cyclone occurs.

Cabinet endorsed recommendations of the CBA study. The recommendations of the CBA study have been incorporated into the Tuvalu National Integrated Waste Policy and Strategic Action Plan - which itself has been endorsed by Cabinet. The CBA study was submitted to the European Union, along with the Tuvalu Integrated Waste Policy and Action Plan, as part of the evidence base used to trigger draw down of available EDF 11 bilateral funding.

29 | P a g e

the preferred option still generates positive net benefits when higher frequency cyclone and drought scenarios are modelled.

M&E framework for green waste management program

A detailed and robust MEF to reduce the volume of green waste going to Funafuti landfill is now in place. Relevant Monitoring activities include Unit cost of collection services ($/m3); Total cost of collection services ($/quarter) and Number of service disruptions (days/quarter). Relevant Evaluation activities include time series analysis of indicator data, examination of climate variability/events (drivers of deviations) where applicable and emi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (SWAT operational staff in Funafuti, Kaupule in Outer Islands)

To what extent have climate change risk management measures (i.e. climate-proofing new transfer station) been effective in minimising damage to transfer station and ensured the ability to accommodate additional volumes of green waste following cyclones? Why? Why not?

Cabinet endorsed use of M&E framework that supports and strengthens the National Integrate Waste Policy and Strategic Action Plan.


CCA AND DRR ARE INCLUDED IN NATIONAL AND LOCAL BUDGETS

FOLLOWING THE PROCESSES OUTLINED IN THE SELECTED COUNTRIES This indicator has been progressed using the three mainstreaming tools to provide technical

inputs (costings, recommendations), that feed into the budgetary decision making processes.

While the PI requires CCA/DRR inclusion in national and local budgets, this is a higher-level

result (technically an outcome) that also depends on government action. The TA can recommend technical inputs but governments (and other relevant stakeholders) must accept

and utilise these analytical inputs for them to translate to budgetary changes.

Mainstreaming tools in Kosrae are intended to support the Kosrae Overseas Development

Assistance Policy and Procedures endorsed by Kosrae legislature in April 2016. Similarly,

mainstreaming tools in Tuvalu were intended to support implementation of the Tuvalu National

Aid Policy 2012 and the Aid Coordination Unit Operating Procedures Manual (Draft 2014).

The purpose of Table G below is to explain how and to what extent CCA/DRR are included

in national and local budgets following the processes outlined in the selected countries.

2.2.3.1 KOSRAE: OVERALL PROGRESS TOWARD PERFORMANCE

INDICATOR 1.3 Table G

Tool Application Key/specific input from tool Budgetary change that has occurred as a result of the analytical input

Cost-benefit analysis

Malem-Utwe road Costings of inland road segments clarified and updated, based on indicative climate-proofed design standard Provision for repair and maintenance of road made explicit Highlighted financial (and other) risks to road investment if entire section of road is not complete - and hence the need to secure alternative sources of funding to complement current Adaptation Funding (AF) proposal Highlighted that overall road infrastructure costs for KSG will be substantially increased if inland road investment does not support/achieve 'moderately-paced' relocation and KSG are in turn required to reinvest substantial $ to keep the existing coastal road functioning. To manage this risk, the CBA recommends complementary measures to reduce other non-road barriers that are constraining relocation

Budget in AF proposal adjusted to reflect cost estimates from CBA Kosrae State Government now sourcing alternative sources of funding (in particular from China) to pay for remaining road infrastructure costs. Provision for maintenance explicitly included in project budget. Complementary measures included in project to address other non-road barriers constraining relocation to inland areas, and budget allocated for these measures

31 | P a g e

Lelu water infrastructure proposal

Clarified that existing design is 'resilient' to potential changes in the frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall events. Additional design modifications - and associated costs - are not needed to account for this uncertainty. Highlighted that the sustainable delivery of water infrastructure services will require, amongst other things, that Kosrae plan for and finance operating and maintenance (O&M) expenses of water infrastructure services. Provided background analysis and recommendations on a water-pricing policy to sustainably finance O&M expenditures.

Findings were communicated to decision-makers who decided not to invest in financing an option that was not economically viable.

Monitoring & Evaluation Frameworks

Malem-Utwe road Logic model exercise of M&E framework formulated - in a participatory manner - complementary measures/strategies to address other non-road barriers that are constraining relocation as well as ecosystem-based adaptation measures to further climate-proof the inland road (and other assets). Budgets for these complementary strategies estimated. M&E framework provides structured approach to monitor and adaptively manage project implementation - including on financial aspects and strategies to manage financial risks. It further provides a framework to support learning for other inland road infrastructure investments - including on financial aspects - that are envisaged over the next 10-15 years.

Complementary measures included in project to address other non-road barriers constraining relocation to inland areas as well as ecosystem-based adaptation measures to further climate-proof the inland road (and other assets) - and budget allocated for these measures. Actual operationalisation of M&E framework (to support adaptive management and learning for future inland road infrastructure investments) not yet started as project is awaiting funding approval from the Adaptation Fund.

Agriculture sub-sector of Kosrae Strategic Development Plan

M&E framework provides structured approach to evaluate measures to improve farmers' access to vegetable seedlings - including whether varieties of seeds provided by the agriculture extension unit are resilient/tolerant to key climate hazards faced by Kosrae farmers. Discrete evaluation exercise scheduled for March/April 2017. Findings from the evaluation are intended to inform decisions about what measures should be included in the Agriculture section of the KSDP when it is next revised in 2017. Part of this decision-making will consider financial investment required for recommended measures.

No budgetary change as yet.

32 | P a g e


Malem-Utwe road Highlighted a number of budget-related risks that were not properly addressed in draft versions of the associated Adaptation Fund proposal - in particular (i) risks if entire section of road is not complete and budget secured for this; and (ii) risks if complementary measures are not incorporated in associated project design to address other non-road barriers to relocation and budget secured for this. Further advised that re-submission of the AF proposal wait until, and be supported by, a detailed quantitative CBA is completed for the investment proposal.

Kosrae State Government now sourcing alternative sources of funding (in particular from China) to pay for remaining road infrastructure costs. Project/Funding proposal now incorporates complementary measures to address other non-public infrastructure-related barriers constraining Kosrae households capacity to relocate to safer areas as well as ecosystem-based adaptation measures to further climate-proof the inland road (and other assets) - and budget allocated for these measures.

2.2.3.2 TUVALU: OVERALL PROGRESS TOWARD PERFORMANCE

INDICATOR 1.3 The purpose of Table H below is to explain how CCA/DRR are included in national and local

budgets following the processes outlined in the selected countries.

Table H

Tool Application Key/specific input from tool Budgetary change that has occurred as a result of the analytical input

Cost-benefit analysis

Renewable energy infrastructure (biogas systems)

Demonstrated the magnitude of coastal flooding, cyclone and drought risks (and associated uncertainty) to infrastructure investments in monetary terms. Recommended including a number of climate proofing design measures (e.g. locate systems away from areas most prone to coastal flooding) in the project design - and noted additional costs for key adaptations will not be material.

Project Design Document now explicitly incorporates climate-proofing measures - and budget covers these measures (at no additional capital cost).

Green waste management in Funafuti

Provided detailed costings/budget needed to implement preferred option. CBA study used as key part of evidence to draw down/access EU EDF 11 funding. Costings (as per CBA) reflected in approved Corporate Plan for Ministry of Home Affairs and Rural Development - which is an integral part of Tuvalu budgetary processes.

EDF 11 allocation hypothecated to options to address green waste - consistent with costings from CBA study. Costings (as per CBA) reflected in approved Corporate Plan for Ministry of Home Affairs and Rural Development

Monitoring & Evaluation Frameworks

Renewable energy infrastructure

Logic model exercise of M&E framework discussed design modifications recommended in CBA to reduce climate-related risks and worked together to further

Project Design Document now explicitly incorporates climate-proofing measures - and

33 | P a g e

(biogas systems)

refine and improve these climate-proofing modifications. Further confirmed that key adaptations will not incur material additional costs. MEF provides structured approach to monitor and adaptively manage project implementation - including on financial aspects and strategies to manage climate risks. Supports learning about the renewable energy (biogas) project - including on climate risks and financial aspects - to inform budget allocation decisions to support biogas infrastructure developments in the future. Key evaluation exercises are costed.

budget covers these measures (at no additional capital cost). M&E framework costs - including on activities relating to monitoring and evaluating key climate change and disaster risk elements - incorporated into project budget. Operationalisation of M&E framework (to support adaptive management and learning for future inland road infrastructure investments) not yet started as project is yet to start implementation.

Master Plan for Renewable Electricity and Energy Efficiency in Tuvalu

Further work still needed to ensure coherent and streamlined linkages with relevant Corporate Plan and related reporting budget reporting processes. Similarly, further work still needed to ensure streamlined linkages with TKIII reporting processes.

Not ascertainable as yet

Green waste management initiative in Funafuti

Provides MEF for address efficient greenwaste use/disposal considering current land fill has low economic life as volumes of waste delivered to the landfill are high. This will enable the reduction in the volume of material from the estimated 1,800m3 to around 780m3.

Not ascertainable as yet


Renewable energy infrastructure (biogas systems)

Risk matrix prepared, drawing from the CBA and M&E inputs. Appraisal of risk matrix (following the checklist questions) confirmed the climate change and disaster risk assessment for the proposal has been adequate and that adaptation measures incorporated are appropriate - and do not incur additional costs. It further confirmed that M&E framework to support monitoring and adaptive management - including on financial aspects and strategies to manage climate risks - is adequate.

Re-affirmed merits of including 'climate-proofing' design measures (e.g. locate systems away from areas most exposed to coastal flooding hazards) in project design and adequacy of budget provision for these measures. Re-affirmed adequacy of M&E framework - including on climate risks - and that related costs for implementing the M&E framework are incorporated into the project budget.

34 | P a g e

2.3 OUTPUT 2. PACIFIC DMCS’ CAPACITY TO RESPOND TO CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS BUILT AND SUPPORTED THROUGH STRENGTHENED

ADAPTIVE CAPACITIES AND SUPPORT FACILITIES, SUCH AS RTSM AND

RRF

Output 2

Design Summary

Performance Targets and Indicators with Baselines

Data Sources and

Reporting Mechanisms


2. Pacific DMCs‘ capacity to

respond to

climate change

risks built and

supported

through

strengthened

adaptive

capacities and

support facilities,

such as RTSM and RRF.

By end of project:

RTSM and RRF are rated satisfactory under the

monitoring and evaluation framework by at least 20% of clients.

CCA and DRR knowledge and tools are applied

in 2 pilot Pacific DMCs and rated satisfactory by at least 60% of the users.

Client surveys

National and local government agency reports

Pacific regional organization reports

Limited availability or accessibility of funds for the

RTSM

Limited expertise

compatible with

the requirements

of the Pacific

countries

2.3.1 OVERALL PROGRESS TOWARD PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2.1 AND

2.2

The RTSM was open to requests from 14 Pacific DMCs (Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa,

Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

Seven Pacific DMCs were able to receive RTSM TAs with the majority receiving more than 1 TA. (FSM (3), Fiji (3), Nauru (2) Samoa (2), Tonga (2), Tuvalu (1), Vanuatu (2). There were

also some unsuccessful requests from these countries.20

20 Samoa - Samoa Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Certification System for Ozone Layer Protection (there was no response received from Samoa after RTSM initial assessment; in addition the form was not signed by focal point). Tuvalu sought to conduct a pre-feasibility study for the Tuvalu Coastal Adaptation Project (TCAP) – there was no response from Tuvalu after initial posting on RTSM site and this work was picked up by UNDP and others. There was also another request in relation to the development of Tuvalu’s INDC (this work already was already being financed by French Government through SPREP)

35 | P a g e

Three Pacific DMCs unsuccessfully put in requests for RTSM TA (Marshall Islands21, Niue22,

Solomon Islands23) while 4 did not put in any applications (Cook Islands, Kiribati, Palau, Papua

New Guinea).

Eight out of the 15 experts were deployed to undertake studies and develop documents to

support 4 countries’ (FSM, Nauru, Tonga and Vanuatu) with AF and GCF funding proposals.

This is consistent with the interest of many Pacific island countries in TA to generate additional

climate financing. This trend is expected to continue

Table I below shows where the TA was provided, the objective of the TA, how Pacific DMC

capacity to respond to CCA/DRR has been built:

21 Could not coordinate efforts with SPC within TA timeframe to deliver assistance. There was also the issue of remuneration of CROP experts engaged in RTSM.

22 requested TA to conduct a workshop (Niue not an ADB member country)

23 The TOR developed by country and SPREP EIA team, however, Solomon Islands could not agree on the exact experts required to undertake TA.

36 | P a g e

TABLE I

RTSM Deployment No

TA and Objective How the TA builds/supports national

capacity to respond to climate change risks

How TA contributes to mainstreaming into national development priorities

Outcome/Impact of the TA TA Provider

1. FSM TA to develop and refine Adaptation

Fund Proposal. (addresses

requirement to conduct community

consultations to complete Adaptation Fund Proposal Enhancing the

Resilience of Vulnerable Island Atoll

Communities in FSM to Climate

Change Risks through a Living with

the Sea National Risk Management

Framework).

Enhances the resilience of vulnerable

island atoll communities in FSM to

climate change risks through adoption of a risk management framework.

Strengthens ability community decision

makers to make informed decisions and

manage anticipate climate driven

pressures (including extreme events)

within the overall development paradigm

in a proactive, integrated and strategic manner

Project activities consistent with Nationwide Integrated Disaster Risk

Management and Climate Change Policy

2013 and FSM Strategic Development Plan

where all development activities in FSM

take into account projected climatic changes

Coastal communities better

equipped to prepare to adapt to

climate change and extreme

events as part of their livelihoods

and the environment,

infrastructure, utilities,

communities provided with the

knowledge and tools to enable

decision making that builds

resilience to CCA/DRR impacts.

Part of supporting documentation to secure US$9 million from the

Adaptation Fund Board

SPREP

2.Tonga TA to conduct a diagnostic (feasibility)

study on coastal erosion & policy

framework for integrated coastal

management

The TA outputs will inform the development of an Integrated Coastal

Zone Management (ICZM) Plan for

Vava’u, Tonga”. Both the diagnostic study and EIA provided

recommendations for coastal protection

in specific areas; resource requirements and costs for a coastal protection plan.

The outputs of these TAs will contribute to the development of a future National

Coastal Zone Management Plan (NICZMP)

for the Kingdom of Tonga (with specific sub

plans for different island Groups such as

Tongatapu, Ha’apai and Vava’u) that aims to ensure the integration of climate change

adaptation (CCA) within its structure and delivery approach.

Development of an Integrated

Coastal Zone Management Plan

for Vava’u Tonga


Green Climate Fund (pending AFB approval expected in 2017)

International consultant

3.Tonga EIA for a proposed coastal

engineering intervention for Ofu Island, Vava’u, Tonga

Capacity of GCF National Designated

Authority built to fulfil functions/responsibilities.

Strategic Framework and Country

Programme (SFCP) for engagement with

GCF provides platform to engage with GCF

to secure climate financing to support

Development of an Integrated

Coastal Zone Management Plan

for Vava’u Tonga for possible

financing by GCF.

National consultant

37 | P a g e

Strategic Framework for engagement

with GCF defined and understand by relevant ministries.

Measures in place to meet fiduciary

standards and environment and social

safeguard requirements to access resources from the fund.

mainstreaming work across development sectors


Green Climate Fund (pending AFB approval expected in 2017)

4. Nauru TA for Government of Nauru- to access GCF Readiness Support

Capacity of GCF NDA built to fulfil

functions/responsibilities. Strategic

Framework for engagement with GCF

defined. Measures in place to meet

fiduciary standards and environment and

social safeguard requirements to access resources from the fund.

Meets Nauru’s National Sustainable

Development Strategy in particular

financial services goal of “an effective, competitive and stable financial system

that will enhance economic growth and

development’ and environmental goal of “sustainable use and management of environment and natural resources for present and future generations”.

Strategic Framework and Country

Programme (SFCP) for engagement with

GCF. Provides platform to engage with

GCF to secure climate financing to support

mainstreaming work across development sectors.

GCF Readiness Grant of

US$300,000 approval for full proposal issued by GCF

PIFS

5. FSM TA for development of M&E

Framework for AF for Yap, Chuuk, Pohnpei and Kosrae.

Provides 4 State Governments with

development planning tools, institutional

frameworks and practical community

owned adaptation actions to help coastal

communities prepare and adapt for

higher sea levels and adverse and

frequent changes in extreme weather and

climate events. Strengthen ability to

make informed decisions and manage

anticipated climate driven pressures

TA consistent with Nationwide Integrated

Disaster Risk Management and Climate

Change Policy 2013 and FSM Strategic

Development Plan where all development

activities in FSM take into account

projected climatic changes.

Coastal communities better

equipped to prepare to adapt to

climate change and extreme events as part of their livelihoods.

Part of supporting documentation to secure US$9 million from the Adaptation Fund Board

International

Consultant (NZ)

38 | P a g e

(including extreme events) within the

overall development paradigm in a

proactive, integrated and strategic manner

6. Vanuatu TA to develop Vanuatu Framework for

Climate Services and Climate

Roadmap Implementation Plan.

(CRIP) to guide and refine the

implementation of the priorities identified in the Vanuatu Meteorology

and Geo-Hazards(VMGD) Strategic

Plan 2014-2023. Included a situation

analysis, capacity assessment

questionnaire survey of key

stakeholders on climate services as

well as consultations with all relevant

stakeholders. For the CRIP, a long

term, instructional plan identifying

gaps in existing capabilities and

corresponding solutions for

institutional arrangements, human

resources and inclusive training

needs, technical and policy needs of

Vanuatu climate services was

prepared. A cost analysis for the

components of human resource,

climate service to sector activities,

capacity and policy development was

also prepared. Consultations with key

stakeholders to verify the roadmap

and VFCS were held before both were formally launched.

The VFCS and CSIP will assist VMGD

officials plan and implement their work as

it will guide and refine the Implementation

of the broad priorities set out in the VMGD Strategic Plan. Also builds

capacity (education and awareness

across the many sectors that rely on provision of climate service information).

TA consistent with Vanuatu CCA/DRR priorities within the National Climate

Change Strategy and Vanuatu Meteorology

and Geo-Hazards(VMGD) Strategic Plan

2014-2023.

