landell mills assessment scoping mission for dfid b feb2015 final
TRANSCRIPT
Assessment and Scoping
Mission for DFID
Bangladesh’s Adaptive
Disaster Preparedness
and Early Recovery Fund
February 2015
2
This report has been produced by Landell Mills Development Consultants for Evidence on Demand with the assistance of the UK Department for International Development (DFID) contracted through the Climate, Environment, Infrastructure and Livelihoods Professional Evidence and Applied Knowledge Services (CEIL PEAKS) programme, jointly managed by DAI (which incorporates HTSPE Limited) and IMC Worldwide Limited. The views expressed in the report are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily represent DFID’s own views or policies, or those of Evidence on Demand. Comments and discussion on items related to content and opinion should be addressed to the author, via [email protected] Your feedback helps us ensure the quality and usefulness of all knowledge products. Please email [email protected] and let us know whether or not you have found this material useful; in what ways it has helped build your knowledge base and informed your work; or how it could be improved.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.12774/eod_cr.february2015.landellmills
First published February 2015 © CROWN COPYRIGHT
i
Contents SECTION 1 ............................................................................................. 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
SECTION 2 ............................................................................................. 3
Overview of climate finance in Bangladesh ................................................................ 3
2.1 Strategic framework .............................................................................. 3
2.2 Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund ...................................... 4
2.3 The Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund ....................................... 4
2.4 Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme ............................. 4
2.5 Green Climate Fund.............................................................................. 5
2.6 Global Environment Fund ..................................................................... 5
2.7 Overview of UK International Climate Fund .......................................... 5
SECTION 3 ............................................................................................. 7
Project implementation options .................................................................................. 7
3.1 Overview of options considered ............................................................ 7
3.2 Summary of each option ....................................................................... 7
3.3 Governance structure ........................................................................... 8
3.4 Partnership model ................................................................................. 9
3.5 Indicative costs ................................................................................... 10
3.6 Evidence base .................................................................................... 11
3.7 Risk assessment and risk management strategies ............................. 11
SECTION 4 ........................................................................................... 13
Stakeholder reactions to options .............................................................................. 13
4.1 Government of Bangladesh ................................................................ 13
4.2 Donor agencies and projects .............................................................. 14
4.3 Non Government Organisations and academic institutions ................ 16
4.4 Private sector ...................................................................................... 17
4.5 UNDP’s position .................................................................................. 17
SECTION 5 ........................................................................................... 19
Proposed approach .................................................................................................. 19
5.1 Selection criteria ................................................................................. 19
5.2 Assessment of viable options ............................................................. 19
5.3 Recommended approach .................................................................... 20
5.4 Strategic value of proposed approach ................................................ 21
ii
5.5 Assessment of the capabilities required of the delivery partner .......... 22
5.6 Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the preferred option ... 22
SECTION 6 ........................................................................................... 25
ICF principles and DFID Bangladesh strategy ......................................................... 25
6.1 Consistency with the principles of ICF ................................................ 25
6.2 DFID Bangladesh strategy .................................................................. 25
SECTION 7 ........................................................................................... 26
Design phase terms of reference and timelines ....................................................... 26
7.1 Procurement approach ....................................................................... 26
7.2 Option 1: Terms of reference .............................................................. 26
7.3 Option 1: Timelines ............................................................................. 28
7.4 Option 2: Terms of reference .............................................................. 28
7.5 Option 2: Timelines ............................................................................. 29
List of Figures Figure 1 Overview of fund governance structure ................................................................... 8 List of Annexes Annex 1 Terms of Reference .............................................................................................. 30 Annex 2 Interview guidelines ............................................................................................... 34 Annex 3 Interview questionnaire ......................................................................................... 37 Annex 4 Summary of challenge funds ................................................................................. 40 Annex 5 List of Stakeholders Met ........................................................................................ 44 Annex 6 Scoping Mission Work Plan ................................................................................... 46
1
1
SECTION 1 Introduction
This draft report is the initial output of an assignment commissioned by DFID-Bangladesh to investigate viable options to manage funding from the International Climate Fund (ICF) to promote climate sensitive/adaptive approaches to risk reduction and post disaster recovery activities. Although Bangladesh has made considerable progress in terms of developing a cross-government policy framework1 for climate change and disaster management, much work remains to be done to develop national and sub-national government capacity for the effective and systematic implementation of climate change and disaster management measures. It is also recognised that future DFID climate change programme activities would benefit from the inclusion of a wider range of implementation partners.2 Focussing on disaster management and adaptive early response, building on the achievements and the experience of the two phases of the Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme (CDMP I and II), DFID’s objectives for a follow on project were to:
Widen the range of stakeholders engaged as implementation partners in DFID Bangladesh’s disaster management programming; and
Stimulate productive innovation in response to the anticipated increasing severity and frequency of slow and rapid onset disasters.
