The November sub-committee meeting noted that the PPCR lacks sufficient resources to finance the projects pending approval, and urged donors to make further contributions. The concerns were reiterated in the April PPCR semi-annual report, which noted that by the end of 2015 PPCR funding requirements exceeded resources available to support PPCR programming by $17.6 million. Moreover, according to the report, while $1.5 million has been made available to the 10 new pilot countries approved in May 2015 to develop their Strategic Programs for Climate Resilience (SPCR, see CIFs Monitor 12), “the continued uncertainty regarding funding for SPCR implementation remains a concern”.
The report further noted that the majority of funding goes to public sector clients, with 12 per cent going to private sector operations. Moreover, the largest co-financing partner for PPCR projects and programmes are the MDBs (62.5 per cent), which the paper concluded “is consistent with the CIF’s mandate to build on existing or planned MDB operations and to use CIF resources to further enhance these operations”. It further noted that capacity building and technical assistance, as well as projects focusing on the enabling environment and building climate information systems, generally generate low levels of leveraged funds, while coastal zone management and infrastructure operations generate higher levels “as more partners are able to collaborate and contribute to the investments.”
The May joint committee paper, Strategic directions for the Climate Investment Funds, noted lessons learned from the PPCR, including on establishing or strengthening coordination across multiple sectors with high level leadership, and the importance of stakeholder engagement to build ownership and support. It also noted that the expectation of linked and leveraged funds at scale was pivotal for country buy-in. However, it concluded that the private sector set-aside “faced many challenges due to structural mismatches with MDB private sector operations”, but that some of these had been addressed in a May 2015 adjustment to the operational framework (see CIFs Monitor 12).
Should sufficient new funds be provided for the PPCR, the paper suggested that it should be extended to some or all of the 10 new PPCR countries that were selected in the May 2015 meeting, for SPCR implementation. It further proposed that a new PPCR private sector window could be launched, consistent with the May 2015 adjustments, which “increases the flexibility of private sector operations under the PPCR and improves the MDBs’ ability to quickly respond to market demands for innovative climate resilience projects.” Moreover, it highlighted “the opportunity to provide support for global adaptation challenges through strategic thematic programmes”, providing “a critical ‘push’ for specific sectors, technologies or thematic areas through collective MDB action and scale.” Through dialogue with the MDBs, health has been identified as such an area, arguing that “concessional resources are needed in order to design and test pivotal approaches to mitigate and build resilience to the health impacts of climate change.”
Concerns were raised in April over the lack of community consultation related to the Samoa IBRD project Enhancing climate resilience for West Coast road project, despite that questions on consultations were raised already at the project approval stage in 2012 (see CIFs Monitor 7). A second Samoa PPCR project, Enhancing the climate resilience of coastal resources and communities, was approved in 2013 with concerns raised over resettlement impacts (see CIFs Monitor 8). In communication with a Samoa government PPCR representative, indigenous peoples observer Fiu Mataese Elisara of NGO OLSSI reported that seven coastal village communities has informed him that the road building is already ongoing, despite a lack of formal consultation. Elisara raised concern, commenting “the impacts that will likely occur will be immense.”
In a May response to the concerns raised, a Samoa government representative refuted a link between the information provided and the project, arguing that the PPCR project has not yet started, as the design is being finalised. The representative confirmed that elements of the project will require gaining access to properties adjacent to the road and alleged that consultations with relevant land owners have commenced. Moreover, the representative clarified that the majority of access will be underground, hence compensation for land acquisition is not anticipated. The representative further explained that as per the World Bank safeguards policy on involuntary resettlement, a land acquisition resettlement framework has been set up, but that it can’t be used until the road design has been submitted to the government and the World Bank.
In response Elisara sought clarification about the contradictory information received from the government and the communities, and requested further details about the consultations. He further noted the difficulty in monitoring the situation since, despite being based in Samoa, he does not receive invitations to discussions about Samoa’s PPCR: “Not having been part of ongoing meetings and activities has not helped me follow the work in Samoa. I am only shared information when I ask and am disappointed that I am not personally invited in my observer capacity to the PPCR activities nor copied documents or correspondence that are generated in the PPCR activities’ implementation.”
|Project name||Amount and date approved||MDB services||Key project documents|
|Climate proofing of agriculture in the Centre-Artibonite loop||$4.5 million (grant)
20 October 2015
(final tranche of $500,000)
The project’s objective is to “reduce rural economic losses through the improvement of climate risk management in selected watersheds. The specific objectives are to: (i) increase capacities for adaptation to climate change and disaster risk management (DRM) in the agriculture sector; (ii) improve water and sediment conservation in selected gullies of priority watersheds; (iii) reduce the risk of rural economic losses due to floods in targeted watersheds; and (iv) restore the educational capacity of the Faculty of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine (FAMV) campus … the project includes co-financing from the CIF through the PPCR window, which will be channelled through the IDB Strategic Climate Fund (SCX) Grant, for activities related to the adaption of agriculture to [climate change] in the Boucle Centre-Artibonite.”
Key donor questions and concerns prior to approval
The UK asked how the project will “ensure that farmers will be able to afford and put into practice improved techniques? What other constraints are there (aside from lack of knowledge) that have so far prevented the use of improved farming techniques?” The US questioned the lack of detail on the proposed riverbank protection infrastructure and its location, and how the IDB without these details “reached the conclusion that negative impacts are considered to be minor to moderate, and that it is unlikely that the project will require resettlement.”
The IDB did not address affordability per se, but clarified that the research component of the programme “will feed into another IDB agriculture incentive programme currently in execution by informing the currently supported menu of crops and techniques, incorporating climate resilient crops, varieties and techniques”. On the riverbank protection infrastructure, the IDB pointed to additional information available on similar projects, and also clarified that this element is not funded by PPCR resources, and falls under the IDB’s environmental and social policy.
Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) explained
The PPCR aspires to demonstrate how climate risk and resilience can be integrated into core development planning and implementation. PPCR funding is disbursed in two phases to support two types of investment: first, technical assistance to allow developing countries to integrate climate resilience into national and sectoral development plans, resulting in a Strategic Program for Climate Resilience (SPCR); and second, funding for the implementation of this programme.
PPCR is piloted in 19 countries and two regions. In 2009, nine countries (Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Tajikistan, Yemen and Zambia) and two regional groupings (six Caribbean island countries and three Pacific island countries) were invited to participate in the PPCR. All SPCRs of the original pilot countries have been endorsed. In addition, of the regional groupings Papua New Guinea’s SPCR was endorsed in November 2012 and Haiti’s in May 2013. In May 2015, ten new pilot countries were invited to join phase II of the PPCR: Bhutan, Ethiopia, Gambia, Honduras, Kyrgyz Republic, Madagascar, Malawi, Philippines, Rwanda and Uganda.
As of end December 2015, $1.2 billion had been pledged to the PPCR. A total of $1.1 billion had been allocated for 74 projects and programmes, including $65.3 million for 11 private sector set-aside projects. Out of the allocated funds $964 million had been approved for 57 projects.
Donors: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Norway, Spain, UK, US