The VFCS and CRIP will provide the basis

and activities to provide guided climate

services to different sectors including

agriculture, food security, health, water,

energy, DRR, tourism, fisheries and affected communities

Vanuatu people better informed

and able to plan for

CCA/DRR/weather events

because of the provision of

enhanced climate services affecting their livelihoods.

Part of supporting documentation to secure US$23 million from the Green Climate Fund

NIWA

39 | P a g e

7.Vanuatu TA for technical upgrade and reconstruct of NAB Climate Portal. The NAB portal established in 2012 is the centralised site for all CCA/DRR programs, projects, activities undertaken for Vanuatu. However, the National Climate Change and DRR Policy 2015 identified knowledge and information management as a priority area that needed to be further developed and enhanced in order to achieve objectives of the VMGD 2014-2023 Strategic Plan. The NAB Portal was considered to be outdated in terms of compatibility and alignment with other climate risks/hazards related initiatives. There was also a need for meteorological focused information (climatic conditions, climate date analysis, M&E for Vanuatu etc.) to be more visible and accessible via the Portal. The TA consisted of a specialist on Drupal to undertake a Portal Upgrade.

Build capacity of VMGD and CC/DRR –PMU to provide enhanced weather and climatic information to users

Enable easier access for national

personnel to NAB portal that provides

seasonal climate information, forecasts,

services, warnings. Users receive better

information regarding droughts,

forecasts, services, warnings. Agro-

meteorological services established helping farmers etc.

TA is consistent with objectives set out in National Climate Change and DRR Policy

2015 and VMGD Strategic Plan 2014-2023

Vanuatu people provided with

accurate information, and are

better informed and able to plan

for CCA/DRR/weather events

because of the provision of

enhanced climate services affecting their livelihoods

Part of supporting documentation to secure US$23 million from the Green Climate Fund

International Expert

8 FSM TA for P-EIA for the Malem-Utwe

relocation initiative (carried out in collaboration with the Kosrae Island

Resource Management Authority

(KIRMA). The TA addressed the

Kosrae State EIA Guidelines requiring

that environmental, social, cultural

and economic impacts of a project

(including climate change impacts)

and project alternatives are identified

and analysed before a decision to approve the project is made.

Capacity development in KIRMA in

relation to development and application

of EIA to projects like road relocations.

Community knowledge and awareness

through consultation of relevant issues

that need to be addressed when conducting an EIA.

TA consistent with the Nationwide

Integrated Disaster Risk Management &

Climate Change Policy 2013 that includes

a commitment to addressing climate

change adaptation through a framework in

which: “all development activities in FSM to take into account projected climatic

changes in the design and implementation as stipulated in the FSM Strategic

Development Plan/Infrastructure

Development Plan.”

Communities provided with the

knowledge and tools to enable

decision making that builds resilience to CCA/DRR impacts.

Part of supporting documentation to secure US$9 million from the Adaptation Fund Board

NIWA

40 | P a g e

9 Fiji TA to conduct a Technology Needs

Assessment for Adaptation and Mitigation

TNA will build capacity to identify priority

technology needs, regulatory options,

financial incentives and capability needs

leading to a sound portfolio of

environmentally sound technology

projects and programs to facilitate the

transfer of technology under Art 4.5 of the UNFCCC.

TA consistent with Fiji’s Green Growth Framework 2014, National Climate Change

Policy 2012 and Sustainable Development

Goals.

EST projects/programs for Fiji

identified. Doing away with

inefficient unsound technologies

that will not facilitate transfer

under the UNFCCC. Resilience to

CCA/DRR enhanced by Fiji

adopting EST low carbon

technology projects and programs.

International

Consultant NZ.

10. Tuvalu TA to develop Tuvalu Climate Change

and Disaster Survival Fund Deed

Assist Tuvaluan citizens prepare for,

adapt to and recover from the impacts of disasters and climate change.

TA consistent with Te Kakeega III: Tuvalu’s National Sustainable Development

Strategy, Goal 1 Climate Change, Goal 3,

The Economy, Growth and Sustainability.

Goal 7, Guaranteeing the Security of the

People of Tuvalu from the Impacts of Climate Change as well as the Tuvalu

National Strategic Action Plan for Climate

Change and Disaster Risk Management

2012-2016

Impacts of disasters and climate change

factored into national financial planning

processes and investment strategies to

reduce risk associated with climate change and related disasters.

Provision of a consistent and fair

system to assist Tuvaluan citizens

prepare for, adapt to and recover

from the impacts of disasters and climate change.

International

Consultant NZ

11. Fiji TA for the migration of the Climate Change Portal

Capacity of Climate Change Unit under

the Ministry of Finance will be enhanced

through the technical upgrade of the Fiji

Climate Change Portal aligned with the objectives of Fiji Climate Change Policy

relating to climate change data and

information for knowledge management

Provides a clearing house for climate

Change data and information held by Fijian

government available to be shared with

Fijian citizens and interested development partners.

People provided with accessible

and accurate information to plan for CCA and DRR

International

Consultant Australia

41 | P a g e

and sharing within Fiji. National capacity

of users of portal enhanced (education, awareness).

12. Fiji TA to develop Fiji’s National

Framework for Climate Services

(NFCS) and Action Plan

Fiji’s NFCS and Action Plan will help Fiji’s Meteorological Service (FMS), the

climate service provider to work with the

socio-economic sectors to reduce the

impact of climate related disasters,

improve food security, health outcomes

and enhance water resource management

TA consistent with Fiji’s Green Growth Framework 2014, National Climate Change

Policy 2012 and Sustainable Development

Goals.

Resilience to CCA/DRR enhanced

though FMS work in socio-economic sector.

International


13. Nauru TA for a technical review of water

security and climate change priority

activities for Nauru (scoping mission

in relation to the Water Master

Planrequiring expert to assess the

main climate change risks and likely

future impacts to Nauru’s ageing

water supply and sewerage systems).

The costs of climate proofing and the

sequencing of future infrastructure

investments, potential sources of

climate change financing also addressed in TA.

TA will help build capacity in water sector

by providing officials/stakeholders

updated information on water supply in

the context of risks presented by climate

change along with knowledge of feasible

investment options to address possible impacts.

TA consistent with Nauru’s National Sustainable Development Strategy 2005-2025 (NSDS) and Nauru’s Water and Sanitation Master Plan which sets out water and sewerage infrastructure needs of Nauru for the next 20 years. Also consistent with Nauru's Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Management Plan (RONAdapt), the National Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Policy 2012.

Water investments will help

achieve climate resilience and water sector in Nauru

International


14. Samoa Develop and Implement Integrated

database for Ministry of Works, Transport and Infrastructure (MWTI)

MWTI is the key focal agency responsible

for policy, strategic planning and sector

oversight/ regulatory monitoring of all

transport and infrastructure services.

Enable MWTI to integrate standalone

databases within the Ministry itself (Land,

Air, Maritime divisions) as well as within

Land Transport Authority, Samoa Air

Authority and Samoa Ports Authority to

Consistent with Strategy for the

Development of Samoa 2017-2020 -

Priority Area 3: Infrastructure Sector; Key

Outcome 10: Efficient, safe and sustainable transport system and networks.

Also consistent with National Infrastructure

Sector Plan & Transport Sector Plan and

supports Samoa’s programmatic approach

Public assets adequately recorded

& tracked for CC impacts.

Strengthened human & financial

resources in infrastructure sector

planning to tackle CC impacts and risks.

National Consultant

42 | P a g e

project public assets to mitigate climate change impacts.

Promotes coordination within and among

government Ministries, Authorities to

climate proof assets consistent with

Strategy for the Development of Samoa

2017-2020 and MWTI Corporate Plan 2015-2018

to tackling climate change and related

issues affecting Samoa’s economic development.

15. Samoa TA to review of National Infrastructure

Strategic Plan (NISP) for Ministry of

Works Transport and Industry

(MWTI).

The review will provide the restructure

needed, the framework and type of

technical skills required in order for the

MWTI to fully take on its roles as

determined by the various Acts it

administers (as lead agency in

coordinating and regulating infrastructural

programmes) including the requirement under the Strategy for the Development

of Samoa 2017-2020 to incorporate into

its operations, climate risks. As a result

of the TA, the capacity of MWTI staff to

plan, manage and monitor priorities will be enhanced.

TA consistent with the Strategy for the Development of Samoa 2017-2020 and with SDS directive for all government

ministries to work with Ministry of Natural

Resources and Environment to ensure

climate change and its effects are

incorporated into MWTI planning

documents.

The overall coordination,

monitoring and implementation of

NISP in terms of human resources will be improved.

Samoa has taken appropriate

steps to address CA/DRR in its

infrastructure programs and

assets that will represent a

savings to country spending, protect lives and infrastructure.

International Consultant

43 | P a g e

2.3.2 METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERMINE SATISFACTORY RATING

2.3.3 SURVEY During the final workshop held 16-17 May 2017, a survey was held to:

a) obtain an overall satisfactory rating from member countries (focal points and other national beneficiaries e.g. specific sector or ministry) who utilised the RTSM and RRF

(climate responsive instrument/investment model as defined in the PPCR M&R Toolkit)

to respond to DMC CCA and DRR needs. This survey included assessing the quality

and extent to which the instrument/model had been developed and tested. b) To obtain an overall satisfaction rating from users –specifically the extent to which the

CCA/DRR knowledge and tools generated under the RTSM TA helped build or

strengthen capacity or support facilities to respond to climate change risks.

Six out of the seven Pacific DMCs that had received RTSM/RRF assistance were present at

the final workshop and filled in the survey. (FSM, Nauru, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. 24 These six countries were the beneficiaries of 12 of the 15 TAs. Eleven survey forms were

filled in. The findings of the survey were:

Awareness

There was good general awareness of the establishment of the RTSM through colleagues,

regional and national meetings, the RTSM website and the Pacific Climate Change Portal.

While the majority of TA requests had followed the formal process of applying online through

the RTSM website/email (7), a number of requests had been made through SPREP (4). The process of requesting a TA was considered to be helpful by ten of the 11 surveyed.

Quality

Ten of the 11 forms showed that the TA addressed a stated priority set out in the requesting

country’s national development or sectoral plans to address climate change resilience (as opposed to a discreet intervention- for example a workshop, completion of activities associated with another TA). While ten of the 11 surveyed showed that the TA was completed

within the timeframe needed by the respective governments from the time of deployment,

there was need to improve the timeframe from when the request was made to the time of

deployment. Most expressed satisfaction with the quality of the RTSM experts’ deliverables (10/11).

Extent

All 11 surveyed felt that the TA helped build and support their countries capacity to address

climate change risks to a greater extent than had the TA not been provided. Similarly all 11

surveyed indicated that the RTSM TA had acted as leverage to scale up their countries climate

change investments. The majority (9/11) agreed that the RTSM TA was able to help sectors

24 Fiji, beneficiary of 3 RTSM TAs. was invited but did not attend the Final Meeting.

44 | P a g e

mainstream their actions into national planning processes to build climate resilience to

promote a whole of country approach to building resilience to climate change.

In response to the question. “…Based on the information provided at the workshop, do you think the RTSM (climate responsive instrument) has been developed and tested? If yes, how

would you score it…”, one returned a score of 0 (equals not started25), four returned a score

of five (instrument has been developed completely but not yet tested) and six returned a score

of ten (instrument has been tested completely and has been fully developed).

In response to the question, “…Taking into account all the questions above satisfaction rating

would you give the RTSM out of 10 where (1 = Unsatisfactory, 2 = Moderately Satisfactory, 3

= Satisfactory, 4 = Very Satisfactory, 5 = Excellent), three returned a score of 5 (excellent) and, eight a score of 4 (very satisfactory). Based on these scores the survey has met the DMF

performance target/indicators of satisfactory rating of 20% of RTSM/RRF clients. Some of the

additional comments provided by those surveyed were:

There was a need to provide more information on the cap of assistance available

a need to build the capacity of locals involved in TA work;

Donors and development partners should continue providing additional resources to

capitalise the RTSM and RRF;

CROP agencies should not establish new climate change facility hence investing on

existing RTSM;

Countries should take ownership and champion good work that was established under

RTSM (sustainability).

In relation to the question “…Were the CCA/DRR knowledge and tools generated under the

RTSM TA useful to build or strengthen capacity or support facilities to respond to climate

change risks?...”, nine of the participants indicated yes while there were two no responses. In

terms of the overall satisfactory rating in relation to the application of the knowledge and tools developed under the RTSM? (1 = Unsatisfactory, 2 = Moderately Satisfactory, 3 = Satisfactory,

4 = Very Satisfactory, 5 = Excellent), two returned a score of five and nine returned a score of

four. Based on these scores the survey has met the performance target/indicators of

satisfactory rating of 60% of the users of CCA/DRR tools in 2 pilot DMCs. The consolidated survey responses are contained in Annex 29.

2.3.4 NATIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY REPORTS PACIFIC

REGIONAL ORGANIZATION REPORTS At the 2016 27th SPREP Meeting and in response to a meeting paper seeking support for the continuation of the RTSM, the SPREP Secretariat was requested to provide members with feedback from RTSM beneficiaries and to report back to members by 1 October 2016. The feedback the Secretariat received showed that the beneficiaries were supportive of the RTSM work and of its continuance. This was also acknowledged in the WARD meeting held in 11 October 2016 where the WARD committed themselves to seek support for the RTSM and mainstreaming work to continue beyond it end date of 1 June 2017 and to report back at the

25 *Nauru mistook the question above to refer to their GCF Readiness funding

45 | P a g e

next WARD meeting on the progress being made.(No WARD meeting has been held since October 2016).

PART C

3.0 SUMMARY FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE PROJECT AS AT 31 JULY 2017

(SUBJECT TO CHANGE AFTER CLEARANCE OF FINAL STATEMENT OF

ELIGIBLE COSTS) The total contract amount is US$3,590,048. This is allocated into three

components (1) Remuneration of US$2025,780; (2) Out of Pocket Expenses of

US$1,520,892 and (3) Contingency of US$43,476. Total expenditure to date is

US$3,289,178.75. It is projected that as 31 May 2017, 90.22 % of total contract amount will

be spent.

Remuneration Total remuneration provided under the contract is US $2025,780.

Remuneration of PPCR Consultants as at end of July 2017 totalled US$ 1,991,543.52. It is

projected that as 31 July 2017 98.30 % of total remuneration will be spent

Out- of-Pocket ExpensesThe total provision for out of pocket expenses was

US$1,520,892.00. Total expenditure is US$1,204,259.23. It is projected that (as 16 May

2017, 79.18 % of total allocation for Out of pocket expenses has been spent.

TABLE J : BREAKDOWN BY BUDGET LINE OF OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES BY BUDGET LINE

Contract Variation No.10 Budget

Line

Contract

Provision

Expenditure 31 July

2017

Balance

Per Diems 1156 93,421.00 70,037.50 23,383.50

Travel 1172 172,875.00 100,116.94 72,758.06

MTE 1182 2,700 2700.00 -

Land Transport 1183 5,100 4,832.11 267.89

Report Prep 1194 10,000 2,886.00 7,114.00

RTSM, Mainstreaming, IT 1198 1,089,895 921,245.92 168,649.08

Equipment 1200 5,000 0 5000

Workshops 1300 119,901 95,185.76 24,715.24

Studies/Surveys 1400 22,000 6,955.00 15,045.00

TOTAL US$ 1,520,892.00 316,632.77 1,204,259.23

Contingency

The contingency (adjusted in Contract Variation 10) is US$43,376.

46 | P a g e

PART D

4.0 LESSONS LEARNED FROM PROJECT DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION The main lesson arising out of this TA is that the mainstreaming and RTSM activities have

been useful to the countries. The Final Workshop Outcomes Statement (refer Annex 2) stated

that the TA represented “…the very kind of assistance Pacific countries needed from their

CROP Agencies and the development community in support of their resilient development aspirations…”.

The SPCR-PR demonstrated the need among CROP and MDBs to commit to project design

for its success and the importance of regular internal/external communication between them. FFA (designated as co-implementer of Component 2), withdrew soon after CIF endorsed the

proposal in 2012. WB decided unilaterally not to proceed with Component 2 which it had

played a role in designing and promoting to CIF. It ignored earlier understandings made with

SPC/SPREP on the choice of pilot countries26 and with CIFs own PPCR Expert Group who advised that the regional track countries should not be the national track ones. Although an

Advisory Committee of 11 to provide strategic advice to the SPCR was meant to be part of

SPCR-PR and Rules of Procedure for this committee had been developed, it existed in name

only during the design phase. Within CROP, questions need to be asked whether the participating agencies were fully involved in the project design and had approved it before

submission to the CIF. For example, the CIF and ADB Project Document proceeded on the

basis that CROP experts would only be given a per diem and travel allowance, as this was

the work they would be doing anyway in country but could not as they needed airfares and allowances to do so. However once this understanding was put to the test in relation to the

RTSM, the CROP position was to press for full cost recovery. It is not surprising given these

design issues that the SPCR-PR developed in silos as forewarned by the CIF independent

evaluator.

As a number of the issues raised above were not fully addressed at the design stage, the

inconsistencies crept into the ADB Project Document. In the original proposal approved by the PPCR Sub-Committee, The RTSM was to be based in the PIFS. However in CROP

discussions it was agreed that technical implementation reside with SPC and SPREP whereas

monitoring and reporting be a function of PIFS. The ADB project document followed the

original CIF concept proposal that the RTSM be housed in PIFS with the RTSM Coordinator to be based there. The RTSM and coordinator position was subsequently housed in SPREP.

The ADB/SPREP Contract (Appendix C) could have benefited by in depth consultations and

a thorough review by both Parties. There were a number of costs that did not reflect reality such as unrealistic rates for consultants travel and DSA where travel was fixed at US$2125

from Apia to anywhere in the Pacific return (unrealistic for travel to FSM, Palau, and Marshall

Islands). The RTSM was labelled as ‘Contingency’ although it was central to the whole TA (It

was Output 2). (c) There was a different understanding between ADB/SPREP as to how the

26 2012-2013 Planning meeting WBG Sam Wedderburn and SPC (Brian Dawson, Andrea Volentras, Arthur Webb, Lindsay Chapman , Rhonda Bower Robinson David Hebblethwaite and November planning meeting held Nov 2013 involving SPC, SPREP and WBG and ADB.

47 | P a g e

RRF would operate. SPREP’s understanding was that it would be provided the RRF funds up

front and acquit to them, rather than be provided an advance to liquidate against that could be

replenished (ADB’s understanding). The mainstreaming budget line originally assumed that

the Program Manager and Mainstreaming Specialist would carry out all the mainstreaming work in the 2 pilot sites when this work required multiple expertise (engineers, CBA, CAAC,

M&R experts, agriculture specialists, economists, experts in carrying out assessments

[vulnerability, climate change risk , social, environment impacts] as reflected in the 19 TAs).