To achieve these objectives, DFID wished to assess a range of implementation options for a future disaster management project. In particular, this scoping mission was required to look at the feasibility of and appetite for a challenge fund, alongside other viable options. The rationale for the challenge fund approach as a starting point was DFID’s desire to ensure transparency in the allocation of funds and to retain the flexibility necessary to support a diverse range of responses. DFID Bangladesh envisaged a challenge fund that could be accessed by Government, national and international non-government organisations, academic institutions and the private sector. During the course of the scoping mission, the challenge fund option evolved into the eventual recommendation of a hybrid fund – combining a challenge fund and a managed fund approach. The scoping mission team met with more than 50 individuals representing over 30 organisations during a two-week period in January 2015. While there was some broad consistency of reaction within different stakeholder groups, DFID’s objectives and the implementation options that were discussed produced a wide variety of responses across the groups. The recommended approach described in this report seeks to reflect both an
1 The fifth Five Year Plan did not make any significant mention of climate change or disaster management
as a policy area, the sixth plan (2011-15) included a chapter on climate change and disaster management, while the forthcoming seventh plan (2016-20) is expected to see climate change and disaster management mainstreamed across all relevant policy areas.
2 http://icai.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ICAI-Report-DFID-Climate-Change-
Programme-in-Bangladesh-FINAL.pdf
2
assessment of options against criteria related to DFID’s stated objectives as well as the points of view expressed. In accordance with our terms of reference, this report is structured as follows:
Section 2 provides an overview of the climate finance in Bangladesh;
Section 3 describes the project implementation options that were considered by the scoping mission team;
Section 4 provides an overview of stakeholder reactions to the options under consideration;
Section 5 describes the proposed option in some detail and summarises the strategic case for the recommended project implementation option;
Section 6 covers linkage with ICF principles and outcomes; and
Section 7 sets out a draft terms of reference for the detailed design of the recommended implementation option.
3
SECTION 2 Overview of climate finance in Bangladesh
A number of bilateral and multilateral donors are currently actively contributing to the financing of climate-related initiatives in Bangladesh alongside the government, including Australia, Denmark, European Union, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, United States of America, and the World Bank. Bangladesh has also availed of financing from pooled fund such as the Green Climate Fund, Global Environment Fund, and the UK’s International Climate Fund. We discussed some of the on-going climate change specific programmes in Bangladesh in what follows. It is important to note that, whilst a relatively large number of donors are involved, the climate finance architecture in Bangladesh is not particularly crowded in terms of the number of activities supported. Donors’ activities are thus far well coordinated thereby avoiding proliferation of copious projects and programmes which can impose serious strain on the government systems.
2.1 Strategic framework
The Bangladesh Climate Change and Action Plan (BCCSAP) was developed by the Government of Bangladesh (GoB) in order to develop a pro poor climate change development strategy that prioritised adaption and disaster risk reduction, low carbon development, mitigation and the international provision of adequate finance. The BCCSAP is structured as six pillars: 1. Food security, social protection & health: Under this principle the poor and most
vulnerable members of society including women and children should be looked after and have access to safe housing, food security, employment and access to basic services.
3
2. Comprehensive disaster management: This principle seeks to strengthen the country’s already proven disaster management systems
4
3. Infrastructure: Ensure that existing infrastructure is maintained and that urgently needed infrastructure is put in place.
4. Research & knowledge management: Ensure that Bangladesh is up to date on global climate change practises and thinking. Estimate the timing and scale of climate change impacts on the different sectors of the economy to inform planning of future strategies.
