* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Ministry of Foreign Affairs MKL Grant Committee Meeting 25 October
Myron Ebell wikipedia , lookup
Soon and Baliunas controversy wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Michael E. Mann wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit email controversy wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
Heaven and Earth (book) wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
ExxonMobil climate change controversy wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment wikipedia , lookup
Paris Agreement wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Climate Change conference wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
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