There was no contract provision for funds for inception meeting, mid-term review or final meeting or to promote interlinkages work (meetings) to national track countries.

Project Implementation

It took a lot of time (over a year in Tuvalu) to go in country introduce the program, seek

endorsement for the work, then carry out situation analysis and convene meetings with

decision makers on the tools to be applied. (This needs to be factored into project design).

This time was needed to build trust and relationships for government officials to see value of work to them. This was important as TA expert was not based in the pilot countries (fly in-fly

out) and countries as well have their own competing priorities that may not align with a

consultants workplan. Building relationships allows for long distance communication –

reviews of work done, confirmation officials will be in country for TA. Strengthening national capacity through the development guidance notes, training workshops, mentoring support

and applying the tool to specific case studies after country endorsement for the work needed

time (a succession of workshops dedicated to each tool). Strengthening capacity work could

easily have gone on for another 3.5 years because the focus was only on work in the infrastructure and food security sector and then only in relation to subcomponents of these

sectors (roads, water, agriculture, waste, energy). Similarly, it took time and relationship

building for countries to see the benefits generated from the RTSM (and mainstreaming

work) and believe and buy in to the idea but once it generated benefits, the requests started to increase in number.

Capacity constraints are a fact of life for small Pacific administrations such as Kosrae and

Tuvalu. In general, there are a small number of officials, each with a relatively wide range of responsibilities. At the same time, there is a high level of turnover of staff moving between

different roles and departments. This means that, for larger and/or more complex policies (e.g.

over US$500,000), there will be an ongoing (and critical) role for development partners and

CROP agencies to help use the PPCR-PR tools, especially CBA and developing M&E frameworks. This was also evident in the provision of RTSM TA where countries need

assistance to develop detailed Terms of Reference (TOR) where some are unable to articulate

their actual TA need. There is benefit in development partners and CROP agencies

incorporating a training element into ODA design and preparation activities, including additional workshops as appropriate, as well as mentoring of local staff.The PPCR-PR tools

have been purposely designed so they can be used in a participatory and collaborative

fashion.27 The benefits of a participatory approach is that it enables greater ownership over

the policy-making process and helps ensure the analyses meet the needs and expectations of the government. It also supports 'learning by doing'.

27 with the possible exception of the central agency appraisal checklist tool.

48 | P a g e

Policy analysis incorporating the use of the mainstreaming tools (including CCA and DRR)

must be complemented by rigorous adherence to procedure. This is particularly important for

smaller jurisdictions where there is limited absorptive capacity to manage numerous activities

all trying to assist with climate change. Pacific island country governments have an important role to guide/ensure development partners to use the policy analysis tools the country is using.

Written advice to guide development partners to follow procedure and utilise established tools

would be helpful to eliminate different versions of the same tools being used and the same

exercise being repeated.

Organisational changes may be needed which can support use of tools. In Kosrae, the ODA

Co-ordination Unit now formally tasked with appraising all new ODA requests. In Tuvalu, the

Evaluation Co-ordination Unit (ECU) and Climate Change Policy and Disaster Coordination

Unit (CCPDCU) has been established.

Development partners and CROP need to renew their efforts to align and harmonise ODA with

Pacific island country government systems, consistent with commitments under the Paris

Declaration for Aid Effectiveness. Development partners and CROP tend to use differing

versions of (essentially the same) policy analysis tools, especially for monitoring and

evaluation. This partial duplication causes confusion among government officials and

negatively affects capacity building in these tools and functions more broadly. Indeed, this impact was a key rationale for developing country-specific tools under the PPCR-PR. It will be

important therefore that Kosrae and Tuvalu strongly advocate for the use of the PPCR-PR

tools to be used by developing partners, where applicable. This is a key part of achieving

alignment of ODA delivery with Pacific island country government systems, consistent with commitments under the Paris Declaration for Aid Effectiveness.

Access to climate financing for climate investments is a key driver or motivator for pilot

countries to use tools and RTSM. Majority of countries were interested in mainstreaming and RTSM as a means to generate additional climate change financing to further their

development objectives (i.e. Development of proposals for GCF, AF, GEF, EDF.11 and

bilateral partners). This interest will only continue increase. An obvious next step is to link

tools with programs to support National Implementing Entity (NIE) accreditation and implementation.

The RTSM was endorsed by CROP CEOs June 11 2014 as a CROP owned mechanism where the WARD would provide strategic oversight and direction to its operations. It was

designed to bring CROP together as a single mechanism to support Pacific islands countries

based on each agencies comparative advantage. Unfortunately, the WARD did not provide

dedicated strategic support as envisaged. WARD operates on a rotational basis and some CROP Agency chairs were far more proactive than others to convene WARD Meetings. There

were 4 WARD meetings in 2014 but only 1 in 2015 and 2 in 2016. General inactivity meant

that that WARD recommendations to register on the RTSM register of experts, promote RTSM

sustainability and mainstreaming tools beyond the projects end date were not actioned. Even though CROP were an integral part of the RTSM, there were delays by some CROP agencies

to respond to RTSM Coordinator requests for inputs into the development of TORs to deploy

experts in areas where the particular CROP agency had a comparative advantage. There was

also the expectation for remuneration of the CROP which was not consistent with the proposal

they had tendered for CIF Approval.

49 | P a g e

The low levels of engagement meant that by default, the RTSM was perceived as a SPREP

mechanism. There were also concerns that SPREP’s was utilising the RTSM to assist with

the preparation of proposals to the AF and GCF that were meant to be part of its RIE function.

Perhaps this could have been avoided had WARD as a whole shown greater commitment.

The latest and most topical item on the regional agenda is the Framework for Resilience

Development in the Pacific and a working group to help implement it. Clearly, judging by the

level of coordination among the WARD in relation to the RTSM, the lesson is that there is still a long way to go in the CROP to ‘mainstream’ CCA/DRR in their own actions and interactions.

PART E

5.0 CONCLUDING COMMENTS AND PROGRAM SUSTAINABIITY This report highlighted under the background section how this TA was meant to be two

components within a broader SPCR-PR program involving other actors. The assumption was

that all actors would synchronise their activities and the program would proceed as one. However, the grand design did not proceed as intended due to developments beyond the

control of the consultants. The overall assessment of the TA is necessarily of the work the

consultants were engaged to do. The tasks and deliverables set for the Consultants under the

TA have all been completed.

In the overall assessment and satisfactory rating, sustainability of TA work is also a

consideration. In relation to the mainstreaming tools while good progress has been made to build national capacity, promote integration of the mainstreaming tools, train people in their

use, enhance CCA/DRR national/sectoral coordination mechanisms, it is unlikely that the

effort can be sustained without reinforcement and further intervention in the piloted DMCs.

Knowledge management tools have been prepared for uptake in the pilot countries and the region generally and will be shared with the Regional Coordination Secretariat based in Fiji

and distributed to countries and through the Pacific Climate Change Portal. The US

Institutional Strengthening in PICs to Adapt to Climate Change (ISACC) Project also stated

that Tuvalu requested that ISAAC use the PPCR tools in their activities in Tuvalu. The WB/SPC have also expressed their interest to use the TA tools and experts in the

implementation of the climate resilient investment component of their Pacific Resilience

Program (PREP). The 27th SPREP Meeting has also directed its Secretariat to ensure that

the mainstreaming tools and approach developed under the SPCR-PR are built into the suite

of SPREP technical services to assist its members address CCA and associated DRR. In response PPCR Core indicators have been integrated into SPREPs Strategic Plan 2017-2026

(Matrix of Strategic Regional and Organisational Goals).

Although the RTSM was piloted 15 times and proved catalytic in providing substantial

additional climate investments for a number of DMCs, it is unlikely that DMCs can sustain this

work alone. (The whole point of the RTSM grant facility, was to provide targeted assistance

for DMCs to address a priority CCA/DRR gap they could not do themselves). The sustainability of the RTSM will depend on interest from a donor and promotion from the Pacific region’s

leaders. Weighing the factors mentioned above noting the very satisfactory rating given by

50 | P a g e

TA beneficiaries but considering the sustainability aspects as well, the TA is given an overall

assessment and rating of satisfactory.

The TA ends according to its project time frame but hopefully the mainstreaming tools and regional coordination mechanism developed under it can continue under another program as

mainstreaming is an incremental process and TAs will still be in great demand by Pacific

DMCs to scale up their climate investments. The danger now is that the work is not built upon

and the effort slides back to the baseline from where it started -undermining the work and funds committed to date.

51 | P a g e

ANNEXES

Annex 1 TA Final Meeting Report

Annex 2 Outcomes Statement for Final Meeting Annex 3 SPREP / ADB Participatory evaluation of PPCR mainstreaming tools, Final Report,

April 2017 Annex 4 The Pacific –Cost Benefit Analysis for Natural Resource Management in the Pacific-

A Guide (Second Edition) Annex 5 Improving the effectiveness of Overseas Development Assistance in Kosrae:

Guidance note for appraising ODA proposals Annex 6 Kosrae ODA Handbook Annex 7 Improving the effectiveness of overseas development assistance in Kosrae: CBA

workplan tool Annex 8 Improving the effectiveness of ODA in Kosrae : guidance note for developing a MEF Annex 9 Improving the effectiveness of overseas development assistance in Tuvalu: CBA

workplan tool Annex 10 Improving the effectiveness of ODA in Tuvalu: Guidance note for developing a MEF Annex 11 Improving the effectiveness of ODA in Tuvalu: Guidance note for assessing and

appraising policy risk Annex 12 Risk Matrix Tool (Guidance note for undertaking (policy) risk assessment and

appraisal) Annex 13 CBA Improving water infrastructure- Kosrae Annex 13.1 Associated water pricing quality paper

Annex 13.2 Associated water quality problem briefing paper Annex 13.3 Associated analysis of water issues by municipality Annex 13.4 Associated review of policies internationally and in the Pacific Annex 14 CBA of coastal zone management in Kosrae Annex 15 Preliminary CBA of water supply enhancement in Malem, Kosrae, FSM Annex 16 Preliminary CBA for water supply on Ifalik atoll, Yap, FSM. Annex 17 MEF for the Agriculture Sector of the Kosrae Strategic Development Plan Annex 18 Evaluation of program to improve farmer access to vegetable seeds Annex 19 MEF for the Malem-Utwe inland road and relocation initiative Annex 20 Green waste management in Tuvalu CBA report Annex 21 Use of biogas as an alternative energy source in Tuvalu- preliminary CBA report Annex 22 MEF for the Tuvalu community biogas project Annex 23 MEF for Green Waste Management in Funafuti, Tuvalu Annex 24 Funafuti green waste management program- risk matrix assessment Annex 25 Tuvalu community biogas project risk matrix assessment Annex 26 Knowledge Management Product- Resilient and effective development using

PPCR-PR policy analysis tool-General Annex 27 Knowledge Management product for Kosrae

Annex 28 Knowledge Management product for Tuvalu

Annex 29 RTSM Survey- Final 4 June 2017

52 | P a g e

APPENDIX 1: DESIGN MONITORING FRAMEWORK

DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK

Design Summary

Performance Targets and Indicators with Baselines



Progress at TA end

Impact Increased

resilience of Pacific

DMCs to climate

variability and climate change

By 2023, from the 2013 baselinea:

Number of households classified as poor or food insecure in most climate change affected regions

reduced by 10%

Number of lives lost and injuries from extreme climate events reduced

Damage and economic

losses from extreme climate events reduced

National statistics

Vulnerability

assessment findings

Millennium

Development Goals

reports

Assumption Participating

governments and Pacific

regional organizations

sustain their commitment to

the SPCR and continue to

provide the necessary

resources to attain its

intended impact and outcome.

Risk Climate change effects

are too severe to prevent,

mitigate, or offset.

Impact not realised. In the relevant DMF assumptions and risks column (see Annex 1) involvement and commitment of all participating governments and Pacific regional organisations to the SPCR was necessary. The different rates of progress of national track countries in the timeframe set for the R-CTA; the withdrawal of FFA as a partner, the fact that WBG/SPC program charged with implementing Component 2 was reconstituted under a different program PREP launched 21 June 2106 and the late commencement of the Secretariat Coordination role (on board October 2016, meant involvement and commitment of all in the TA timeframe was difficult to achieve. Obtaining baseline data for Pacific DMCs was agreed at inception to be a national function with UNDP, SPC, GIZ inputs-on MDGs, statistics, and gender, respectively. It was not possible to have this data for all Pacific DMCs by end of the project and this was consistent with the concern raised during the inception meeting that figures for economic losses from extreme climate events were not readily available. Only Samoa and Fiji had undertaken economic assessments of damage from Cyclone Evans. Most countries do not have baselines, or if they do, some date only as far back as 2008. Household survey data was used in relation to mainstreaming work completed in Kosrae for example in relation to weather water should be metered and in a road relocation as well as in Tuvalu in relation to renewable energy proposals and monitoring evaluation frameworks fin relation to agriculture sector plans. It is relevant to note at recent CIF M&R meeting in Washington D.C 26-28 April was the fact that very few PPCR countries had this baseline date to measure impact so it is not a problem peculiar to the

53 | P a g e

Pacific. Note also impact is to be assessed at 2023 Note also there are also other existing national and regional programs that target building resilience of communities that are also collectively contribute to realising the intended impact (ie this project is only one of many contributing to meeting the overall impact.

Outcome

Improved capacity of

Pacific DMCs to

respond to climate

change impacts and

related extreme

events that can

contribute to

disasters

By 2016:

Effective integrated CCA

and DRR response

system with gender-

sensitive indicators is

operational in selected Pacific DMCs.

A working regional

mechanism for

responding to climate

change impacts and

related extreme events

that can contribute to disasters is established.b

National development plans and budgets

Sector plans and policies

Project monitoring reports

Coordination secretariat reports

Maps and GIS data sets in government departments

Local government and program records

Assumptions

Critical CCA and DRR

knowledge is available,

accessible, and widely disseminated in the Pacific.

Commitment of Pacific

DMCs to regional cooperation remains strong.

Capacity to respond to climate change impacts and related extreme events has improved in Kosrae and Tuvalu in the sector of application of the TA (as evidenced in the participatory evaluation survey conducted on the utility of the processes followed and tools developed to integrate CCA and DRR) However there remains a clear need for continuation and reinforcement of this work especially in these pilot sites and other smaller islands states where severe capacity constraints exist.

54 | P a g e

OUTPUTS

1. Climate change

adaptation and

disaster risk

reduction are

integrated and

mainstreamed into

national and local

policies and plans,

resulting in

climateresponsive

development planning.

By end of project, in 2 pilot Pacific DMCs:

At least 6 gender-

sensitive CCA and DRR

integration and

mainstreaming tools (3 per selected country)

(e.g., checklists,

guidelines) available at

national and sector levels

are studied and

programmed for replication.

At least 4 policies

developed or

strengthened (2 per

country) to include CCA

and DRR and gender

considerations in at least

2 sectors (food security

and infrastructure)

following the guidelines

developed.

CCA and DRR are

included in national and

local budgets following the

processes outlined in the

selected countries.

Country and sector technical reports or project plans

Government‘s policy issuances

Country and sector financial and budget reports

Project implementation

timetable (showing

completion date was

shortened versus planned, or delayed)

RISKS CCA and DRR

mainstreaming is not prioritized in the national government agenda.

High turnover of qualified

and trained staff in CROP

agencies and the public

sector causes project implementation delays.

Output 1: CCA and DRR mainstreamed in national, sector and local

policies and plans

CCR and DRR mainstreaming gaps and priorities in identified through

situation analysis in Kosrae (June 2014) and Tuvalu (September 2014).

Selection of tools to accelerate mainstreaming in Kosrae and Tuvalu

completed in Kosrae in the period referred to above. CCA and DRR

mainstreaming tools that ensure consistency at national and local levels for

Kosrae and Tuvalu trialled, progressively developed and completed in March 2017. The Pacific –Cost Benefit Analysis for Natural Resource

Management in the Pacific- A Guide (Second Edition) is finalised and

published and is available on the Pacific Climate Change Portal at https://www.pacificclimatechange.net. The 3 mainstreaming tools - CBA,

M&E and CAAC for Kosrae and Tuvalu and related training materials is completed and converted into knowledge management tools. The ODA

Handbook guide has also been developed to assist officials from the

Kosrae State Government (KSG) fulfil their requirements under the ODA

Policy and Procedure. These tools will be made available on the Pacific

Climate Change Portal. Enabling policy and institutional frameworks to

monitor mainstreaming activities in key sectors at the national and community levels completed December 2016.

Advocacy for fast-tracking identified CCA/DRR mainstreaming priorities

and mobilize mandated drivers completed. For the Kosrae Situation

Analysis sent to PPCR Steering Group informed their decisions on the

mainstreaming tools to be implemented in Kosrae. In Tuvalu, their

mainstreaming priorities were endorsed by Ministry of Foreign Affairs on

recommendation of NACCC and cabinet paper. There were many capacity

building programs to support practical application of mainstreaming tools in

Kosrae and Tuvalu as well as implement CCA/DRR mainstreaming in targeted sectors. These included inter alia; trainings in the use and

application of the 3 tools, TAs where mentoring support was provided to

apply the tools in a given sector as well as TAs to develop and finalise

detailed CBAs, MEFs and CAACs. In addition workshops were also to

communicate the results and inform government decisions making around

proposed investments.It has not been possible to replicate and disseminate


55 | P a g e

lessons learnt from the PPCR country tracks to non PPCR countries as

these tools are not yet completed and/or available on national PPCR

websites. Knowledge product reports including a summary of case study

applications have been finalised and are available in draft form. A

participatory evaluation workshop on the utility of the tools (whether they

were clear, easy to understand, practical and workable, adequately

account for climate change, useful beyond the life of the project is completed.

2. Pacific DMCs‘ capacity to

respond to climate

change risks built

and supported

through

strengthened

adaptive capacities

and support facilities, such as

By end of project:

RTSM and RRF are rated satisfactory under the

monitoring and evaluation

framework by at least

20% of clients.