5. Mitigating low carbon development: to develop low carbon mechanisms and to implement this mechanism as the country grows.
6. Capacity building & institution strengthening: Strengthening the capacity of government agencies, civil society and the private sector to meet the challenges of climate change.
3 Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy & Action Plan (BCCSAP),2009, pg xvvii
4 Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy & Action Plan (BCCSAP),2009, pg xvvii
4
2.2 Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund
Managed by Ministry of Environment & Forests/World Bank
Period 2011-17
Total budget £105 million
The Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund (BCCRF) is a financing mechanism which was set up in 2011 to address the impacts of climate change. It is coordinated by the GoB, the World Bank, and development partners and receives funding from in the EU, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, Australia, and the US.5 The BBCRF aims to protect and improve the lives of 10 million climate-vulnerable people in Bangladesh by 2017 through climate change adaptation, mitigation and disaster risk reduction measures and support GoB to implement the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP).6
2.3 The Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund
Managed by Ministry of Environment & Forests
Period 2009-15
Total budget £24.5 million
The Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund (BCCTF) was established by the GoB to tackle the adverse effects of climate change. The BBCTF supports the implementation of BCCSAP. It is resourced entirely from the Government’s own budget 7 and is managed by an independent panel of trustees chaired by the Minister of the Environment and Forests.8 The BCCTF has come under criticism from campaign groups which have claimed that the selection of BCCTF projects is subject to excessive political influence.9 Whilst the BCCRF and BCCTF have differing governance and management arrangements, both are intended to support the implementation of the BCCSAP.10
2.4 Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme
Managed by Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief/UNDP
Period 2004-09 (phase I) and 2010-15 (phase II)
Total budget £18 million (phase I) and £46 million
The Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme (CDMP) is collaboration between the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief, GoB, and the UNDP. CDMP was divided into two phases.
5 Department for International Development Climate Change Policy in Bangladesh, Independent
Commission for Aid Impact, Report 3,Novermber 2011, pg 5 6 Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) website, Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund
(BCCRF) 7 The Bangladesh National Climate Funds: A brief history and description of the Bangladesh Climate
Change Trust Fund and the Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience fund, pg 3 8 Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund, pamphlet Ministry of Environment & Forests Climate Change
Unit, pg 4 9 For example: http://www.ti-bangladesh.org/beta3/index.php/en/activities/4449-robust-and-early-
capitalisation-of-gcf-governance-in-climate-finance-are-must-pm-echoes-with-tib-s-stance 10
The Bangladesh National Climate Funds: A brief history and description of the Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund and the Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience fund, pg 3
5
Phase I: Phase I laid the foundations for long-term disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation within seven targeted districts. It created policy and planning systems and increased capacities to enhance the leadership and core business functions of several key entities including the Ministry of Food and Disaster Management, the Department of the Environment, the Fire Service and Civil Defence, the Geological Survey Department, the Meteorological Service, and the Department of Agricultural Extension. Phase II: Built upon and expanded Phase I achievements by ensuring that the institutionalisation of risk reduction and climate change adaptation occurs across all levels of government11 The ultimate goal of the CDMP is to reduce the nation’s vulnerability to natural hazards by integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation strategies into the development policy and planning of central, regional and local government agencies.
2.5 Green Climate Fund
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) was set up to contribute to the global effort to combat climate change. In particular to contribute to the achievement of the United Nations Framework Conventions on Climate Change (UNFCC). The GoB has begun preparations to ensure that Bangladesh will get direct access to the GCF. Recipient countries that wish to receive funding can designate a national designated authority (NDAs). NDAs will recommend proposals in the context of national climate strategies. The GCF has received 87 notifications of NDAs, one of them being from Bangladesh.12 GIZ, UNDP, and the GCF are providing technical support to the Bangladesh NDA to enhance direct accessibility to GCF. The Senior Secretary of Economic Relations Division of Ministry of Finance of Bangladesh organised a two-day workshop entitled “NIE Accreditation Process: Getting Bangladesh Ready for the Green Climate Fund” in Dhaka in January 2015.
