Download Ministry of Foreign Affairs MKL Grant Committee Meeting 25 October

Ministry of Foreign Affairs MKL
F2 reference: 2015-51333
Grant Committee Meeting 25 October 2016
Agenda Item no.: 6.a.
1. Title:
Danish support to Least Developed Countries Fund
2. Partners:
GEF (LDCF)
3. Amount:
156 million DKK
4. Duration:
2016-19
5. Presentation to the Programme
Committee:
Climate Envelope presentation 17 March 2016
6. Previous Grants:
2001: 11,4 mio DKK; 2005: 80 mio DKK; 2010: 80 mio
DKK; 2013: 50 mio DKK
7. Strategies and policy priorities:
“Verden 2030”, draft development strategy, June 2016
8. Guidelines:
Guideline for country programmes, programmes and
projects
9. Danish National Budget
account code:
§ 06.34.01.70. Climate Envelope
10. Desk officer:
Merete Villum Pedersen
11. Reviewed by Financial
Officer:
Jan Hindhede Justsen
12. Head of Department:
Nathalia Feinberg
13. Summary:
The Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) was launched in context of the United Nations Framework
Conventions on Climate Change to address adaptation needs of Least Developed Countries, reflecting that
they are severely affected by climate change, and have lesser capacity to adapt. LDCF has supported the
development of National Adaptation Plans of Action, NAPAs, and continues to support the adaptation
planning processes and specific projects (identified in NAPAs), within agriculture, water, natural resources,
and health. With this new proposed Danish contribution, combined with other donor pledges, LDCF will be
able to support a next batch of 34 projects.
1
Background
The Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) was launched in 2001, at the United Nationals Framework
Convention for Climate Change, UNFCCC 7th Conference of the Parties, COP, in Marrakesh in 2001. LDCF was
designed to address urgent and immediate adaptation needs of Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and to help
LDCs prepare and implement National Adaptation Plans of Action, NAPAs, in the context of the launch UNFCCC
work programme on LDCs. The very same COP agreed on NAPA guidelines and led to the establishment of the
LDC expert group.
The adaptation challenge of LDCs still prevails. As Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts it in
one of its latest summary for policy makers: “The ability of human systems to adapt to and cope with climate
change depends on such factors as wealth, technology, education, information, skills, infrastructure, access to
resources, and management capabilities. There is potential for developed and developing countries to enhance
and/or acquire adaptive capabilities. Populations and communities are highly variable in their endowments with
these attributes, and the developing countries, particularly the least developed countries, are generally poorest in
this regard. As a result, they have lesser capacity to adapt and are more vulnerable to climate change damages,
just as they are more vulnerable to other stresses. This condition is most extreme among the poorest people.”
At COP 16 in Cancun in 2010, the LDCF was furthermore requested to support the preparation and initiation of
National Adaptation Plan processes focusing on a continued iterative integration and mainstreaming of
adaptation into the national development planning – taking climate action beyond the NAPAs which are
documents fixed in time. The LDCF is operated by the Global Environment Facility, GEF, and continues to be
guided by the COPs.
Denmark has supported LDCF since it was conceived. The first contribution was made in 2001, the latest in 2013.
Until now Denmark has contributed in total 221,4 mio DKK. Denmark has furthermore engaged actively in the
continued development of LDCF, for instance exemplified with the chairing and facilitation of the first joint
evaluation in 2009. The Danish contribution is in line with the political commitment made in the context of
UNFCCC, which amongst others relates to contributions to the finance mechanisms of the convention. The
Danish support to GEF is guided by an organizational strategy. The strategy mentions LDCF, but all Danish LDCF
contributions are approved individually.
The climate finance architecture is under development and adjustment these years. The Green Climate Fund,
GCF, was established by UNFCCC decision in 2009 (though not operational until 2015), adding to the climate
finance landscape, and thereby challenging the space of other funds. As the LDCF is mandated by the UNFCCC, it
can only be abolished by UNFCCC, and LDCF is mentioned in the Paris agreement itself, indicating that it is here
to stay. LDCF is by now well-established with more advanced systems and procedures in place, than can be
expected from GCF, and it can be argued to use LDCF for adaptation funding at least until GCF is more mature1.