CCA and DRR knowledge and

Client surveys

National and local government agency reports

Pacific regional organization reports

Risks Limited availability or accessibility of funds for the

RTSM

Limited expertise compatible

with the requirements of the Pacific countries

Output 2: Building and supporting Pacific DMCs’ capacity to respond to climate change risksRTSM Operations Manual was presented during

the inception meeting after consultation with Pacific DMCs, CROP

agencies, and other stakeholders about its intended role, scope, and

functions . It was endorsed by ADB in March 2015. Although work on the

role, scope and function of RTSM was completed within the 3 month

timeframe, the RTSM is a dynamic mechanism and is the product of

constant consultation, feedback and review as acknowledged in the OM.As

of 31 May 2017 there are approximately 330 experts on the RTSM Roster

of Experts. Of this number 35 are CROP experts. This issue of greater

participation of CROP experts has been raised in WARD Meetings with a

56 | P a g e

RTSM and RRF. tools are applied in 2 pilot Pacific DMCs and rated satisfactory by at least 60% of the users.

recommendation for more CROP representation in the mechanism. Some

of the issues that have been a barrier to their greater involvement include

the fact that the move to cost recovery for TA provided on the part of some

agencies contradicts the RTSM OM policy of being reimbursed for airfares

and DSAs only (not reimbursed for services). [It is noted that in the SPCR

PR proposal approved by the PPCR Sub-Committee, this idea was

promoted by the participating CROP agencies themselves]. While WARD

subsequently made provision for remuneration of CROP experts (October

2016) it is now redundant with the project ending. However this matter may

arise again if the RTSM continues in another form.A register of national

and regional accredited experts who could support the RTSM is

established and operational. Although the DMF did not specify the manner

and form of this register, an RTSM webpage was created under the Pacific

Climate Change Portal to house an online register of national and regional

experts. Managing and maintaining the RTSM is a critical and time

consuming exercise and will need to commitment of SPREP or the

organisation maintaining it after the project ends. In addition the webpage needs to be maintained, managed and upgraded.

Operational guidelines, quality control mechanisms including monitoring

and evaluation of the RTSM/RRF was completed and may be found in the RTSM Operations Manual Version 1.8

Progress reports on the RTSM have prepared for Meetings of the WARD,

the 2014,2015, 2016 SPREP Meetings, at CIF PPCR Meetings in 2014,

2015 and 2017 and also in national (eg…Samoa Climate Vulnerable

Forum Meeting for the Pacific 2015) and regional environment forums

(Pacific Climate Change Roundtable 2015, Pacific Meteorological Council Meeting 2016).

Requests for technical assistance to Pacific DMCs commenced in March

2015. Requests were successfully processed for 15 experts. All TAs were

strategic interventions - linked to the requesting countries CCA/DRR

national and/or sector level priorities, designed to address a priority not

taken up by another donor, enhance climate change investments through

the development for example of frameworks, address a need/gap that

57 | P a g e

would place the country in a position to secure additional climate financing. The TA provided and the impact of this work is described at pp-xx- xx.

Throughout this regional capacity TA, the engagement of additional entities

willing to partner and provide support through the RTSM has been

promoted. This has been done for the CROP agencies through the WARD

Meeting. Multilateral Institutions/ approached include the Climate

Investments Funds (PPCR Unit ) , The Commonwealth Secretariat Climate

Finance Programme, the Green Climate Fund Secretariat, the United

National Development Program as well as the United Nations Environment

Program. Multilateral Development Banks approached have been the

Asian Development Bank and the World Bank Group. Development

partners that have been approached include the Australian Department of

Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Canada, the European Union GCCA

Program, Deutsche Gesellschaftfür Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and USAID.

For the project the Rapid Response Fund was provided by the Bank in the form of an advance to SPREP (administering the project) to be liquidated against following ADB forms and procedures to secure additional advances. Payments to consultants were made following an agreed ADB/SPREP formula which provided for a cap on international/national remuneration, DSA and travel to requesting countries. The consultants provided the contract and procurement and financial management system to ensure consistency between ADB and SPREP records.

58 | P a g e

Activities with Milestones

OUTPUT 1: CCA and DRR mainstreamed in national, sector and local policies and plans Activity Activity Description Status of Activity

Completed

1.1 Identify Pacific island countries' CCA and DRR mainstreaming gaps and priorities 1.1.1 Conduct situation analysis (policy,

institutional, stakeholder, social and gender assessment) to identify key national, sectoral, and local development planning processes that will be the focus of Component 1)

Completed for FSM June 2014

Completed for Tuvalu Sept 2014

1.1.2 Review and analyse national planning and decision-making tools and identify gaps an key challenges to mainstreaming of CCA and DRR into national/sectoral/local policies, plans and programs (by month 6)

Completed for FSM June 2014

Completed for Tuvalu Sept 2014

1.2 Select and strengthen tools to accelerate mainstreaming in identified pilot countries

1.2.1 Identify and document best practices for mainstreaming that could accelerate country, sector, and local-level implementation under Output 1 (completed by month 6)

Completed FSM June 2014

Completed Tuvalu Sept 2014

1.2.2 Develop or adapt regional/country/sector-specific CCA and DRR mainstreaming tools that ensure consistency at national and local levels (by month 18)

FSM -Ongoing –trialled and refined progressively

Tuvalu -Ongoing –trialled and refined progressively

1.2.3 Develop, strengthen, and document good examples of enabling policy and institutional frameworks to monitor mainstreaming activities in key sectors at the national and community levels (by month 18

FSM -Ongoing –CAAC.M&E and CAAC work

Tuvalu -Ongoing -–CAAC.M&E and CAAC work

1.3 Jointly plan & implement, with the selected countries, the accelerated mainstreaming of CCA and DRR in those key phases of mainstreaming where gaps were identified

1.3.1 Carry out advocacy for fast-tracking identified CCA/DRR mainstreaming priorities and mobilize mandated drivers (completed by month 6)

Kosrae Situation Analysis sent to PPCR Steering Group established to decisions on mainstreaming tools to be implemented in Kosrae. The Steering Group approved the shortlisted recommendations of the SitAn.

Advocacy to fast track CCA and DRR mainstreaming initiatives endorsed by Ministry of Foreign Affairs on recommendation of NACCC and cabinet paper

59 | P a g e

1.3.2 Develop and implement capacity building programs to support practical application of mainstreaming tools in pilot countries and sectors (completed by month 36)

1.3.2.1.1 Kosrae-Mainstreaming tool no.1 CBA Strengthen/refine materials for in-country training workshop in tool

These materials are being refined as part of a collective effort by SPREP, SPC, GIZ, PIFS, USP, USAID ADAPT, and UNDP to have semi-standardised training materials and to formally accredit these materials within USP curricula.

1.3.2.1.2 Kosrae First training workshop to support practical application of CBA tool

Workshop held September 2014 with USP Personnel

1.3.2.1.3 Kosrae Second training workshop to support practical application of CBA tool

December 2016 AB

1.3.2.2.1 Kosrae Develop material for in-country training workshop in CAAC tool

Guidance note developed for workshop and will be revised progressively

1.3.2.2.2

Kosrae-First training workshop to support practical application of CAAC tool

Workshop held in June 2015

1.3.2.2.3 Kosrae-Second training for the Kosrae central agency appraisal checklist tool (activity 1.3.2.2.3).

December 2016 AB

1.3.2.2.4

Kosrae Third training workshop to support practical application of CAAC tool

December 2016

1.3.2.3.1 Kosrae-Mainstreaming tool no.3 M&E Strengthen/refine materials for in-country training workshop in tool

Guidance note developed for workshop and will be revised progressively. Workshop held in June 2015

1.3.2.3.2 Kosrae First training workshop to support practical application of M&E tool

Workshop held in June 2015

1.3.2.3.3 Kosrae Second training workshop to support practical application of M&E tool

Workshop held in November 2015

1.3.2.4.1 Tuvalu Strengthen/refine materials for in-country training workshop in CBA tool

These materials will be refined as part of a collective effort by SPREP, SPC, GIZ, PIFS, USP, USAID ADAPT, and UNDP

1.3.2.4.2 Tuvalu First training workshop to support practical application of CBA tool

Workshop held July 2015

1.3.2.4.3 Tuvalu Second training workshop to support practical application of CBA tool

Held May 2016

1.3.2.5.1 Tuvalu Develop material for in-country training workshop in CAAC tool

1.3.2.5.2 Tuvalu First training workshop to support practical application of CAAC tool

Workshop held December 2015

1.3.2.5.3 Tuvalu Second training workshop to support practical application of CAAC tool

Held May 2016

1.3.2.5.4

Tuvalu Third training workshop to support practical application of CAAC tool

Held February 2017

1.3.2.6.1 Tuvalu Develop material for in-country training workshop in M&E tool

Guidance note developed for workshop. Workshop held in July 2015

1.3.2.6.2 Tuvalu First training workshop to support practical application of M&E tool

Workshop held July 2015

60 | P a g e

1.3.2.6.3 Tuvalu Second training workshop to support practical application of M&E tool


1.3.2.6.4

Tuvalu third training workshop to support practical application of M&E tool

June 2016

1.3.2.6.5

Tuvalu Fourth training workshop to support practical application of M&E tool

February 2016

1.3.3 Implement CCA/DRR mainstreaming in pilot countries and target sectors through the strengthening of national, sectoral, and local governance frameworks and integration into national sustainable development strategies and district or community development plans (completed by month 36

1.3.3.1.1 Kosrae-Mentoring support for the preparation of a preliminary CBA of a water infrastructure proposal in Lelu

Mentoring support TA provided February 2015

1.3.3.1.2 Kosrae-Mentoring support for the preparation of a preliminary CBA of a road infrastructure proposal in Malem

Mentoring support TA provided June 2015

1.3.3.1.3 Kosrae-Workshop to communicate preliminary CBA results to (key decision-makers for determining infrastructure priorities within the KSDP), share experiences, and map out any next steps to complete more detailed quantitative CBAs of water infrastructure and road infrastructure proposal

Workshop held June 2015 MS

1.3.3.1.4 Kosrae-TA(s) to complete a detailed quantitative CBA of the water infrastructure proposal in Lelu, and communicate findings to key decision makers

Completed April 2016

1.3.3.1.5 Kosrae-TA(s) to complete a detailed quantitative CBA of the road infrastructure proposal in Malem, and communicate findings to key decision-makers

completed Feb 2016

1.3.3.1.6 Kosrae-Follow up advocacy/communication activities to use CBAs to inform planning and investment decisions relating to infrastructure priorities within the Kosrae Strategic Development Plan communicate results of detailed cost-benefit analysis

Carried out by MS 2016

1.3.3.2.1 Remote mentoring support to apply CAAC tool in Kosrae tool to new overseas development assistance (ODA), US COMPACT, and own-revenue-funding proposals

Jul 2016- Jan 2017

1.3.3.3.1 Kosrae-Mentoring support for the development of a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the agriculture sub-sector of the Kosrae Strategic Development Plan

PREA Damien Sweeney

New activity

Monitoring and Evaluation Framework developed for the agriculture sub-sector of the Kosrae Strategic Development

August 2016

1.3.3.3.4 Kosrae-TA Activities to finalise and implement the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework developed for the agriculture sub-sector of the Kosrae Strategic Development

August 2016

61 | P a g e

1.3.3.3.6 Kosrae-Mentoring support for the development of a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for a road infrastructure project proposal for Malem TA commenced November 2015

Jan-June 2016

1.3.3.4.1

Tuvalu - Mentoring support for the conduct of a CBA for a greenwaste management proposal, linked to development of new integrated waste management plan

Jan-June 2016

1.3.3.4.2 Tuvalu-Mentoring support for the preparation of a preliminary CBA of a renewable energy infrastructure proposal

TA July 2015

1.3.3.5.1 Tuvalu-Remote mentoring support to apply tool to new overseas development assistance (ODA) and own-revenue-funding proposals

June-Nov 2016

1.3.3.6.1 Tuvalu Mentoring support for the development of a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the Tuvalu National Agriculture Sector Plan

July 2015

1.3.3.6.2 Tuvalu-Mentoring support for the development of a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the Tuvalu Pilot of the Strategic Program for Climate Resilience (SPCR) Pacific Regional Track

TA with PM/MS

1.3.3.6.3 Tuvalu- Workshop to communicate M&E Framework of Tuvalu National Agriculture Sector Plan and Tuvalu pilot of SPCR to responsible agency(s)


1.3.3.6.4 Tuvalu-Mentoring support for the development of a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the Tuvalu Climate Change Policy: 2012-2021 (Te Kaniva) Master Plan for Renewable Electricity and Energy Efficiency in Tuvalu

Completed

1.3.3.6.5 Tuvalu-Activities to implement the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework developed for the Tuvalu National Agriculture Sector Plan and Tuvalu Pilot of SPCR-PRTA with Eco-consult December 2015

completed

1.3.3.6.8

Mentoring support for the development of

a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

for the EU Funded giz/Sspc Implemented

SustaiableCommunit based biogas

schemes for domestic energy and improved livelihood project

June 2016

1.3.3.6.9

Mentoring support for the development of a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the green-waste management project proposal, linked to new integrated waste management plan

August 2016

1.3.4

Replicate and scale up CCA and DRR mainstreaming in non-pilot Pacific DMCs and sectors and disseminate lessons learned, including those from the PPCR country tracks (completed by month 36)

1.3.4.1.1 Kosrae-Updated mainstreaming tool #1 CBA May 2017 1.3.4.1.2 Kosrae-Knowledge product report including,

but not limited to, summary of case study May 2017

62 | P a g e

applications and results from participatory evaluation workshop for Tuvalu mainstreaming tool #1 CBA

1.3.4.2.1 Kosrae Updated mainstreaming tool #2 CAAC May 2017 1.3.4.2.2 Kosrae Knowledge product report including,

but not limited to, summary of case study applications and results from participatory evaluation workshop for Tuvalu mainstreaming tool #2 CAAC

May 2017

1.3.4.3.1 Kosrae Updated mainstreaming tool #3 M&E May 2017 1.3.4.3.2 Kosrae Knowledge product report including,

but not limited to, summary of case study applications and results from participatory evaluation workshop for mainstreaming tool #3

May 2017

1.3.4.4.1 Updated Tuvalu mainstreaming tool #1 CBA

May 2017

1.3.4.4.2 Knowledge product report including, but not limited to, summary of case study applications and results from participatory evaluation workshop for Tuvalu mainstreaming tool #1 CBA

May 2017

1.3.4.5.1 Updated Tuvalu mainstreaming tool #2 CAAC

May 2017

1.3.4.5.2 Knowledge product report including, but not limited to, summary of case study applications and results from participatory evaluation workshop for Tuvalu mainstreaming tool #2 CAAC

May 2017

1.3.4.6.1 Updated Tuvalu mainstreaming tool #3 M&E

May 2017

1.3.4.6.2 Knowledge product report including, but not limited to, summary of case study applications and results from participatory evaluation workshop for Tuvalu mainstreaming tool #3

May 2017

1.3.4.7.1 Participatory workshop to evaluate Kosrae mainstreaming tools and (if demonstrated to be useful) solicit country official inputs on how best to refine/improve the tools for ongoing use. This will utilise the M&E framework developed as part of 1.3.3.3.2.

Scheduled for Feb 2017

1.3.4.7.2 Participatory workshop to evaluate Tuvalu mainstreaming tools and (if demonstrated to be useful) solicit country official inputs on how best to refine/improve the tools for ongoing use. This will utilise the M&E framework developed as part of 1.3.3.6.2.

Feb 2017

1.3.4.7.6 Dissemination of knowledge products to Kosrae State Government and National Government of Federated States of Micronesia

June 2017

1.3.4.7.7 Dissemination of knowledge products to Government of Tuvalu

June 2017

1.3.4.7.8 Dissemination of knowledge products to other PICs trough the Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCP)

Not possible given PCCP scheduled for Oct 2017

1.3.4..9 Advocate for incorporation of mainstreaming tools and adaptations as necessary into SPREP Operating Procedures

June 2016-June 2017

63 | P a g e

Output 2: Building and supporting Pacific DMCs’ capacity to respond to climate change risks

Activity Activity Description

Status of Activity Completed

Implementation Details

2.1 Conduct

consultations with

Pacific DMCs,

CROP agencies,

and other

stakeholders about

the intended role,

scope, and

functions of the

RTSM (completed by month 3)

Utilised Inception Workshop to present desktop study findings & to

consult with member countries; regional meetings & WARD as a

cost saving measure. The RTSM/RRF scope and coverage first

proposed in January 2014 was refined in March and April 2014,

based on comments of member countries and CROP agencies

through the WARD. The RRF whilst funded with ADB SCF seed

funding, will finance only TAs for the 14 Pacific Developing

Member Countries. TAs for Niue or any other non-eligible PIC will

be funded by other donors on the provision that RTSM will act as

a conduit and forward request for assistance to other CROP agencies and partners where relevant.

Consultations carried out with CROP Agencies through the WARD

mechanism, Pacific DMCs through high level meetings such as

the Pacific Forum Leaders meeting, the SPREP Meeting and Development Partner forum meetings

The RTSM Terms of Reference states that consultations on the

intended role, scope and function of the RTSM are to be

completed by month 3. This was achieved and reported in the

Inception Report, with the release of the draft RTSM/RRF

Operations Manual (OM) version 1.6 in January 2014. Although

work on the role, scope and function of RTSM was completed

within the set timeframe, the RTSM is a dynamic mechanism and

is the product of constant consultation, feedback and review as acknowledged in the OM.

CROP CEOs endorsement and subsequent launch of the OM and

website on the recommendation of the WARD was given on 11

June 2014 (version 1.7). OM version 1.8 incorporated comments

provided by the ADB in March 2015, the ADB/SPREP/PPCR

Procurement Workshop in April 2015 and the PPCR Procurement

Manual developed by the PFMS also in April/May 2015. As a

living document the OM is reviewable on an annual basis or as

often as required in accordance with the directions of the RTSM

Project Committee and the WARD. The WARD approved OM

Version 1.9 in October 2016 to recognise remuneration for CROP

experts. However not applied to remaining RTSM TAs as did not involve CROP experts and ADB approval needed.

2.2 Undertake a

stocktaking of

existing capacity

within CROP

agencies and

development of a

roster of CCA and

DRR experts to form

the basis for the

RTSM network

(completed by month 3)

Stock taking of existing capacity was presented as part of the

Inception Report (Annex 13) CROP Agencies capacity were also

identified through WARD matrix of CCA and DRR activities, Joint CROP statements. Roster of CCA and DRR experts developed.