2.6 Global Environment Fund
The Global Environment Fund (GEF) was established in 1991 and acts as a mechanism for civil society, international institutions, and 183 countries to work together and address global environmental issues. Since 1991, the GEF has provided US$13.5 billion (£8.85 billion) in grants and leveraged US$65 billion (£42.6 billion) in co-financing for 3,900 projects in more than 165 developing countries.13 Current projects being funded by GEF in Bangladesh include the ‘Bangladesh Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan’, the’ National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global Environment Management’, and the ‘Community Based Adaption to Climate Change through Coastal Afforestation’.14
2.7 Overview of UK International Climate Fund
The British Government is providing £2.9 billion of climate finance through the International Climate Fund. (ICF). The purpose of this funding is to help developing countries achieve low carbon climate resilient development that supports growth and reduces poverty.15 In
11
Kirsten Luxbacher, Inside Stories on Climate Compatible Development, December 2011, Climate & Development Knowledge Network
12 Green Climate Fund website, Designations
13 Global Environment Facility (GEF) website, what is GEF
14 Global Environment Facility (GEF) website, Bangladesh projects
15 UK International Climate Fund, tackling climate change, reducing poverty.
6
particular, it supports poor and vulnerable people in developing countries to respond effectively to current and future climate change impacts. Funding is provided by DFID, Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, and Department of Energy and Climate Change. Priority areas for ICF funding include:
Demonstrating that building low carbon, climate resilient growth at scale is feasible and desirable;
Supporting the negotiations, particularly through providing support for adaptation in poor countries and building an effective international architecture;
Recognising that climate change offers real opportunities to drive innovation and new ideas for action; and
Create new partnerships with the private sector to support low carbon climate resilient growth.
7
SECTION 3 Project implementation options
3.1 Overview of options considered
The selection of the options considered by the scoping mission was driven by DFID’s objectives for the future disaster management and adaptive early response project:
To widen the range of stakeholders engaged as implementation partners in DFID Bangladesh’s disaster management programming; and
To stimulate productive innovation in response to the anticipated increasing severity and frequency of slow and rapid onset disasters.
Under the first objective, DFID sees particular potential value in increasing the use of national and international NGOs and the private sector as future implementing partners. For the second objective, DFID wants to encourage innovative multi-institutional and multi-sectorial partnerships between such organisations. At the same time, as highlighted in the mission terms of reference (ToR), DFID is aware of the administrative burden that arises from managing multiple partners and multiple interventions, and so envisages the use of a specialist implementing agency to manage the fund on its behalf. After early discussions with DFID Bangladesh, and based on the scoping mission ToR and feedback from stakeholders, the options considered during the scoping mission were:
Challenge fund;
Managed fund working through a series of sub-projects; and
Hybrid challenge/managed fund.
3.2 Summary of each option
The challenge fund concept is that rather than directly designing and implementing detailed solutions to a given problem, the problem is posed in the form of a challenge to eligible organisations, who are invited to propose their own solutions. Funds are allocated to projects on a competitive basis; those proposals that offer the best value (measured by the cost of contribution to the programme log frame targets) to the funding agency receive support, typically as a grant, although some challenge funds also make awards in the form of equity or debt financing. Challenge funds typically supplement the financial transfer with a greater or lesser degree of technical assistance. As with the challenge fund, the option of a managed fund operating through sub-projects is well tried and tested. The concept is very straightforward: an implementing agent would be appointed to identify intervention opportunities according to the fund’s strategic priorities, allocate budgets and appoint implementing partners to deliver those interventions as a coherent strategic portfolio. The implementing agent would be responsible to the GoB and DFID, who would approve and monitor the results of individual interventions. A hybrid fund simply combines both approaches, allowing for the allocation of a proportion of the total funds through a competitive challenge fund, and the remainder through managed
8
sub-projects. The challenge would be open to any eligible non-government or private sector organisation, while the managed fund would be primarily aimed at supporting government projects.