1
Another/additional option generally mentioned is for LDCF to become a supplier/service provider to GCF, to utilize the
LDCF capacity to develop and implement a pipeline of adaptation projects. GEF has not sought GCF accreditation (due to
the legal status of GEF, as GEF is in essence under the trustee, World Bank), but cooperation between GEF and GCF takes
place. Many of the accredited institutions under LDCF are likewise accredited under GCF, and having LDCF as a project
provider/supplier to GCF, would imply adding an extra layer.
2
COP 21 in Paris 2015 asked GEF to conduct a technical review of the programme priorities of LDCF (in relation to
the UNFCCC mandate) – and this review is underway. Furthermore, at the next COP22, a review of the Financial
Mechanism of UNFCCC will commence, to be finalized by COP23. This concerns the broader financial landscape
in relation to the Paris Agreement. Several studies have been commissioned and/or are underway by the various
funds themselves e.g. Climate Investment Fund under World Bank and GEF arguing their niche in the landscape.
LDCF progress and achievements
LDCF has funded developments of NAPAs, and at this stage all LDCs apart from South Sudan have an approved
NAPA in place, thus the job is largely done. The NAPAs are the basis for the LDCF projects. A “project proposer”
e.g. a public authority, a civil society organization, or private sector institution develops a concept, together with
an accredited agency under GEF. Eighteen agencies are currently accredited under GEF including Asian
Development Bank, African Development Bank, FAO, Inter Amercan Development Bank, UNDP, UNEP, and
World Bank, as well as IUCN and WWF, and some national and regional entities. The proposer seeks
endorsement of the project from the GEF operational focal point in the country in question, in order to ensure
alignment with the national policies, including the NAPA. The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions,
INDCs, produced in the preparation of COP21 were conceived to capture mitigation. However, many of the most
vulnerable LDCs have included adaptation actions in their INDCs. NAPAs and NAP processes which express the
main national adaptation priorities constitute in many cases the basis of these INDCs. However, LDCF has no
formal mandate with regard to INDCs.
Almost all countries which have produced an approved NAPA have at least one LDCF project. Mali has the top
score with 7 projects and Cambodia with 6 projects, most countries have much fewer projects. Only Equatorial
Guinea still awaits its first LDCF project. A few countries have reached the previous ceiling of 30 mio USD, and
some were approaching the ceiling, which consequently has been raised to 40 mio USD in spring 2016. In total,
138 projects have been endorsed – this includes NAPA preparation projects; 67% of the financing goes to Africa
(by May 2016) and Asia and Pacific receives 30% of the finance. This largely reflects the geographical distribution
of the LDCs. SIDS receive 17% of the LDCF finance. The sectoral distribution of projects in the current portfolio is
presented in annex 2
In 2014 a new Results Based Management (RBM) system for GEF (and LDCF) was installed. It establishes the
indicators, which all (new) projects should report upon. This does not replace the detailed project monitoring
and progress reporting by the projects themselves, nor the independent evaluation office work. The projects
conceived before 2014 are asked to as far as possible abide to these indicators as well. Annex 3 provides an
overview of actual LDCF results so far: nearly 2 mio direct beneficiaries, 500.000 ha of land managed to
withstand climate change, 173 institutions supported with capacity building etc.
The overall project performance is likewise reported upon, where the range is divided into six categories: Highly
unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory, moderately unsatisfactory, moderately satisfactory, satisfactory, and highly
satisfactory. The large majority of projects scores satisfactory or levels above that.
3
Last year, UK conducted a review of various funds to identify the most effective channels for adaptation support,
and LDCF emerged as the best choice with regard to funding impact and value for money2. UK also noted that
LDCF has the strongest focus on the poorest out of all the adaptation funds. GEF’s independent evaluation office
recently finalized a program evaluation of LDCF and concluded a.o. LDCF supported activities has been highly
relevant to the UNFCCC COP guidance given, and to the countries’ development priorities.