Stocktaking done through WARD network. 14 SPC/GIZ; 19

SPREP; 6 USP; 3 PIFS; 7 NIWA; 19 Samoa - only 2 from Government Ministries; 11 Tonga; 1 CIF

It would appear that the trend of having fewer CROP agency

experts registered on the RTSM than private consultants may

continue as CROP experts already have full work programs and

availability remains an issue. Also the need to be paid for work

under regional organisation cost recovery policies has been an

64 | P a g e

impediment. Not being able to provide TA when needed to a

requesting DMC is not conducive to providing ‘rapid response’ (i.e. 3 months from date of request) as defined in the RTSM Operations Manual.

The preliminary stocktaking exercise identified staff within the area

of CC and DRR working in CROP Agencies. However the

thematic scope of the RTSM is broader and WARD agreed that it

was best left to each individual CROP agency to undertake an

assessment of their experts for inclusion in the RTSM. As at 31

May 2017 there were 39 CROP CCA and DRR experts on the Register.

During the TA, the RTSM- C, Project Committee Chair (SPREP

Director, Climate Change) and SPREP Climate Change Team

have been lobbying CROP agencies, development partners and

member country experts to register on the RTSM. This was

reflected in the latest recommendations of the WARD Meeting of 11 October 2016

2.3 Establish a register

of national and

regional accredited

experts who could

support the

RTSM(completed by month 6)

Test website available internally to SPREP as administrator,

March 2014. General Procurement Notice released to FPs 30 May 2014. Also available through PCCP & SPREP websites.

The establishment of the RTSM online registration site has been

completed including design and maintenance of the database

through SPREP to accommodate for different existing experts/ consultants database

Total 'registered' = 305; only 142 have submitted CVs and can be viewed (summary only) online

Managing and maintaining the RTSM has been a critical and time

consuming aspect of the work of the RTSM-C and included inter-alia

• Communicating with potential experts on how RTSM

registration works and assisting experts to resolve registration issues;

• Corresponding with Consultants on finalising CVs to upload into database in website;

• Ensure fields for registering as an Expert are filled in properly;

• Liaising with SPREP IT on redesigning and/or improving

the designing, programming and technical features of the

database/website (e.g. downloadable/printable format; spam free

programming; programming software to include reports of experts and in-country managers etc)

• Trialling website from different sites to resolve connection issues; ‘disconnected’ hyperlinks etc

• Working with SPREP IT to identify and resolve technical

faults including internet, web issues and country connectivity

problems (e.g. countries and experts getting logged/timed out of the system while trying to upload information);

65 | P a g e

• Working with SPREP IT to deflect viruses trying to enter

the website; spam filtering of RTSM email system which is dedicated to TA requests;

• Working with SPREP IT on software(s) upgrades

compatibility to enable various different existing expert databases to ‘speak’ to each other

2.4 Develop policies, operational guidelines, and quality control mechanisms, including monitoring and evaluation, of RTSM and RRF (completed by month 6)

Operational manual and guidelines including quality control mechanisms, including monitoring and evaluation of RTSM/RRF are completed. RTSM & RRF underwent intense review by ADB and CROP Agencies through WARD from Feb-April 2014. Approved by the CROP Heads 11 June 2014 for launching at the July 2014 Pacific Forum Leaders Meeting in Palau. RTSM website went live during Forum Leaders Meeting The OM version 1.9 is the key document utilised by the RTSM-C

and PFM Specialist to guide the operations and functions of the

RTSM and RRF. This includes the selection and deployment of

experts. The monitoring and evaluation of the RTSM is an

ongoing process based on feedback received from the WARD,

member countries, development partners and experts in general.

This feedback serves as a basis for re-designing features of the

RTSM site and utilisation of the RRF. The expert underwent

Project Committee assessment in line with RTSM/RRF OM procedures.

2.4.1 Prepare regular reports to RPMO, ADB, CES-CCC/WARD and RTSM members on the progress of RTSM establishment and operation.

Reports on the progress of the RTSM establishment and

operation are provided to the WARD and ADB as required.

Member countries are updated on RTSM progress through

several SPREP and other CROP meetings and conferences and

on several occasions, by the PIFS Strategic Partnerships and

Coordination Unit. Other meetings have included the Pacific

Climate Change Roundtable Meeting held in Samoa, May 2015.

The establishment and progress of the RTSM; its role, scope and

function (including how to apply for TA; type of TAs that could be

requested; expert registration) was promoted in a joint

presentation with the Samoa PPCR Country Track Coordinator

and during the Market Place where interested countries discussed

their potential TA requests with the RTSM-C and the Procurement and Financial Management Specialist;

The Third Meeting of the Pacific Meteorological Council (PMC-3)

held in Tonga provided an opportunity for the member countries to

be informed of the RTSM’s progress. A Side Event as well as a Working Paper were presented by the SPREP Director of Climate Change during this meeting.

2.5 Process requests for technical assistance from Pacific DMCs (commenced by month 7)

Active campaign by RTSM & WARD members (esp SPREP).

Countries started sending in requests after RTSM Side Event at

SPREP Meeting October 2014. RRF was not operational (i.e.

Funds not received) until May 2015. 1st deployment 22 June

2015. 15 TAs deployed over period of 24months. As described in this report.

2.6 Promote the

engagement of

additional entities

willing to partner

and provide support

The engagement of additional entities has been promoted throughout the TA and have included, Canada, THE Green Climate Fund, EU GCCA Program, GIZ, UNDP, USAID and the World Bank. Also advocacy has been activity promoted in the WARD.

66 | P a g e

through the RTSM

(commenced by month 1)

While the RTSM/RRF has been initially capitalised by the ADB

Strategic Fund, the long term vision is of the RTSM/RRF evolving

into a sustainable financing facility- one that survives beyond the

life of the project. The collective responsibility of the WARD to try

and attract funding to keep the RRF replenished has been raised

in WARD meetings including the latest in October 2016/

Potential partners that have been approached include inter-alia:-

• SPREP in its capacity as Regional Implementing Agency under the Adaptation Fund (AF) and Green Climate Fund (GCF);

• Deutsche Gesellschaftfür Internationale Zusammenarbeit

(GIZ)/ Coping with Climate Change in the Pacific Islands Region

(CCCPIR) programme who have indicated in principle support for

30% of their time to be allocated to RTSM support. The details of

this arrangement as “in-kind assistance” was never finalised with GIZ.

• ADB US Adapt Asia similarly showed interest in

supporting the RTSM through the provision and sharing of experts.

• The Commonwealth Secretariat Climate Finance

Programme was also approached with a view to putting funds into the RTSM

• World Bank drawing on RTSM experts to implement the Component 2 PPCR work;

The promotion of additional entities to partner and support RTSM

included participation and presentations at inter-alia, the:

1) Climate Vulnerable Forum Meeting for the Pacific, Apia, Samoa to promote usage and partnerships in February 2015;

2) World Bank and Australian Department of Foreign Affairs

and Trade fact finding mission and capacity building response

template for assistance associated with on administering

environmental and social safeguards for donor- funded infrastructure projects in April 2015;

3) The Pacific Climate Change Roundtable held in Samoa

and associated Market place 12-14 May 2015.. The

recommendations of this major regional meeting relevant to the RTSM were:

“…6.1 All Climate Change and Disaster Risk Related experts are encouraged to register on the Regional Technical Support

Mechanism (RTSM) mechanism to further enhance the current

consolidated pool of expertise to assist Pacific island countries as envisaged by Pacific Island leader…”

“…6.2 Countries are encouraged to access and utilize the Rapid

Response Fund (RRF) that is now operational for technical assistance requests….”

“…6.3 All interested parties and development partners are invited to contribute funding for the sustainability of the RTSM/RRF that has been funded in its initial phase by the ADB Strategic Fund….”

67 | P a g e

• The Joint National University of Samoa (NUS)/Samoa

Umbrella of Non Government Organisations (SUNGO)/Samoa Qualifications Authority (SQA) Community Training of Trainers ;

Three Meetings with US Adapt to discuss ways of engagement &

partnership between US Adapt & RTSM experts to assist PICs in

development of GCF pipeline projects (targeting periods for RTSM

involvement of Oct 2015 & Feb 2016). US Adapt utilised the

RTSM to seek a Project Preparation Specialist to support the

development of adaptation proposals for consideration by the

GCF Board. This partnership is considered a success as US

Adapt opted for one of the RTSM experts to take on this 12month contract to be funded by USAID.

The RTSM-C was involved in the PPCR Samoa Country Track

M&R and contributed to their CIF M&R Score Card. Although not

part of the “engagement of additional entities willing to partner and provide support through the RTSM”, this is a critical link between the PPCR Regional Track and the Samoa Country Track.

2.7 Manage the RRF and prepare regular financial reports(commenced by month 12)

No financial reports for RRF but reports for RTSM to SPREP &

WARD on progress of RRF. PPCR Financial reports in general

and financial system tracking RRF expenditure are kept by the PFM Specialist.

MEETING REPORT OF THE FINAL WORKSHOP

STRATEGIC PROGRAM ON CLIMATE RESILIENCE

PACIFIC REGIONAL TRACK: COMPONENTS 1 & 3

SPREP Technical Education Training Centre

May 16-17 2017

Senior government officials representing Federated States of Micronesia, Papua New Guinea,

Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu as well as representatives from the Asian Development

2

Bank (ADB), Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), Secretariat of the Pacific Regional

Environment Programme (SPREP), USAID- Institutional Strengthening in PICs to Adapt to

Climate Change (ISACC) and the World Bank, met in Apia 16-17 May, 2017 for the final

meeting of the Strategic Program on Climate Resilience –Pacific Regional Track (Components

1 and 3). The participants list is attached as Annex 1.

The objectives of the workshop were:

(a) to inform relevant stakeholders (MBD partners (ADB, WBG) country beneficiaries

involved in Technical Assistance (TA) 8360 and interested development partners on the work

achieved since inception against the Design Monitoring Framework (DMF) Impacts, Outcomes

and Outputs;

(b) Seek additional inputs on the report completed on the utility of the mainstreaming tools;

(c) Seek inputs through a survey to be completed at the workshop to address the TA DMF

performance indicator satisfactory rating of 20% of RTSM/RRF clients and satisfactory rating

of 60% of the users of CCA/DRR tools in 2 pilot DMCs, and,

(d) provide and seek stakeholder feedback and input on work progressed under this TA within

the context of the overall CIF SPCR-PR program and obtain any additional stakeholder input

and feedback on promoting linkages between the regional/national track work based on the

outcomes of the SPCR PR Regional Coordination Meeting held 7-8 February 2017. The final

meeting agenda is attached as Annex 2.

Opening remarks were provided by ADB and SPREP that acknowledged that although

implementation of the project had not been without its challenges the tasks and deliverables set

out in the project DMF had largely been achieved and the project implementation had been

successful.

Context within the wider SPCR-PR Program

The SPCR Regional Coordinator based in Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) gave an

overview of the SPCR Program. It was originally comprised of 3 components - (1)

mainstreaming; (2) Knowledge Management; and (3) the RTSM. The work progressed under

this TA Component 1 and 3 was about to end 1 June 2017. The meeting was informed of how

the SPCR PR had progressed quite differently from its intended design (Advisory Committee

not established, Component 2 did not commence as intended but became part of another World

Bank program (The Pacific Resilience Program officially launched 21 June 2016). In terms of

continuation of the work, Climate Investment Funds (CIF) from where the funds for this TA

were sourced, had a sunset clause provision signalling an end date for the PPCR. At present all

PPCR funds were committed so securing additional funds from the CIF to continue this work

was not likely.

Strategic Overview of Work Achieved Components 1 and 3

The Program Manager (pm) gave an overview of the work achieved under Components 1 and

3. Reference was made to the Climate Investment Fund PPCR Monitoring and Reporting

Framework and the project Design Monitoring Framework (DMF) to identify the essence of

what the PPCR was seeking to achieve. In summary the PPCR was about building national and

institutional capacity, scaling up climate investments, using methodologies and tools to help

3

countries build climate resilience, sharing this knowledge around and in this process bringing

about transformational change. The PM stated that the Impact performance indicators (PIs) had

not been achieved for a number of reasons. First, this would only be measured in 2023. Second,

it was also not possible to generate the baseline information on poverty, economic losses and

lives lost to climate change as many countries in the region did not have this data. Third,

meeting the (PIs) depended on the involvement of all regional and national governments

involved in the PPCR and this had not been possible. At the Outcome level good progress had

been made to integrate CCA/DRR in the targeted sectors in Kosrae and Tuvalu. This has been

by training people in the use, application of mainstreaming tools and the application of the

tools to case studies selected by government officials. The second PI associated with the

Outcome had been achieved with the establishment/operation of the RTSM and the deployment

of 15 experts. This assistance had catalysed sustainable climate funds for a number of countries

and had provided the framework for others to strategically build their resilience to climate risk.

All outputs associated with the TA had been achieved. The PM’s presentation is Annex 3.

SPCR PR Component 1 (Mainstreaming)

The Mainstreaming Specialist gave an overview of the work achieved under Components 1 in

Kosrae and Tuvalu. He explained the approach to mainstreaming component by integrating

climate change and disaster risk considerations into existing policy making and budgetary

processes through strengthening and adapting analytical tools used in the those processes. The

process used for selecting and piloting tools, an overview as well as their case-study

applications were described. The presentation also showed how the tools had contributed to

strengthening policies and were reflected in budgetary decisions. Lessons learned from the

participatory evaluation conducted to solicit feedback on the usefulness of the tools were

detailed- these included the need for the work to continue and recognition of its importance in

terms of meeting development objectives, the need for adherence to procedure and policy so

that the tools were in fact used and built upon. The Mainstreaming Specialist’s presentation is

Annex 4.

Pilot Country Perspectives on mainstreaming work were provided by Federated States of Micronesia

(FSM) and Tuvalu

FSM gave an oral presentation describing of the work progressed in Kosrae. Through 8 training

workshops and associated TAs, 3 polices where strengthened. These were the Kosrae Strategic

Development Plan (KSDP)(Infrastructure Component), (2) Kosrae Overseas Development

Assistance (ODA) Policy and Procedures, and the (3) KSDP (Agriculture Section. CCA/DRR

had also been incorporated into part of Kosrae budgetary process for requesting and receiving ODA

requests.

The TA (through training and application of the CBA) assisted Kosrae state government

officials and the wider community to understand all issues involved (social, economic,

environmental, climate risk) in relocating from a coastal to inland road ( the Malem-Utwe

road). Similarly for the Lelu community the detailed CBA around the costs and benefits of

metering the water supply revealed that they were better off with the unmetered system

currently in use. The Kosrae State government was grateful for the assistance but said that there

4

was a need for the work to progress further to reinforce the training in the use of the CBA,

MEF and CAAC tools so that locals could use and apply these tools themselves.

Tuvalu: Highlighted the importance of climate change to Tuvalu –reflected clearly in its

strategic development planning document Te Kakeenga III. Tuvalu had embarked on a reform

program to improve the resilience and effectiveness of its overseas development assistance

(ODA). The mainstreaming tools (CBA, MEF, CAAC) carried out over 8 workshops had

facilitated the operation of these reforms. The processes and systems now in place would assist

in Tuvalu’s NIE Accreditation Application with the AF and GCF. Tuvalu expressed its

intention to continue to work with development partners to ensure national processes and

systems and projects, tools were not developed in isolation from these processes consistent

with the– Paris Declaration for Aid Effectiveness. For example, Tuvalu has requested the US

Institutional Programme on Strengthening in Pacific island countries (ISAAC) to use the

guidelines, tools and approach implemented under the SPCR-PR, and were encouraged that the

World Bank Pacific Resilience Program (PREP) were interested in doing the same. Tuvalu’s presentation is Annex 5.

Key discussion points made were:

The mainstreaming work had been invaluable to the pilot countries but reinforcement

was needed so that knowledge, training was not lost (given limited absorptive capacity,

movement of staff which is frequent in small administrations);

Use of CBA, MEF and Central Appraisal Checklists would be important in terms of

countries (Tuvalu, Tonga) seeking NIE accreditation from Adaptation and or Green

Climate Fund;

There was a need to build on and replicate the methodology and tools to other sectors

within the pilot countries (for example in FSM to other atolls like Chuuk and Pohnpei)

and throughout the Pacific islands region generally;

Pacific countries expected development partners to follow the Paris Declaration on Aid

Effectiveness (avoid duplication when assisting in country, following nationally

identified processes (but they also had a responsibility as well to ensure nationally

identified processes and systems were indeed followed and not adopt process that

undermined their own processes simply because new funds were attached to it.

It would help if a country had a written policy to formalise what processes to follow

when TA was being provided from a development partner because in the absence of

such a policy, a donor may not necessarily know what process to follow.

Gradual but important realisation of the importance of involving central line agencies

dealing with budgets and responsibility for coordination of planning across sectors

treating climate change as a development issue requiring a whole of government

response and not merely and environment issue.

The need to accommodate institutional changes to allow for central planning E.g.

Kosrae: the ODA Co-ordination Unit now formally tasked with appraising all new

ODA requests or in Tuvalu: establishment of Evaluation Coordination Unit (ECU) +

Climate Change Policy and Disaster Coordination Unit (CCPDCU).

5

The need even among CROP to work together so that they are not using differing

versions of (essentially the same) policy analysis tools, especially for monitoring and

evaluation.

There is benefit in development partners and CROP agencies incorporating a training

element into ODA design and preparation activities, including additional workshops as

appropriate, as well as mentoring of local staff.

RTSM/RRF (SPCR Component 3)

The history of the RTSM.RRF concept was provided bv the RTSM Coordinator. The work

done to establish the RTSM and RRF was described with the aim of providing targeted

assistance. The RTSM-Coordinator described how the RTSM roster of experts and financing

facility had been critical to provide the experts to produce essential technical studies and

documentation required to access funds from the Green Climate Fund and the Adaptation Fund.

It had also assisted Fiji, Samoa and Tuvalu address immediate priority needs contained in their

national strategic and sector plans that would build resilience to climate change and related

disaster risk. The RTSM had addressed an urgent need, was fully funded the burden of

administration procurement, contract and finances was taken off the countries and managed by

the project. The countries benefiting from RTSM assistance, challenges faced establishing and

implementing it and recommendation to take forward were presented by the RTSM-

Coordinator. Her presentation is Annex 6.

FSM expressed appreciation for the mainstreaming and RTSM work that had assisted them

address a number of their development priorities and critical to securing importance funds

(US$9m) from the Adaptation Fund. Before the RTSM and mainstreaming assistance FSM had

submitted adaptation proposal to the Adaptation Fund Board for times without success.