Alignment with Danish policies
The LDCF continues to be well-aligned and relevant to the DK development policy context. The draft
development strategy highlights the Danish contribution to the SDGs. Goal no 13 refers directly to climate
change (combat Climate Change and its impacts) while many other goals e.g. on water, cities, biodiversity etc.
are related to adaptation. Climate change and pressure on natural resources is part of the fragility, conflict and
migration challenge, which feature prominently in the draft strategy. While the push factors of migration are
complex, the steady degradation of natural resources as well as extreme climate events are in many cases a
contributing factor both to conflicts (and thus fragility) and to migration. The concept of resilience understood
as “the ability of countries, governments, communities and households to manage change by maintaining or
transforming living standards in the face of shocks or stresses, while continuing to develop and without
compromising their long term” is relevant both for migration, fragility and climate change.
The LDCF is likewise well-aligned to the Climate Change Envelope guiding principles. The envelope aims a.o. at
increased climate resilience for vulnerable and marginalized groups. LDCF support furthermore delivers on all of
the Envelope (according the guiding principles of 2015) outcomes: 1) policies and planning frameworks for
climate in the form of NAPAs and NAP processes, 2) of new climate technologies, as it is likely that the LDCF
projects will test and make use of innovative adaptation technologies and of 3) the international climate
architecture, where LDCF is mandated by the UNFCCC, occupies a clear niche (delivering grants, being risk
taking, having LDC and adaptation focus). LDCF support will re-balance the climate envelope with its adaptation
focus. Moreover, the LDCF support to the NAPAs and NAP processes holds a potential for a transformed national
policy and planning environment. LDCF is working in all the LDCs, covering many more – also fragile and
vulnerable - countries than DK would be able to support in its bilateral adaptation assistance.
Future objectives and projections
The Theory of Change and strategic thinking of LDCF reaffirms the need to invest in adaptation to avert the most
dire consequences of climate change. LDCs and poor people are hit hardest by climate change, and need special
attention, as the above quote of IPCCC confirms. It is also clear that adaptation is done best when it is informed
by data on climate changes and adaptation barriers and opportunities, and part of a continued planning process
and priority setting, as exemplified by the NAPAs and NAP processes. Thus the goals of GEF adaptation strategy
and LDCF are to reduce the climate vulnerability of people and assets in LDCs, strengthen institutional and
technical capacities, and integrate climate change in policies and planning.
2
Other funds are for instance the Adaptation Fund (financed through Cleaner Development Mechanism levy) and the Pilot
Programme for Climate Resilience under World Banks Climate Investment Fund family.
4
The portfolio of technically cleared LDCF projects3, which this contribution will support, includes 34 priority
projects with funding requests amounting to $229.6 million as of June 30, 2016. The core sectors identified by
GEF and LDCF continue to receive support, but as an emerging issue, health aspects are given increasing
attention for instance by supporting surveillance and early-warning systems for climate-related health risks,
strengthen capacities, and enhance the resilience of healthcare facilities and infrastructure. The new LDCF
pipeline includes also some of the first national projects that would move beyond the implementation of
countries’ urgent adaptation needs – as identified in their NAPAs – towards integrating climate change into
medium- and long-term development plans and budgets in the context of the NAP process. The recent
independent LDCF evaluation already concluded that there is a clear intent to mainstream adaptation into
country policies as evidenced in the detailed plans of NAPAs. Finally, it should be noted that the portfolio
includes several projects in DK partner countries, incl. Uganda, Niger, Burkina Faso, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and
Ethiopia.
The sectoral distribution of newly cleared projects gives a quite even picture as can be seen from below diagram
Diagram showing the sectoral distribution of the LDCF newly cleared projects (to be financed by the new contribution)
Agriculture
12%
17%
Climate information services
17%
17%
Coastal-zone management
Disaster risk management
Health
13%
9%
15%
Natural resources
management
Water resources
management
The table below constitutes the result framework of the proposed support and outlines the expected targets in
line with the GEF/LDCF monitoring system, as well as in line with the climate envelope monitoring system, and
Aid Management Guidelines. The monitoring and reporting on this result will thus not require additional and
specific reports to Denmark. A more elaborated results framework with different funding scenarios can be found
in annex 4
3
Technically cleared projects, means projects which have gone through the preliminary processes of GEF/LDCF secretariat
clearance before the final council and/or CEO approval. Thus they are not finally approved yet.
5
CCE intervention
Objective
CCE Core Indicator(s)
Baseline
Year
LDCF
Reduce the vulnerability of people, livelihoods, physical assets and natural
systems to the adverse effects of climate change
Total expected number of people benefitting of the LDCF interventions
2016
2,000,0004
Target
2019
Year
Supporting Indicator
Baseline
Target
Target
Target
Year
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
20,000,0005
Ha of land protected/rehabilitated to withstand impacts of climate change
(expected)
2016
500,000
2017
2,440,0006
2018
2,650,000
2019
2,860,000
LDCF financial status and administrative budget
The Danish contribution of 156 mio DKK is part of a larger pledge of app. 250 mio USD made in Paris during COP
21, which also included Sweden, US, UK, France and others. The trust fund of LDCF does not follow the GEF
pledging cycle, but is receiving funding as and when donors are ready to contribute, and LDCF are then able to
translate the funding into projects on a recurrent basis. The recent evaluation concluded that the efficiency of
LDCF is negatively impacted by the unpredictability of resources, though there are no immediate plans to
change the current practice, despite the recommendation by the evaluation7. Below table provides a snapshot
of the financial status of LDCF before the pledges led to new contributions. As can be seen the current LDCF
contributions are already tied up in commitments, and LDCF requires a re-fill to enable new project activities –
which is what the joint pledge will deliver.
Table providing a financial status of the LDCF by January 2016 (before pledges materialized in contributions)
Total cumulative commitments from donors (USD)
1,186,761,742
Total paid contributions by donors (USD)
Total cumulative approvals (USD)
964,550,859
973,904,684
The most recent administrative budget of LDCF (mid 2016) is provided below
4
Actual results of LDCF portfolio by January 2016. Please note the RBM system was only introduced in 2014, for new
projects with some back-tracking, so the actual baseline of LDCF since establishment is likely to be much higher. Also note
that this figure does not reflect the aggregated baselines of individual projects to be supported by the Danish contribution.
5
This target is provided by LDCF, and is based upon past experience and reflects an assumption of a consistent trend.
Between May 2015 and May 2016, expected results of the LDCF portfolio changed from 10,030,000 expected beneficiaries
to 15,000,000 expected beneficiaries. Hence the one-year difference in expected results is 4,970,000 expected
beneficiaries.
6
This target is calculated in a similar way based upon past experience and reflects an assumption of a consistent trend
7
The management response simply states this is in the purview of the donors.
6
Management
In all matters LDCF follows the GEF governance set up. GEF is governed by an assembly, a council, and a
secretariat. The secretariat includes an independent evaluation office. The assembly meets every third year. The
council consists of 32 (16 members from developing countries, 14 members from developed countries and 2
members from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union representatives of
constituencies), sits for 3 years and meets at least twice a year. Denmark shares its seat with Norway. The
council gives operational guidance, whereas the assembly conducts a more overall review of GEF’s activities. The
council is unique in its open door policy towards civil society. The council approves projects, work plans and
budgets, appoints the CEO and acts as the focal point for the conventions. The LDCF council meets back to back
with the GEF council in the same format. The secretariat implements decisions in close cooperation with the
trustee, the World Bank. GEF has a Scientific Technical Advisory Panel, STAP, which gives evidence-based state
of the art advice on relevant issues. UNEP provides the secretariat for STAP. GEF (and LDCF) reports annually to
UNFCCC ahead of the COPs.
Financial management
LDCF is a trust fund, and World Bank acts as trustee, with KPMG as the independent auditor. World Bank has
established Financial Procedures Agreements with all the accredited agencies under GEF. The latest audit report
has no remarks, and an unqualified opinion on the financial statements. UK conducted a comprehensive due
7
diligence exercise in early 2014, which concluded that funding of the LDCF is at low risk. Approximately 10% of
the project funding goes to fees for the accredited (implementing) agencies.