While the CBA, MEF and CAAC work had provided a good platform Kosrae and Yap (Ifalik

atoll) build resilience to climate change, Chuuk and Pohnpei were also in need of assistance as

well. An outcome of this meeting should be a framework to ensure the RTSM continues and

does not end here with TA closure. It was imperative that CROP continue to support the

mainstreaming and RTSM work.

Samoa (Ministry of Works Transport and Infrastructure) commended the RTSM for assistance

received. They would have put in more requests of the focal point (MNRE) had shared

knowledge of the RTSM around. MWTI supported the continuation of the RTSM in the region

and for the CROP Agencies to work together to ensure this happens.

Tonga were very pleased with the 2 RTSM TAs they had received. The first TA was for a

diagnostic study to inform the development of an Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan

(ICZM) for Vava’u. The second was for a Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) to inform

the development of ICZM for Vava’u. Both proposals formed part of the US$50m GCF Tonga

Coastal Resilience Project Proposal which is currently under GCF Board consideration. Tonga

6

viewed the RTSM as an effective and efficient mechanism that needed to be continued and

supported by donors/development partners. Tonga hoped the RTSM would not die but live

forever-It was not part of the ISAAC but was part of Climate Ready and saw the need for PREP

work to align with its JNAP 2 with the support of RTSM experts. Tonga presentation is Annex

7.

Tuvalu found the RTSM to be very useful to assist them develop their survival trust fund deed

during the time when this assistance was needed. The RTSM promoted South-South

cooperation through deployment of experts in the region and this should be further encouraged.

Vanuatu stated that they were very grateful for the RTSM assistance that had assisted them to

develop a national framework for the provision of climate services and to upgrade their climate

portal. Having the Vanuatu Framework for Climate Services in place was important to enable

Vanuatu to secure US$23m grant for the Climate Information Services for Resilient

Development project from the Green Climate Fund.

Key discussion points made were:

Disappointment that the RTSM was about to end especially as it had provided targeted

assistance to support countries address their priority needs. The RTSM needed to

continue and this needed to be brought to the attention of development partners and

the CROP

A strategic way of ensuring mainstreaming and RTSM did in fact continue was through

an Outcomes Statement raising this issue in the meetings of the Forum Officials

Meeting, Development Partner Meeting in Suva, SPREP Meeting. The RTSM after all

had begun with a vision of the Smaller Island States leaders and so it was appropriate

its utility for countries be brought to their attention.

Countries also indicated that they would raise the need for RTSM assistance with their

bilateral and multilateral partners.

RTSM Survey

One of the objectives of this workshop was to seek conduct a survey to ascertain whether the

RTSM/RRF had met its performance indicator target of satisfactory rating of 20% of

RTSM/RRF clients and satisfactory rating of 60% of users with the CCA/DRR tools in 2 pilot

DMCs

Accordingly a survey was filled in by 11 country representatives. To determine satisfaction

rating (1 = Unsatisfactory, 2 = Moderately Satisfactory, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Very Satisfactory,

5 = Excellent).

The results of the survey were 3 expressed a satisfactory rating of 5 (excellent) and 8 expressed

a satisfactory rating of 4 (very satisfactory). This represents a satisfactory rating of 100% where

3= satisfactory.

7

In relation to the second performance indicator (60% of the users expressing a satisfactory rating with the CCA/DRR tools in 2 pilot DMCs) 2 representatives provided a score of 5 (excellent) and 9 provided a score of very satisfactory. This represents a satisfactory rating of 100% where 3= satisfactory.

The full survey conducted at the workshop is attached as Annex 8.

Promoting Linkages with other programs

Samoa gave a report on the national track work under the PPCR. The challenges and successes

of its program to date was highlighted. In relation to the promotion of linkages between the

national and regional track work, Samoa confirmed that they had shared the approach they had

adopted to report under the CIF PPCR M&R Reporting Framework and that their methodology

had been adapted and used by the Regional SPCR to monitor their D&M Framework. Samoa

also shared their climate trust fund manuals with the RTSM Coordinator and this was used to

develop the RTSM Operations Manual. Samoa supported an Outcomes Statement for the

continuation of an RTSM facility. Noted that the RTSM has been developed in the Pacific and

was its intellectual property and should not be expropriated by others. The presentation given

by the Samoan Ministry of Finance is Annex 9.

Papua New Guinea commented that resource personnel with climate change expertise in PNG

was limited. There were also enormous challenges trying to deliver TA and transformational

change to remote islands and communities. This would not happen overnight. Would welcome

people from the Pacific region with technical expertise to work in PNG noting that PNG had

not received any assistance under the RTSM. PNG indicated that one of the outcomes of the

meeting was to ensure that the work progressed under this TA continues and is not a stand-

alone project but more properly part of a program- otherwise what does PPCR programmatic

approach really represent.

World Bank (PREP Regional Coordinator based in PIFS) An overview of the work of the

PREP was provided. The targeted countries under the PREP were RMI, Samoa, Tonga and

Vanuatu. The TA was looking at 3 areas. Early Warning Systems, prioritising resilient

investments and strengthening financial resilience. There was scope for the PREP to continue

the work generated under the ADB/SPREP TA especially in the area looking at prioritising

resilient investments. The approach and tools developed under the mainstreaming component

(CBA/M&EF and CAAC) could inform the development and prioritisation of investments. The

RTSM roster could be drawn on to identify an expert/s to carry out the work.

Reference was made to the forums where countries could promote mainstreaming and RTSM

continuance such as the Forum Officials Meeting and the Climate Finance Partners Group that

meets in Suva to discuss lessons learned to be shared to keep the momentum of work

(mainstreaming and RTSM ) ongoing. The idea of an Outcomes Statement was promoted. The

PREP presentation is Annex 10.

Pacific Climate Change Portal

8

SPREP gave a presentation and real-time tour of the Pacific Climate Change Portal hosted in

SPREP. The regional search interface that also hosted the RTSM, allows users search for climate

information resources in the Pacific region across a range of sources. The portal can be accessed at

https://www.pacificclimatechange.net.

Institutional Strengthening in PICs to Adapt to Climate Change (ISACC) Project

A presentation was given by the Institutional Strengthening in PICs to Adapt to Climate

Change (ISACC) Project representative based in SPREP describing the objectives of this

project and its intended medium term impact. Supporting Tuvalu’s national Climate Change & Climate finance agenda through institutional strengthening was one the aims of the project

ISAAC intended to follow the approach and generic tools developed under the SPCR-PR work

as they has been established in the Tuvalu central agency processes and systems and had been

requested by Tuvalu. The ISACC presentation is Annex 11.

Lessons Learned –where to from here was provided by the Program Manager

Among the main lessons learned under the TA were:

Design Phase

The mainstreaming and RTSM had proven to be invaluable to the countries that had

been piloted providing the very kind of assistance Pacific countries were in need of

from their CROP Agencies and the development community in support of their resilient

development aspirations.

The need for the TA to be taken up and continued by CROP and development partners was

strongly recommended.

Many of the issues that hampered the implementation of the SPCR- PR (withdrawal of partners,

SPCR-PR component 2 not getting off the ground but being reconstituted under PREP, the issue

of cost recovery for CROP v CROP themselves promoting per diem and airfares only when

assisting countries in the CIF documentation, the fact no Advisory Committee ever eventuated

and the Regional Coordination position only started in late 2016), could be put down lack of

commitment to the design promoted to the CIF. This raises questions about whether the

organisations involved understood the full implication of their involvement and commitment.

The lesson learned is that for a programme involving MDBs and CROP Agencies, it is

important that all Parties are fully conversant, coordinate and communicate with each other

during the process of detailed project preparation – The SPCR-PR is a case where the

coordination and communication required especially between the MDBs, fell very short (and

program developed in silos)

Implementation Phase -

Policy analysis incorporating the use of the mainstreaming tools (including CCA and DRR)

must be complemented by rigorous adherence to procedure –This is particularly important

for smaller jurisdictions where there is limited absorptive capacity to manage numerous

activities all trying to assist with climate change.

Organisational changes may be needed which can support use of tools Kosrae: the ODA Co-

ordination Unit now formally tasked with appraising all new ODA requests. Tuvalu:


9

establishment of Evaluation Co-ordination Unit (ECU) + Climate Change Policy and Disaster

Coordination Unit (CCPDCU).

Development partners and CROP need to renew their efforts to align and harmonise ODA

with Pacific island country government systems, consistent with commitments under the

Paris Declaration for Aid Effectiveness. Development partners (including CROP agencies)

tend to use differing versions of (essentially the same) policy analysis tools, especially for

monitoring and evaluation. This partial duplication causes confusion among government

officials and negatively affects capacity building in these tools and functions more broadly.

Indeed, this impact was a key rationale for developing country-specific tools under the PPCR-

PR.

Pacific island country governments have an important role to guide/ensure development

partners to use the policy analysis tools the country is using.

Regional Technical Support- for larger and/or more complex policies (e.g. above US500,000

million), there will be an ongoing (and critical) role for development partners and CROP

agencies to help use the PPCR-PR tools, especially CBA and developing M&E frameworks.

Address the capacity constraints are a fact of life for small PIC Governments (small, high-

turnover).

There is a real benefit in development partners and CROP agencies incorporating a training

element into ODA design and preparation activities, including additional workshops as

appropriate, as well as mentoring of local staff.

Practical and workable analytical tools are needed for the small Pacific island country

government context. They should be generic, commonly-used, versatile, multi-disciplinary

and be developed using participatory approaches.

They should contribute to policies that are both more climate-resilient and more effective at

achieving their development objectives.

Direct linkage to access to climate financing, AF, GCF, is a key driver or motivator for pilot

countries to use tools. Obvious next step is to link tools with programs to support NIE

accreditation and NIE implementation

Majority of countries were interested in mainstreaming and RTSM as a means to generate

additional climate change financing to further their development objectives (i.e.

Development of proposals for GCF, AF, GEF, EDF.11 and bilateral partners)

Countries at very different levels of TA needs. ‘Discrete’ to ‘Programmatic’. RTSM or similar mechanism will have to be flexible to accommodate

Assistance was needed in relation to the development of detailed Terms of Reference (TOR).

Countries need help with development of these. Sometimes not able to articulate their actual

TA need.

It took time and relationship building for countries to see the benefits generated from the

RTSM (and mainstreaming work) and believe and buy in to the idea but once it generated

benefits, the requests started to increase in number.

Both government/country experts and regional experts not conducive to idea of being

deployed. ‘under’ RTSM. Capacity issue & remuneration issue. Allowance needs to made to accommodate (i.e. Remuneration). Organisations to provide Cost Recovery Policy to support

Close relationships between programme, donor & countries crucial

The RTSM has realised the vision of leaders expressed in the Smaller Island States Forum for

a regional mechanism to meet the urgent CCA/DRR priorities of members. Although aspects

of it can be improved (governance structure (WARD t has been tested and proven through the

provision of 15 TAs that set the platform or generated additional climate investments- Serious

attention and discussion needs to take place about it continuation by CROP and MDBs.

RTSM Management and Procurement

10

Need for Project Management Unit and governance structure around that to allow it to be

accountable to its members but operate independently. On one hand take strategic direction

from WARD but as placed in SPREP, subject to SPREP Procurement Rules as funds were in

SPREP accounts and SPREP approval needed for auditing purposes. Note accountable to

execute ADB and to SPREP procurement rules.

Needs to be better resourced than what it was if to be independent unit. Eg …RTSM-C

developing TORs, Financial Management Procurement Specialist focus should be on

procurement, finances, contracts not do meeting logistical and travel arrangements, hotel

bookings, mining data from charts of accounts to see which expenses are PPCR relevant. Also

took up much time of PM, RTSM-C and MS.

If to be retained in regional organisation then needs a financial system in place that can

automatically track PPCR expenses.

If to be retained in regional organisation needs staff (especially procurement and financial

staff) to be conversant with donor rules as easy to slip into organisation rules (DSA rates,

procurement of consultants eg FMPS, - ADB approved/SPREP not approved) Training of

staff needed

Any future RTSM/ RRF operation should have funds in it to deploy experts. Providing an

Advance to liquidate against on a monthly basis not a viable option where nature, timing of

TA not known

Sustainability of TA mainstreaming work and RTSM

Knowledge Management Products will be disseminated on the Pacific Climate Change

Portal before the project concludes. Other platforms such as national, ADB, CIF, PIFs,

SPC websites are all options as well.

USAID ISAAC program have indicated that they plan to use the mainstreaming tools

developed under the TA as part of its mainstreaming work in Tuvalu. Other Development

partners may be interested to also use the approach taken and the tools in their work in

other Pacific island countries.

There is an opportunity for mainstreaming tools to be utilised in the PREP Component on

resilient investments

The 27th SPREP Meeting directed the Secretariat to ensure that the mainstreaming tools

and approach developed under the SPCR-PR are built into the suite of SPREP technical

services to assist its members address CCA and associated DRR.

PPCR Core indicators have been integrated into SPREPs Strategic Plan 2017-2016

(Matrix of Strategic Regional and Organisational Goals).

PPCR mainstreaming tools (or adaptions thereof) into the planning processes of SPREPs

climate change 'project cycle'

Climate Investment Funds have expressed an interest in sharing the knowledge extracted

and lessons learned from the regional process and are planning an inter-regional meeting

to this effect.

Raise RTSM as a model for support to countries at the PIFs, CROP organisations annual

meetings and with multilateral and bilateral donors

11

SPCR Regional Coordinator and World Bank PREP Program Manager both expressed

the view that given the overwhelming sentiment from the countries for continuation of the

mainstreaming and RTSM work, there should be an Outcomes Statement from this meeting.

The Outcomes Statement could be tendered that the Forum Officials Meeting and other

meetings such that the SPREP Meeting, Development Partners Meeting, Climate Finance

Meetings. Acknowledged the important links between the Framework for Resilient

Development in the Pacific and the RTSM that could assist with the implementation of this

framework.

PREP Program Manager acknowledged that although SPCR PR had not gone according to

plan according to its intended design, it was best to look forward on how to best support

countries with the projects currently being implemented.

Closing remarks were provided by ADB and SPREP

ADB- Found countries sharing experiences on mainstreaming very encouraging and positive.

And everyone had said that the RTSM must continue. Acknowledged that the implementation

of the TA - DMF had been successful.

Whether the TA had produced transformational results remained to be seen if transformation

can be equated to sustainability. For example as a result of the mainstreaming/RTSM could

countries pick up this work and run with it themselves!

Noted the emphasis on financing and stated that it was not just about the money. Recalled the

background in relation to RTSM where CROP would only be compensated for airfares and

per-diems only (ie… no remuneration) when providing assistance to countries. The rationale

for this was because CROP were only going to be doing work they were supposed to be doing

anyway but did not have travel and per-diem costs to go in country.

Acknowledged there had been design issues with TA, difficulties with the interpretation of

ADB/SPREP rules, financing of the TA but that this was not an isolated case. There would be

similar issues working with another donor and their procedures/rules.

Also stated that it was important that countries progress this work further through the adoption

of mainstreaming tools and encouraged countries to raise the need for the work to continue in

the relevant forums.

SPREP – Indicated that SPREP was committed to the TA and to its success. That this was the

second project SPREP had partnered ADB with (the first being the National Environment

Management Strategies in the 1980s).

Believed that the mainstreaming tools were transformational tools. The CBA, MEF and CAAC

were standard tools normally used in project design and familiar around Pacific jurisdictions.

However incorporating into these tools the climate risk aspects and making this part of the

processes to be considered nationally especially in central agencies where policy/decisions

were determined and at the sector level for all sectors, was a move away from business as usual

12

where previously, climate risk considerations were applied to projects within the context of

environment.

Commented on the critical role of the WARD to provide strategic oversight to the RTSM.

Highlighted the fact that the RTSM administered by SPREP ensured that the comparative

advantage of regional organisations was respected and the best expert available for the task

selected as evidenced in the composition of experts that were deployed. Explained how cost

recovery issue insisted on by some regional organisations for the provision of experts came

late and motivated by financial difficulties certain regional organisations were facing.

Indicated that the reason RTSM was established was all about money- the Smaller Island States

leaders that were behind the RTSM concept had complained that they could not access projects

tied to funds because they could not get assistance quickly enough. Therefore they decided to

have a RTSM that could provide a facility to enable this to happen.

Thanked ADB, country representatives, ISACC, PIFs, WB and PPCR consultants for

attendance and for a successful meeting.

Summary – Meeting Objectives and Outcomes

1 Inform on progress made v DMF Impacts,

Outcome, Outputs

Meeting informed Impact not realised,

Outcomes partially achieved with respect to

mainstreaming and fully achieved with respect

to RTSM. Outputs fully achieved

2 Seek additional input on utility of

mainstreaming tools

Meeting seeks continuation of mainstreaming

tools as reflected in Outcomes Statement

3 Seek inputs into RTSM Survey to address

the TA DMF performance indicator

satisfactory rating of 20% of RTSM/RRF

clients and 60% of the users of CCA/DRR

tools in 2 pilot DMCs

100% satisfactory rating for both

4 input on work progressed under TA 8360

within the context of the overall CIF SPCR-

PR program and obtain feedback on

promoting linkages between the

regional/national track

Mainstreaming work factored into US Adapt in

relation to Tuvalu

PREP looking to build on the TA work in their

climate resilient investments component

In SPREP project cycle for climate change

projects through use of CBA and monitoring

and evaluation

Factored into SPREPs Strategic Plan (2017-

2026)

13

ANNEX 1

PARTCIPANTS LIST

FSM

1 Simpson Abraham Representative Office Environment and Emergency Management Palikir

[email protected]

2 Heidi Sigrah Staff Economist Department of Resources and Economic Affairs

[email protected]

3 Stanley Rafillman Administrator Trade and Investment Department of Resources and Economic Affairs

[email protected]

PNG

4 Jacob Ekinye Director Adaptation and Projects Climate Change and Development Authority

[email protected]

Tonga

5 Luisa Malolo Director for Climate Change at Ministry of Lands, Environment, Climate Change and Natural Resources

[email protected]

Samoa

6 Litara Taulealo Assistant CEO Climate Resilience Investment Coordination Unit and Coordinator of the Samoa PPCR Ministry of Finance

[email protected]

7 Jean Viliamu Climate Resilience Investment Coordination Unit and Coordinator of the Samoa PPCR Ministry of Finance

[email protected]

8 Muliagatele Filomena Nelson, ACEO Disaster Management Office (DMO),

[email protected]

9 Nanai Junior Saaga ACEO l Civil Aviation Division Ministry of Works, Transport & Infrastructure

[email protected]

10 Sagauga Leilani Galuvao ACEO – Asset Management & Infrastructure Division, Ministry of Works, Transport and Infrastructure

[email protected]

11 Ulu Bismarck Chief Executive Officer Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

[email protected]

Tuvalu

12 Savali Kelese Aid Adviser Department of Planning, Budget and Ai Government Building

[email protected]

13 Jamie Ovia Climate Change Project Development Officer Government of Tuvalu

[email protected]

14 Sualua Trinny Uluao Administrative Officer

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]














14

Monitoring, Evaluation and Coordination Unit Evaluation and Coordination Office Office of the Prime Minister

Vanuatu

15 David Gibson Director of the Vanuatu meteorology and geo-hazards department

[email protected]

Asian Development Bank

16 Hanna Uusimaa Climate Change Specialist Pacific Department ADB Fiji

[email protected]

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat/ SPCRP-PR Regional

Coordinator

17 Teea Tira Regional Coordinator Strategic Program Climate Resilience Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat Fiji

[email protected]

World Bank

18 Mosese Sikivou Regional Coordinator, Pacific Resilience Program Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat.