Risks
LDCF operates with a four step risk rating system in the annual reports from projects, ranging from low,
medium, substantial, high. While the reporting is done by the accredited agencies (self-reporting), it is required
that “second opinions” within the agencies, not involved in the project implementation, is activated in the risk
reporting. The risk rating is linked to an alert system, which is activated in cases where the risks develop
negatively/worsen.
Contextual, programmatic and institutional risks of this Danish contribution depend on the specific context of
the countries and projects. Considering the fund targets LDCs, which are challenged on many fronts, they could
be: Unstable political situation, capacity constraints, change in political commitment, corruption, co-financing
not materializing, and conflicts over natural resources and benefits of projects. Despite a very thorough project
preparation process, there is a small likelihood that one or more of these risks will materialize in one or a few
projects, but the project portfolio as such is not under severe risk. If they materialize the risks will influence the
specific project implementation negatively in the form of delays and in worst case cancellation.
There has been good attention to any bottle necks and risks associated with the efficiency of the fund. The
average time for the project cycle from first application to endorsement of the final project has been far too
long in the past. A cancellation policy came about after pressure from donors. As the policy came into force in
2014, this year is likely to experience the first cancellations. The policy implies that projects get an early warning
before they are cancelled, and in case of extraordinary events or circumstances, such as natural catastrophes or
pandemics, an extension can be granted.
Only very few LDCF projects have been completed, and it is difficult to provide strong evidence on sustainability.
The recent evaluation concluded that LDCF support has resulted in catalytic effects in the form of new
technologies, co-benefits, changing analytical basis for other investments etc. However, it also concludes that
replication and upscaling requires further funding in most cases. There is attention to sustainability, but the
project cycle and reporting may in practice mainly look into whether the outputs and outcomes are produced,
less seriously into whether they are sustained beyond the life time of the project. One can argue sustainability
features at an overall level in LDCF, as LDCF supports integration of adaptation in policies, plans and systems,
and supports the iterative continued NAP process.
8
Annex 1: Template for summary of recommendations of the appraisal
Title of (Country) Programme
Least Developed Country Fund
File number/F2 reference
Appraisal report date
March 2016
Grant Committee meeting date
27/9
Summary of possible recommendations not followed
N/A
9
Overall conclusion of the appraisal
The LDCF was designed to address urgent and immediate adaptation needs of LDCs, and to
help LDCs prepare and implement National Adaptation Plans of Action, NAPAs, and lately to
support the preparation and initiation of National Adaptation Plan Processes. The
immediate challenge in LDCs still prevails. The LDCF is well-aligned and relevant to the DK
development policy as it appears at present. The process of preparing and approving LDCF
projects seems in principle entirely solid, and has worked well in the past many years, with
a few adjustments now and then. It seeks to enable a general transparency throughout the
process and involve the council on a needs-basis, focusing their inputs at the crucial early
design stage. In 2014 a new LDCF Results Based Management (RBM) system was installed.
So far the main focus seems to be on operationalization of data collection and
calculation/compilation, and less on the analytical work which the data enables e.g. what
types of projects are delivering best on the indicators and why. With regard to gender it is
acknowledged that GEF has progressed substantially on gender mainstreaming in terms of
policies, systems and procedures put in place to address gender. The GEF Environment and
Social safeguards include minimum standards regarding various issues, which involve an
initial screening, and follow up action incl. EIAs depending on the issue at stake. One aspect
to note is the standard regarding IPs, where the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) is
substituted with Consultation – thereby lowering the ambition compared to the UN
declaration, and compared to the new World Bank policies. In all matters, LDCF follows the
GEF governance set up. Compared to GCF the GEF governance seems more mature and
settled. The financial management is likewise deemed sufficient. However, the average time
for the project cycle from approval is more than 18 months. A cancellation policy came
about after pressure. Alignment is of importance in LDCF projects. However, the large
majority of the GEF focal points are from Ministry of Environment (MoE), and MoE in LDCs
are often less close to the central power of Ministry of Finance and Planning etc., and more
incentivized to seek project funding to boost their weight. Donor coordination within LDCF
functions well. Likewise the constituency/seat sharing arrangement with Norway is
constructive. Only very few LDCF projects have been completed, and it is difficult to provide
strong evidence on sustainability. The overall impression is that some attention is given to
sustainability, but the project cycle and reporting may in practice mainly look into whether
the outputs and outcomes are produced, less seriously into whether they are sustained
beyond the life time of the project.