[email protected]

SPREP

19 Netatua Pelesikoti Director of Climate Change SPREP

[email protected]

20 Makalesi Gonivalu

[email protected]

21 Tagaloa Cooper ISACC (SPREP) Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme

[email protected]

SPCR-PR Consultants

22 Andre Volentras Program Manager

[email protected]

23 Satui Bentin RTSM Coordinator

[email protected]

24 Aaron Buncle Mainstreaming Specialist

[email protected]

25 Ane Moananu Procurement and Financial Management Specialist

[email protected]











Strategic Program Climate Resilience –Pacific Regional Track

Design Monitoring Framework

Evaluation Workshop

May 16-17, 2017

SPREP Technical Education Centre

DRAFT ANNOTATED AGENDA

Tuesday 16th May

Time Activity Outcome Expected Presenter

0830-0900 Session 1: Opening

Opening Remarks by ADB ADB Statement on support provided to the project and the

importance of the work and its continuation.

Hanna Uusimaa

Opening Remarks by SPREP SPREP Statement [Although this pilot phase is concluding, an

opportunity to build on the work achieved ]

Netatua Pelesikoti

0900-0910 Setting the Context of this meeting

Presentation by PPCR Program Manager

Outline purpose/context of the meeting

Outline expected outcomes from

meeting

Confirm agenda

Confirm Chair (suggest Regional

Coordinator)

Purpose/context of the meeting understood

Expected Outcomes understood

Agenda confirmed

Chair appointed

Andrea Volentras

0910-0940 Context of this meeting within the wider SPCR-

PR Program

presentation by SPCR Regional

Coordinator

Participants understand this ADB/SPREP work is not a project in of

itself but part of the broader SPCR /PR program involving WBG, PIFs

and SPC

Teea Tira

0940-1000 Strategic Overview of Work Achieved

Components 1 and 3

Strategic overview of Work Progressed understood Andrea Volentras

1000-1030 Morning Tea

1030- 1130 SPCR PR Component 1 (Mainstreaming)

Context

DMF Work Program

Identification of Mainstreaming tools

Methodology Used in pilot countries

Participants apprised of the work done under Component 1 in more

detail against the Project Design Monitoring Framework Impacts,

Outcome, Output performance indicators, issues arising, lessons

learnt and future of mainstreaming TA of this nature

Aaron Buncle

16

Work undertaken in each pilot country

Challenges encountered

Performance Indicator progress

Results from participatory evaluation

Lessons learnt

11.30-1200 Questions and Answers Feedback from Plenary discussion Facilitated by Chair

1200-1300 Lunch Break

1300-1400 Pilot Country Perspectives on mainstreaming

work

Federated States of Micronesia

Tuvalu

Pilot countries given opportunity to provide meeting with their

comments/evaluation of work undertaken and to make

recommendations

Stanley Raffilman

Savali Kelese

1400-1430 Questions and Answers Feedback from Plenary discussion Plenary facilitated by the Chair

1430-1440 Break

1440-1540 RTSM/RRF (SPCR Component 3)

Context

DMF Work Program

Methodology Used (Operations Manual)

RTSM website for on-line applications

RTSM requests/deployments/results

and impacts

Challenges encountered

Performance Indicator progress made

Lessons learnt

Participants apprised of the work done under Component 2 in more

detail against the Project Design Monitoring Framework Impacts,

Outcome, Output performance indicators, issues arising, lessons

learnt and future of the RTSM

Satui Bentin

1540-1600 Questions and Answers Feedback and recommendations from Plenary discussion Plenary facilitated by the Chair

0840-1030 FSM

Samoa

Tuvalu

Vanuatu

RTSM Beneficiary Countries to share their RTSM experiences

Simpson Abraham

Samoa Ministry Works Transport

Infrastructure

Tuvalu- Jamie Ovia

Vanuatu David Gibson

1600-1615 RTSM Survey RTSM beneficiaries will be given an evaluation survey to provide

feedback on the utility of the RTSM. In the DMF by the end of the

project

(a) RTSM/RRF rated satisfactory under the monitoring and

evaluation framework by at least 20% of the clients

RTSM Country National Focal Points

(Clients) and Users (agencies using TA

provided)

17

(b) CCA/DRR knowledge and tools are applied in 2 pilot Pacific

DMCs and rated satisfactory by at least 60% of the users.

1630 Workshop Reception at SPREP Fale

1600 Close

Wednesday 17th May

900-930

PNG

Samoa

Tonga

RTSM Beneficiary Countries to share their RTSM experiences and

promoting PPCR linkages with work progressed under PPCR to SPCR

Jacob Ekinye

Jean Viliamu

Louisa Malolo

930-940 Discussion All

0940-1000 Pacific Climate Change Portal Presentation on Climate Change Portal Makalesi Gonelevu

1000-1030 Morning Tea

1030-1100 Promoting Linkages with other

programs ISAAC

Promoting PPCR linkages with work progressed under PPCR to SPCR Tagaloa Cooper

1100-1130 Lessons Learned –where to from here Key lessons from project and future direction Andrea Volentras

1130-1140 Discussion Where to from here- countries perspectives All

1140-1150 Concluding comments from countries All

1150-1200 ADB/SPREP Concluding comments Netatua Pelesikoti

Lunch SPREP Fale

18

ANNEX 3 OVERVIEW OF WORK ACHIEVED AGAINST THE PROJECT DOCUMENT DESIGN MONITORING

FRAMEWORK

•

• •

• •

• • • •

•

•

•

•

(

19

1 07/06/2017

•

•

•

•

•

•

20

ANNEX 4 MAINSTREAMING PROGRESS

PPCR-PR Mainstreaming Component

Aaron Buncle

Outline

1. Approach to mainstreaming component

2. Process for selecting and piloting tools

3. Overview of tools

4. Case-study applications: contributions of tools to

policy-making

5. Lessons learned from participatory evaluation

6. Knowledge products

7. Concluding remarks

1. Approach to mainstreaming

• integrating climate change and disaster risk considerations into (mainstream) policy making and budgetary processes

• do this through strengthening and adapting analytical tools used to input to these processes

• Logic: more rigorous analytical inputs – complemented by rigorous procedure contribute to better quality policy, and policy implementation**

2. Process for selecting tools

• Situation Analysis – Primarily examined policy making and related

budgetary processes in place in pilot countries, and policy analysis tools used. • Focus on climate change and disaster risk

– Short-list of tools determined taking into consideration key criteria: ‘generic’, commonlyused, and versatile.**

– Final selection by pilot country governments *** {3 tools per country}

21

2. Process for selecting and piloting tools

Tool Pilot Country

1. Central Agency Appraisal tool

Kosrae only

2. Cost Benefit Analysis tool Kosrae and Tuvalu

3. Risk matrix tool Tuvalu only

4. Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

Kosrae and Tuvalu

• tools to become the 'standard' policy analysis tool (of its type) of the government*

2. Process for piloting tools

1. Case-study applications* – typically 2-3 case studies per tool per country – ‘learning-by-doing’ workshop – external TA for large/complex policies

(participatory)

2. Peer Review 3. Participatory Evaluation workshop • Throughout these activities, the tools were regularly

refined and improved.

• Final versions of tools completed 2nd Quarter 2017.

Step 3: Check a range of policy options were considered

Step 5: Assess risks and uncertainties

Step 6: Consider distributional issues

22

3.1 Climate change and disaster risk

• Step 5 (Assess Risks and Uncertainties) – nature and extent of

climate change and disaster risks are well

understood – risk-treatment measures

incorporated as

appropriate – additional costs of risk

treatment measures estimated (if possible)

• Step 1 (Establish the need and rationale for government policy): are all barriers or constraints that affect capacity to adapt to climate change identified*

• Step 4 (Identify costs and benefits of each option): unintended impact of the proposal to increase communities' exposure or vulnerability to certain climate hazards in the future**

• Step 7 (Assess proposed arrangements for management, monitoring and evaluation, and sustainability): M&E framework adequately accounts for key climate change and disaster risks, where this is important.

3.2 country-specific CBA workplan

• Purpose: help the officials efficiently manage a CBA study, and to do this in a way that fully meets the policy-making needs of the government

• Complements regional CBA

guideline • Intended to facilitate:

– Multi-disciplinary inputs – Participatory application – [basic ‘pre-feasibility’ study]


1. key CBA questions or sub-questions specifically pertaining to climate change and disaster risk

"to what extent are the different policy options (or design modifications) resilient to changes in the frequency of extreme tide events in the medium and longer-term future? That is, to what extent are the different policy options expected to generate a net economic benefit under different future climate (extreme tides) scenarios?“

2. sensitivity analysis o uncertainty about frequency and

intensity of future climate hazard events

23


• Specific guidance on using the risk matrix for assessing climate change and disaster types of risk

• How to account for climate change uncertainty

• Broad guidance for designing risk treatment measures under climate uncertainty

– Incorporate flexibility – Incorporate resilience

3.4 Key features

• based on a Program Theory-Driven

Evaluation structure (Donaldson 2007) and is

consistent with a contemporary, purposeful

planning approach known as ‘Results-Based

Management’. • Key features include:

– focus the M&E on answering ‘the right questions’.*; – flexible and adaptable**; – emphasis on climate change and disaster risk.

24


• ensure that there is a sound understanding of the climate change and disaster risks affecting a policy before the core elements of a M&E framework are developed • formulating key evaluation questions or sub-questions specifically pertaining to climate change and disaster risk – "to what extent is (was) the adaptation measure, i.e. design

modification/risk reduction measure, effective at making the policy resilient to coastal flooding events? What are (were) the key factors of success/failure?"

• providing some specific advice for formulating monitoring indicators to measure climate change and disaster risk elements

CBA input Which option(s), or alternative solutions, should be selected?

Is the preferred option resilient to drought and cyclone risks?

Should governments invest in the policy?

Considered four

options to better

manage green

waste in Funafuti,

which essentially

differed in the

scale of

investment.

CBA showed that Option 3 is the preferred option (incl composting activities).

CBA showed that the preferred

green waste management option

(Option 3) will not be materially

affected by drought events, even

in the worst-case future drought

scenarios.

CBA also showed that Option 3 would still be economically viable under the range of different future cyclone scenarios.

Demonstrated that Option 3 would generate a

net economic gain for society ,and represents

a worthwhile use of resources.

The recommended option was subsequently

selected by the policy makers and included in

the Tuvalu Integrated Waste Policy and Action

Plan (now endorsed by Cabinet).

The CBA was submitted to the European Union, along with the Tuvalu Integrated Waste Policy and Action Plan, as part of the evidence base used to trigger draw down of available EDF 11 bilateral funding.

Risk assessment input

• Informed inclusion of cyclone/storm-surge resilient design measures for composting facility, including siting of facility and additional capacity for peak loads expected if cyclone occurs.

M&E Framework Climate change and disaster risk related evaluation questions

Relevant monitoring activities

Relevant evaluation activities (to be performed every 2.5 years)

To what extent have climate change risk management measures (i.e. climate-proofing new transfer station) been effective in minimising damage to

transfer station and ensured the ability to accommodate

additional

volumes of green waste following cyclones? Why? Why not?

Unit cost of collection services ($/m3) Total cost of collection services

($/quarter)

Number of service disruptions (days/quarter), disaggregated by reason

Time series analysis of indicator data, including examination of climate

variability/events (drivers of deviations) where applicable.

Semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (SWAT operational staff in Funafuti, Kaupule in Outer Islands)

25


• “Extent of problem is not adequately established

• Causes of the problem not well-understood/explained – other barriers that are likely to affect the management of

flooding, such as access to credit and land ownership issues

• Proposal does not clearly demonstrate the size or importance of the benefits that are expected to be generated, and that these justify the costs (in the order of USD 6 million just for road network construction costs) – Recommend CBA study”

CBA input

M&E FramewoClimate change and disaster risk related evaluation questions

Relevant monitoring activities

Relevant evaluation activities (to be performed every 2.5 years)

What proportion of Malem and Utwe households are planning, preparing, ready to relocate, or have already done so? What is enabling and constraining readiness for relocation by households from Malem and Utwe?

% of Malem and Utwe HH relocated inland

• Analysis of Progress Reports • Key informant interviews

Also, M&E framework developed concurrently with, and informed, the design of the program

Which option(s), or alternative solutions, should be selected?

Should governments invest in the policy?

Climate change and disaster risk related questions/decisions

The CBA compared a proposal to relocate a coastal inland road inland against alternative options of (i) maintaining the

existing coastal road in its current form and (ii) upgrading the existing coastal road to make it more resilient to coastal flooding hazards.

The CBA showed that relocating the road inland is the preferred option.

The CBA showed the inload road is a worthwhile investment.*

Based on the CBA, the Malem to Utwe inland road was elevated to be a higher priority within the Kosrae Infrastructure

Development Plan.

The CBA was further used as key evidence in support of a project proposal to the Adaptation Fund (AF).**

The CBA showed that the coastal inland road is the most economically viable option under the range of different future

coastal flooding hazard scenarios.

The CBA further highlighted that several other barriers that are affecting communities’ capacity to relocate (e.g. access to finance) will also need to be addressed if the road investment is to achieve its intended objectives.***

5. Lessons learned from participatory

evaluation i. Procedural integrity*

• Policy analysis must be complemented by rigorous procedure • Good progress being made in pilot countries to strengthen policy procedures

– Kosrae: Procedure for Requesting and Receiving ODA (Procedure No. AD103) – Tuvalu: NIE Accreditation

• PPCR-PR supported development of ODA Handbook • But only partially implemented. More work is needed.

26

5. Lessons learned from participatory evaluation

ii. Organisational changes* • Important organisation changes being made in pilot countries

which can support use of tools – E.g. Kosrae: the ODA Co-ordination Unit now formally

tasked with appraising all new ODA requests. – E.g. Tuvalu: establishment of Evaluation Coordination Unit

(ECU) + Climate Change Policy and Disaster Coordination Unit (CCPDCU)

• Some further changes also likely to be beneficial*

5. Lessons learned from participatory

evaluation iii. Development Partner alignment* • development partners (including Council of Regional

Organisations of the Pacific [CROP] agencies) tend to use differing versions of (essentially the same) policy analysis tools, especially for monitoring and evaluation.

– This partial duplication causes confusion among government officials and negatively affects capacity building in these tools and functions more broadly.

– Indeed, this impact was a key rationale for developing countryspecific tools under the PPCR-PR.

• development partners renew their efforts to align and harmonise ODA with Pacific island country government systems, consistent with commitments under the Paris Declaration for Aid Effectiveness.

– role for PIFS

5. Lessons learned from participatory evaluation iv. Regional Technical Support* • Capacity constraints are a fact of life for small PIC Governments (small,

high-turnover) • for larger and/or more complex policies (e.g. USD >0.5 million), there

will be an ongoing (and critical) role for development partners and CROP agencies to help use the PPCR-PR tools, especially CBA and developing M&E frameworks.

• also, there is benefit in development partners and CROP agencies incorporating a training element into ODA design and preparation activities, including additional workshops as appropriate, as well as mentoring of local staff


• Headline – Overall (support replication in other small PICs and

messaging to Development Partners) – Tuvalu – Kosrae

• Tools

• Select case study applications of tools – CBA studies – Risk Matrix assessments – M&E Framework documents


• https://www.dropbox.com/sh/z3vtfcxu3eimc5

y/AADBbJwRwhdoYNmMqUxrmqsfa?dl=0

• Upload to CC Portal

• Distribute to pilot countries

• [Present to Pacific Climate Change Roundtable, but now Oct]


• Practical and workable analytical tools for the small Pacific island country government

context*

–Generic, commonly-used, versatile

–Multi-disciplinary, participatory approach

–Contribute to policies that are both more climate-resilient and more effective at achieving their development objectives


• Facilitate and enhance use of tools – PICs: Complementary governance reforms

• Procedural integrity

• Organisational changes

– Development Partners* : • alignment (PIFS) • Regional Technical Support

27

7. Concluding remarks cont.

• Direct linkage to access to $, and GCF in particular, is one key driver or motivator for

pilot countries to use tools

– One obvious next step is to link tools with programs to support NIE accreditation – and NIE implementation!!!

Impact:

28

ANNEX 5 TUVALU MAINSTREAMING

TUVALU MAINSTREAMING

ACTIVITIES

INTRODUCTION • The Government of Tuvalu (GoT) has undertaken a reform program to improve the resilience and effectiveness of its

overseas development assistance (ODA). • To facilitate the operation of these reforms a series of policy analysis tools and guidelines have been developed. These

include: 1. a cost-benefit analysis work-planning tool; 2. a guidance note for undertaking (policy) risk assessment and appraisal;

and 3. a guidance note for developing a monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

framework. • The development of these tools has been supported by Pilot Program for Climate Resilience: Pacific Regional

Track (PPCR-PR) • There were 8 workshops conducted in Tuvalu • An emphasis of the tools is to analyse climate change and disaster risk elements, where appropriate reflecting the

situation in Tuvalu where climate events (e.g. extreme tide events, drought) impact on a wide range of different development policies, oftentimes substantially. Moreover, in the medium and long-term future, these risks are expected to further increase under the effects of human-induced climate change, presenting as a major development challenge for Tuvalu.

• NIE Accreditation Application – AF and GCF

Introduction • Strengthening the ODA Central policies • Mainstreaming process – Case studies • NIE Accreditation Application – AF and GCF • ODA HANDBOOK 2017 – DCC members

COVERAGE

• a cost-benefit analysis work-planning tool; • a guidance note for undertaking (policy) risk assessment and appraisal; and • a guidance note for developing a monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

framework.

•

• • • • •

• •

• NIE supporting document •

29

CHALLENGES

• PPCR Tool

process

• Human

Resources

staffs

capacity

• Alignment with DP’s

• Sustainability

• ON GOING SUPPORT???

PROPOSED STRATEGIES

• DCC and Cabinet Approval • Simplifying make it simple for the Guidance Notes • Updating text and figures to reflect Aid Coordination Unit operating

procedures – especially where these are currently under review. • Conduct awareness with line ministries and departments • Training of trainers • Long Term TA

WAY FORWARD FOR TUVALU

• Sustainability and use of tools – TA Support (long term) • further refine over time as more experience is gathered.

• Capacity Building • Translate and print of these tools • Continuous monitoring by PBACD, CCDU and M&E unit. • Working with Development Partners – Paris Declaration for Aid

Effectiveness • Financial Instructions

FAFETAI LASI

•

•

•

30

ANNEX 6 RTSM PROGRESS AND ACHIEVEMENTS V DESIGN MONITORING FRAMEWORK Attached

separately

ANNEX 7 - RTSM Survey Analysis – 11 surveys received

ESTABLISHMENT (i.e. awareness of RTSM)

A. How did you find out about RTSM and RRF? Please circle as many as applicable:

5 = Regional meeting (e.g. SPREP meeting)

4 = National meeting (i.e. met meeting in Tonga, CBA training FSM & AF CIM consultation Samoa)

4 = RTSM website

3 = Pacific Climate Change Portal

9 = through colleague(s)

1 = Other (OEEM Office)

B. Did you register as an expert?

10 = No

1 = Yes

C. Did you/your country request a TA? If yes, through what means?

7 = RTSM website

7 = RTSM email

4 = SPREP Director or CCD Director

0 = Other

D. Did you find the process of requesting a TA helpful?

10 = Yes

1 = no answer

Comments:

1. The RTSM Coordinator was very helpful in assisting the Ministry in developing the request /proposal

QUALITY

E. Did the TA address a stated priority in ou ou t ’s atio al develop e t o se to al pla s to add ess li ate ha ge esilie e (as opposed to a dis eet i te ve tio eg… a workshop, unrelated task)

10 = Yes

1 = No

F. Was the TA (from the time of deployment) completed within the timeframe needed by

your government?

10 = Yes

1 = N/A

31

Comments:

1. The only area where there can be more coordination is the timeframe of deploying the TA, for the

Water Master Plan the actual request date and time of deployment had been more than 12 months,

however for the GCF Readiness the request date and completion of the TA was between 3-4 months.

Time frame of the request and deployment of TA needs to be more consistent to further enhance the

effectiveness of the RTSM (Nauru)

G. Were you satisfied with the ualit of the RTSM e pe ts’ delive a les?

10 = Yes

1 = N/A

Any other comments in relation to quality of RTSM/RRF? 1. Down to earth hence good dialogue between TA and beneficiaries

2. Influenced politics to divert resources to more feasible projects (i.e. inner road development;

adoption of CC resilience framework)

3. The process for requesting the TA was straight forward and not too much bureaucracy involved

which made it expeditious (Samoa- Asset Mngt Database)

4. The quality and support from RTSM TA has been excellent in deliverables according to the ToR

(Nauru: Water & Readiness TAs)

H. Did the TA help build or support your countries capacity to address climate change risks

to a greater extent than had the TA not been provided?

11 = Yes

Comments:

1. Helped the CCPDCU capacity with trust fund regulations (Tuvalu)

2. Need to capitalise on support provided (FSM-EIA)

3. Inclusive of CC risk in early part of project development (FSM-AF supporting studies)

4. The review of the Ministry organisational structure to align with the NISP will be greatly

contributed to address one of the common issues: that is the lack of capacity or not enough staff

especially technical personnel to carry out what is needed to be achieved in the NISP to minimise

the impact of CC on infrastructure (Samoa – NISP review/organisational structure)

5. The TA with regards to the integrated database has provided the MWTI with a mechanism

whereby collection of data will enable us to analyse climate issues with regards to roads, airports

and seaports (Samoa – asset mngt database)

6. Access to GCF Readiness program & Water Master Plan Funding Strategy (Nauru)

I. Was the RTSM TA able to act as leverage to scale up your countries climate change investments?

11 = Yes

Comments:

1. The TA helped greatly with the development of our trust fund (Tuvalu)

2. RTSM TAs led to the approval of AF proposal for FSM

3. I ca ’t say yes or o as this ill take so e ti e to see a y results (Sa oa – NISP

review/organisational structure)

4. Through the assistance of RTSM TA we have been able to access the GCF Readiness program

(Nauru)

J. Was the RTSM TA able to help sectors mainstream their actions into national planning

processes to build climate resilience to promote a whole of country approach to building

resilience to climate change?

32

9 = Yes

1 = No

1 = No answer

Comments:

1. The review of NISP was also linked against the Strategy for Development of Samoa and other

Sectors including the Transport Sector Plan, Energy Sector Plan, Water Sector Plan and

Environment Sector Plan (Samoa)

2. The framework for Climate Services captured this, and is in line with other national

plans/framework and policies (Vanuatu)

3. Tonga was not one of the pilot countries for mainstreaming but we have used findings from RTSM

TA to incorporate these information into Community Development Plans of communities in Vavau.

Note : CC and DRR considerations were already incorporated into our National Planning

Framework

4. RTSM TA has developed a funding strategy for the Water Master plan that is readily available to

potential/interested donors and will support the development of a project funding proposal to

climate finance entities GCF AF etc

K. Based on the information provided at the workshop, do you think the RTSM (climate

responsive instrument) has been developed and tested? If yes, how would you score it:

Score 0 = Not started; Score 5 = Instrument has been developed completely but not yet tested; Score

10 = instrument has been tested completely and has been fully developed

6 = Score of 10

4 = Score of 5

1 = 0*

*Nauru mistook the question above to refer to their GCF Readiness funding

L. Taking into account all the questions above what satisfaction rating would you give the

RTSM out of 101 (1 = Unsatisfactory, 2 = Moderately Satisfactory, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Very

Satisfactory, 5 = Excellent). Please circle correct box:

3 = 5 (Excellent)

8 = 4 (Very Satisfactory)

Comments:

1. Need to provide more information on cap of assistance (Tuvalu)

2. Still need to build the capacity of local employees (i.e. SPREP staff)

3. (i) Donors and development partners should continue providing additional resources to

capitalise the RTSM and RRF.

(ii) CROP agencies should not establish new climate change facility hence investing on

existing RTSM;

(iii) Countries should take ownership and champion good work that was established under

RTSM (sustainability);

M. Were the CCA/DRR knowledge and tools generated under the RTSM TA useful to build or

strengthen capacity or support facilities to respond to climate change risks?

9 = Yes

2 – No answer

1RTSM/RRF rated satisfactory under the monitoring and evaluation framework by at least 20% of the clients

33

Comments:

1. Yes. There is a need to strengthen capacity within the Ministry (Samoa – NISP review)

2. Supported the CCD Unit with regulation and SIOP which was very useful to the unit (Tuvalu)

3. EIA guidance notes developed and adopted

4. (i) The assessment report/coastal feasibility study and report was feeding into the

de elop e t of To ga’s – GCF Coastal Resilience Project

(ii) This report will also be used to develop future climate change project proposals for

vulnerable communities which are not included in GCF proposal

N. What overall satisfaction rating would you give in relation to the application of the knowledge

and tools developed under the RTSM? (1 = Unsatisfactory, 2 = Moderately Satisfactory, 3 =

Satisfactory, 4 = Very Satisfactory, 5 = Excellent). Please circle correct box:

2 = Score of 5 (Excellent)

9 = Score of 4 (Very satisfactory)

ANNEX 8 TONGA PRESENTATION

35

ANNEX 9 SAMOA PRESENTATION

Investment Project 1 Enhancing the climate resilience of the West Coast Road (WCR) Overall Objective: Improve the climate resilience of the West Coast Road (WCR) and enhance Government of Samoa’s capacity to develop a more climate resilient road network, 23.5km (Saina to Faleolo Airport) 3

components: 1. Improving the Climate Resilience of the WCR 2. Vulnerability Assessment of Samoa’s Road Network 3. Project Management

Implementing Agency- Land Transport Authority (LTA) USD$14.8 million Implementation Timeframe- 2013-2018

Investment Project 2 Enhancing the climate resilience of Coastal Resources and communities (ECR) Overall Objective: Support coastal communities to become more resilient to climate variability and change.

3 components: 1. Implementation of priority adaptation measures to manage climate and

disaster related threats 2. Strengthened Climate Information Services 3. Institutional Strengthening for Climate and Disaster Resilience, Project

Coordination and Monitoring Implementing Agency- Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE)

USD$14.6million Implementation Timeframe 2014-2018

2017

Sect. 1 Gap 1 Sect. 2 Gap 2 Sect. 3 End 2 Length 6.8km 2.7km 2.3km 3.8km 1.7km km 2.8km

Malie Saina

36

WCR Progress

Component 1 Rehabilitation of affected sections of the WCR Design and Supervision services Design and Support for Bid Evaluation for WCR upgrade

Component 2 Vulnerability Assessment was carried out by SMEC–contract completed on 31 July 2016

Component 3 Mobilise PMU team- IPA

ECR Progress Component 1 Review of Community Integrated Management Plans (CIM Plans)

5 district subprojects are in progress. village level sub projects (8 completed, 15 in motion)

Component 2 Training of Communities by CSO on Climate Resilience and Disaster Risk 5 CSOs have signed contracts Strengthened data platforms Acquisition of LiDAR data for whole of Samoa completed and now available at request.

Component 3 PMS consultancy firm contracted- KVA Consult Implementation Support Specialist

Challenges

(WB Guideline vs.

lead to delay in Political changes in structure of districts.

Government) Lengthy contract

implementation of activities

formulation processes Project Appraisal Document

available locally, performing/delivering

regionally. rate for the project.

project technical assistance vacancies

Way forward

• Forward planning and adherence to procurement plan to reduce procurement delays. • Increased coordination/collaboration in programming and implementation • Implementing of activities in parallel to save time and increase efficiency • Continue strengthening mainstreaming/improving on coordination, collaboration, systems,

processes and planning including building capacity & expertise • Strengthening information sharing and awareness and information management systems to

reduce barriers in implementation (sharing lessons learnt)

Successes (link to the Regional Track) PPCR M&R System being utilized by the Regional SPCR to monitor their own D&M Framework :

i. Samoa M&R system able to quantify work of the regional SPCR ii. SPCR Regional Technical Support

Mechanism (RTSM) used examples of Samoa climate trust fund manuals as a model for the RTSM

Operations Manual iii. RTSM better able to monitor its performance utilizing Samoa’s M&R system iv. Samoa’s programmatic approach utilized as a model by the regional SPCR (e.g. development of sector plans with quantifiable indicators for regional pilot countries – Tuvalu & FSM)

Annex 10 PREP Presentation

37

PREP draws from

• regional strategies for DRM and CC including the Sendai Framework for Action, the Framework for Climate and Disaster Resilient Development in the Pacific, Pacific Islands Meteorological Strategy 2012–2021

• Regional initiatives PPCR, PCRAFI

Priorities aligned to

• National action plans for Disaster Risk Management (and Climate Change)

• Strategies for national development

• Climate Resilience Investment Programmes and Plans developed under

PPCR

PREP OBJECTIVES

1. Strengthen early warning and preparedness;

2. Create a framework for stronger and prioritised investments in resilience and retrofitting of key-public assets to meet international recognized resilience standards; and

3. Improve the post-disaster response capacity of the countries through

strengthened financial resilience to disaster events.

IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

Although both the approach and coordination of the PREP are regional, most of the implementation will take place at the national level via relevant implementing agencies, with support and coordination from the SPC and PIFS, respectively.

National Arrangements

• Each country is responsible for implementing its respective Project.

• Specific national coordination and implementation arrangements by country are described in Annex 8 of the Project Appraisal Document.

• The institutional framework for Samoa and Tonga, includes a National Steering Committee to provide national Project oversight and guidance

• Each of the national Projects will be implemented at the national level by designated implementing agencies

• Arrangements differ for each country

Program Description:

Nationally implemented Activities

Samoa, Tonga, + Vanuatu and RMI Regionally Implemented Activities

SPC, PIFS

Component 1: Strengthening early warning

and preparedness preparedness forecasting and preparedness

Component 2: Risk Reduction and Resilient Investments

investment planning and

preparation (including entry

level investments)

reduction and resilient investment

planning

Component 3: Disaster Risk

Financing financing

instruments

Fund

Component 4: Project and

Program Management.

Coordination

1. Strengthening Early Warning and Preparedness 1.1. Investments

in early warning and preparedness strengthen: (i) detection, forecasting and warning of the impact of natural hazards; (ii) dissemination of timely warnings to the population, including last mile communication; and (iii) emergency preparedness and response mechanisms

1.2. Regional tools to support impact forecasting and preparedness (i) develop operational hazard models for forecasting of impacts of extreme events including tropical cyclone, storm surge, flooding at sub-national level (ii) Strengthen preparedness and response capacity (iii) Support Post Disaster Needs Assessments

3. Strengthening Disaster Risk Financing 3.1 Disaster risk financing Instruments • Contingency Emergency Response Sub-Component • Premiums Financing • Capacity building for Disaster Risk Financing – Cat. Risk Insurance.

3.2 Develop a Mutual Insurance Fund • Regional Technical Assistance • Development of a Mutual Insurance Fund for natural disasters

Mutual Insurance Fund

Resilient Investments

38

How can the PREP best add value to the SPCR?

•PREP Component 2 • Use mainstreaming tools in design/implementation of the

NRIP • RTSM

• Using roster for consultant reference • Samoa:

• RTSM expert to support stock take • Tonga:

• JNAP 2 implementation arrangements

– closer linkages with MoF

ii) prepare feasibility studies for selected priority investments for Phase II or

ii) Test applications and decision support systems for resilient planning and

• •

•

• •

• • • Regional technical implementation

ANNEX 11_ ISSAC This image cannot currently be displayed.

Institutional Strengthening in PICs

to Adapt to Climate Change

(ISACC) Project

17 May 2017

SPREP Tagaloa Cooper, CC Adviser – ISACC Project, SPREP

Overview

Implementing agencies: SPC, SPREP and PIFS

8 PICs: Fiji, FSM, Kiribati, Palau, Tuvalu, Solomon

Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu

Focus Areas: CC Finance, Policy Development, Capacity

Building/Training, IKM, Partnerships

Implementing national partners: Climate Change and

Central Finance, Foreign Affairs & Planning

Agencies/Departments

Budget: USD 5million

Timeline: Sept 2015-Sept 2020 (5 years)

Alignment to SDS

ISACC Project KRAs Strategy for Development of Tuvalu 2016-2019/20

KRA 1: Integrated institutional frameworks and national capacity strengthened to support multisectoral approaches to climate change and disaster risk

Key outcome 14: Climate and Disaster Strategic Outcomes:

-Climate and disaster resilience policy, planning, governance, awareness and implementation activities

improved

-Climate and disaster resilience planning integrated into all GoS sector and sector plans

-Climate responsive development planning mainstreamed nationally

KRA 2: Access to new climate change finance enhanced through improved capacity, systems and tools.

-Climate and disaster resilience planning integrated into all GoS sector and sector plans (Climate and disaster investment beneficiaries and benefits)

KRA 3: Regional cooperation and coordination strengthened through augmented national capacity delivered through shared learning to support PICs address climate and disaster risks

-Climate responsive development planning mainstreamed

nationally and in all sectors

-Resilience of lives and livelihoods to climate variability and climate change improved (Compliance with climate and disaster resilience policies)

Alignment to Tuvalu’s Climate Change Policy

ISACC Project KRAs Tuvalu Climate Change Policy Objectives

KRA 1: Integrated institutional frameworks and national capacity strengthened to support multisectoral approaches to climate change and disaster risk

3. Build capacity on effective national responses to climate change

5. Implement adaptation

measures to protect Tuvalu from the

impacts of climate change

-Incorporate climate change policies and standards into national planning and environmental assessment

6. Establish a regulatory

framework to facilitate the national

responses to climate change

KRA 2: Access to new climate change finance enhanced through improved capacity, systems and tools.

3. Build capacity on effective national

responses to climate change

-Conduct capacity building initiatives through training workshops and seminars and community consultation -

Incorporate the funding of climate change programmes into the national budget

6. Establish a regulatory framework to facilitate the national responses to climate change

1

Project Goal and Key Result Areas

institutional frameworks and

and disaster risks.

capacity, systems and tools.

national capacity delivered through shared learning to support PICs

effectively plan, coordinate and

the Pacific Community

PICs to effectively plan, coordinate and respond to

40

Proposed Priorities for Implementation:

• Implement recommendations from the Climate Public Expenditure Institutional Review (CPEIR)

• Identify actions to support under Tuvalu CC Policy Review – strengthen to role and capacity of the NCCCT, strengthen proposal development capacity, develop innovative approaches to mobilise resources for adaptation programmes at national & local level e.g IVA tool)

• Identify actions to support under the Tuvalu’s Climate finance priorities / Committee for Resilient Development.

Alignment to Tuvalu’s Climate Change Policy

ISACC Project KRAs Tuvalu Climate Change Policy Objectives and Strategies

KRA 3: Regional cooperation and

coordination strengthened through

augmented national capacity

delivered through shared learning to

support PICs address

climate and disaster risks

1. Promote public awareness and improve stakeholder understanding of the causes and effects of climate change 2. Strengthen the management of climate change

information

-Collect and compile information databases for national planning and policy development

-Disseminate information using all means including websites -Use data as the basis for management plans and policy formulation to ensure informed decision-making

41

osition funded under the ISACC Project (3 years):

• Purpose: Support Tuvalu’s national Climate Change & Climate finance agenda through institutional strengthening.

• Responsibilities:

o Resource mobilisation & awareness raising for climate finance (readiness programme, implementation of the

CPEIR) o Support strengthening cross-sector partnerships between government, NGOs, CSOs and the private sector to effectively address CC and disaster management

(coordination guidelines for adaptation planning, strategic frameworks for prioritisation of sectors for CC financing)

• • •

• • •

reps per PIC planned for May or June 2017.

technical assistance consultant’s report · 2017. 10. 4. · pacc pacific adaptation to climate...

Documents