Recommendations by the appraisal
team
Follow up by the Representation
1. Country programme Level:
1. Justification and rationale of the country programme, preparation process and strategic
linkages between country programme vis-à-vis the country policy document.
10
1.1 Recommendation 2: It is
recommended that Danida/MFA
conduct an assessment of the climate
finance landscape, possibly with a
specific focus on adaptation, and taking
advantage of the various studies
produced, and recommend a future
direction of DK climate (adaptation)
finance
1.1 Agreed.
1.2
1.2
2. Thematic Programme Level:
2. Consideration of relevant Danida strategies.
2.1 Recommendation 1: It is
recommended that Danida/MFA in its
engagement in the council seek to
advance private sector involvement/cofinancing and that possibilities for
engagement of DK competencies
through tendering and other means,
are looked carefully into.
2.1 Agreed, discussion on this topic has
been initiated with the LDCF
secretariat. There are ongoing efforts
to advance private sector engagement
within GEF, while recognizing the
challenges in an adaptation context in
LDCs. One of the avenues of
engagement of DK competences is
through co-financing, according to the
LDCF secretariat, and other donors
have successful examples of that.
2.2
2.2
3. Proposed thematic programme support design including rationale, effectiveness,
efficiency, impact and sustainability and partner choices.
11
3.1. Recommendation 5: It is
recommended that Danida/MFA
encourage the LDCF secretariat to look
into how sustainability can be an
integrated parameter of the projects
from the onset and throughout the
implementation, and as relevant draw
the attention to this issue in the
council.
3.1. Agreed, discussion on this topic has
been initiated with the LDCF secretariat
and raised in the council. The issue has
likewise been brought up with the
Norwegian co-seat
3.2.
3.2.
4. Adherence to the aid effectiveness agenda
4.1.
4.1.
4.2.
4.2.
5. Budget
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.2
6. Identified risks and risk management
6.1 Recommendation 4: It is
recommended that Danida/MFA
engage in an active dialogue with
LDCF/GEF and other donors with a view
to upgrade the Free Prior Informed
“Consultation” to “Consent”, in line
with the international language.
6.1 Agreed, discussion on this topic has
been initiated with the LDCF
secretariat. The secretariat is looking
into upgrading the requirements. The
issue has likewise been brought up with
the Norwegian co-seat
6.2
6.2
7. Follow-up to the recommendations of the Danida Programme Committee
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.2
8. Other recommendations
12
8.1.
8.1.
8.2
8.2
9. Engagement Level
9. Capacity of partners
9.1.
9.1.
9.2.
9.2.
10. Results Framework
10.1.
10.1.
10.2.
10.2.
11. Budget allocation
11.1.
11.1.
11.2
11.2.
12. Identified risks and risk management
12.1.
12.1.
12.2.
12.2.
13. Monitoring and reporting arrangements
13.1. Recommendation 3: It is
recommended that Danida/MFA
encourage more analytical global
reports to the council, which could
enable more strategic discussions and
decisions to optimize impact of the
LDCF.
13.1. Agreed, discussion on this topic
has been initiated with the LDCF
secretariat. The GEF RBM team which
produces the GEF score card and more
analytical material has not yet fully
embarked upon the LDCF portfolio. The
issue has likewise been brought up with
the Norwegian co-seat
14. Others
14.1.
14.1
13
14.2.
14.2.
I hereby confirm that the above-mentioned issues have been addressed properly as part of the
appraisal and that the appraisal team has provided the recommendations stated above.
Signed in ………………… on the ……..…………….…………………….….
Appraisal Team leader/KFU representative
I hereby confirm that the Danish Mission has undertaken the follow-up activities stated above. In
cases where recommendations have not been accepted, reasons for this are given either in the table
or in the notes enclosed.
Signed in……………….….on the…………….….………………………………..…
Ambassador/Head of Danish Mission
14
Annex 2: Sectoral distribution of current LDCF project portfolio
To be noted: The recent Independent LDCF evaluation concluded that LDCF significantly contribute to other
areas than climate change, when supporting within areas such as agriculture and water, providing co-benefits in
terms of biodiversity values etc.
15
Annex 3 Table showing actual portfolio results in line with 2014 indicators by January 2016 (capturing results
since RBM was introduced in 2014 + some backtracking).
Indicator
Cumulative value
(incl. projects
completed)
Value for
2015 active
portfolio
Number of
projects in
8
sample
Number of
countries
Total LDCF
amount to sample
(US$)
Objective 1: Reduce the vulnerability of people, livelihoods, physical assets and natural systems to the adverse effects of climate change
No. of direct beneficiaries
1,930,000
1,830,000
35
28
155,769,082
Ha of land better managed to
withstand the effects of climate change
503,000
451,000
28
25
117,578,292
33
204,869,294
31
172,849,495
Objective 2: Strengthen institutional and technical capacities for effective climate change adaptation
No. of projects that contribute towards
public awareness of climate change
impacts, vulnerability and adaptation
53
47
No. of risk and vulnerability
assessments, and other relevant
scientific and technical assessments
carried out and updated
158
150
No. of projects that expand access to
improved climate information services
36
30
23
127,657,435
No. of projects that expand access to
improved, climate-related earlywarning information
19
16
15
59,032,450
No. of people trained to identify,
prioritize, implement, monitor and/or
evaluate adaptation strategies and
measures
206,000
199,000
51
35
229,707,184
No. of regional, national and subnational institutions with strengthened
capacities to identify, prioritize,
implement, monitor and/or evaluate
adaptation strategies and measures
173
155
37
30
169,830,672
38
Objective 3: Integrate climate change adaptation into relevant policies, plans and associated processes
8
Any given indicator is only applicable to a limited sample of the projects contained in the LDCF portfolio – both pre-2014
RBM, and post 2014.
16
No. of regional, national and sectorwide policies, plans and processes
developed or strengthened to identify,
prioritize and integrate adaptation
strategies and measures
65
52
21
18
79,503,048
No. of sub-national plans and
processes developed or strengthened
to identify, prioritize and integrate
adaptation strategies and measures
534
406
19
15
70,718,871
All of the indicators which concerns no of persons require a gender disaggregation.
17
Annex 4: Expected results for LDCF projects approved or endorsed by the CEO as of January, 2016 (not
including the batch of 34 projects in the pipeline)
Indicator
Value
Number of
projects in
sample
Number of
countries
Total LDCF
amount (US$)
Objective 1: Reduce the vulnerability of people, livelihoods, physical assets and natural systems to the adverse effects of climate change
No. of direct beneficiaries
13,400,000
110
46
587,374,999
Ha. of land better managed to withstand the effects of climate
change
2,120,000
60
36
325,299,454
46
634,799,782
26
126,300,908
Objective 2: Strengthen institutional and technical capacities for effective climate change adaptation
No. of projects that contribute towards public awareness of climate
change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation
123
No. of risk and vulnerability assessments, and other relevant
scientific and technical assessments carried out and updated
89
No. of projects that expand access to improved climate information
services
66
38
341,642,817
No. of projects that expand access to improved, climate-related
early-warning information
47
35
239,507,638
No. of people trained to identify, prioritize, implement, monitor
and/or evaluate adaptation strategies and measures
615,000
86
42
479,563,891
No. of regional, national and sub-national institutions with
strengthened capacities to identify, prioritize, implement, monitor
and evaluate adaptation strategies and measures
296
65
41
327,634,269
26
Objective 3: Integrate climate change adaptation into relevant policies, plans and associated processes
No. of regional, national and sector-wide policies, plans and
processes developed and strengthened to identify, prioritize and
integrate adaptation strategies and measures
166
64
39
306,183,689
No. of sub-national plans and processes developed and strengthened
to identify, prioritize and integrate adaptation strategies and
measures
1,390
69
38
352,551,896
18