3.3 Governance structure
There are four main roles in the implementation of a fund which vary in detail according to which implementation option is selected:
Programme strategic direction: The GoB and the donor agencies determine the strategic objectives of the fund, provide the funds that are disbursed by the challenge fund, cover the costs of fund management and maintain oversight of the programme implementation;
Operational management: A specialist implementing agency is responsible for managing the fund cycle from application or design to the selection of the implementing partner, to oversight of implementation and to reporting results;
Project preparation and implementation: Under a challenge fund, eligible organisations respond to calls for proposals by designing and implementing self-designed projects that meet the fund award criteria, under a managed fund applicants submit proposals to implement projects in response to pre-defined terms of reference; and
Results measurement and reporting: Emerging best practice is for an independent monitoring and evaluation service provider reporting directly to the donor agencies/GoB is responsible for independent validation of results reported by fund recipients and eventually for the evaluation of the fund’s results.
Fund governance structures would vary in detail according to the nature of the fund and depending on the preferences of the various stakeholders involved, but there are common features to any fund governance structure reflecting the roles summarised above.
Figure 1 Overview of fund governance structure
The key stakeholders from the donor group and the GoB are represented on a fund Management Board. The Board is responsible for setting the overall strategy of the fund, taking the final decision on the selection of interventions for funding. The Board also oversees the work of the Fund Manager, approving the design of sub-project ToRs or the competitive selection of proposals, and monitoring the implementation of funded projects.
Finally, the Board is responsible for reviewing intervention results (as verified by the Independent M&E Services Provider).
9
The Fund Manager manages the marketing of the fund. For competitive proposals, the Fund Manager supports applicants and undertakes the initial assessment of proposals. For sub-projects, the Fund Manager is responsible for developing terms of reference. Subject to the Board’s approval, the Fund Manager signs funding agreements/sub-contracts. The Fund Manager is then responsible for overseeing implementation, verifying milestone payment claims and disbursing funds. A Technical Advisory Group (TAG), comprising individuals with relevant technical experience and expertise provides the detailed thematic and/or geographical expertise necessary to develop and select high quality proposals. The TAG ensures the quality of funded proposals, whilst it will only assess proposals that have already been shortlisted by the Fund Manager, no proposal can be put forward for consideration by the Management Board without endorsement from the TAG. The Independent M&E Services Provider (IMESP) is contracted separately and reports to the Management Board. The IMESP is responsible for verifying disbursement claims as well as the results reported by awardees to the Fund Manager.
3.4 Partnership model
The proposed hybrid fund would allow for a more flexible partnership model than either a managed or a challenge fund alone. This flexibility is necessary if DFID is to achieve its objective of widening the range of stakeholders engaged in disaster preparedness and adaptive early recovery. It was clear from stakeholder consultations that there is significant mutual suspicion between government on one hand, and non-government organisations and the private sector on the other. In addition
to this suspicion, the government sees little value addition in the engagement of NGOs (beyond immediate disaster relief) and the private sector. The suggestion that government agencies should compete with other organisations for funds was rejected in no uncertain terms by the government stakeholders included in the consultation. However, we do think that it would be feasible to invite national and sub-national government agencies to bid for funds from a “pot” specifically allocated for government activities and projects. With the above feedback in mind, we are recommending that the managed fund is used to support a portfolio of government activities and projects, whilst the challenge fund is open to proposals by eligible national and international NGOs private sector organisations and academic institutions/research organisations. Government activities and projects could be funded on an output basis, whilst the challenge fund could adopt a contributory funding model with an element of payment by results.
10
3.5 Indicative costs
For the purposes of the cost estimates in this and the other options that we have considered, we have worked on the assumption that the fund programme would have a total budget of £10 million, that it would fund a portfolio of 20-30 projects, and would operate for a five year period. The principal cost categories within this budget would be:
Funds for disbursement
Fund Management fees and expenses
Technical Advisory Group
Independent M&E service provider Clearly, the funds for disbursement would be the balance of the overall budget that remains after the other costs have been covered. It is difficult to predict with any certainty exactly what the costs of each of the other cost categories would be in the absence of more detailed discussion on the scope of work under each heading. However, to give an indication, the factors affecting each cost category are discussed below: Fund Management fees and expenses: There is significant up-front investment with a fund of the type proposed. First, the fund structures and processes have to be finalised (envisaged to happen during the design phase). For the managed fund sub-projects will need to be developed to the point at which they are fundable. At the same time, the challenge fund will have to be marketed to potential applicants, knowledge sharing activities undertaken and case studies published, concept notes assessed and full proposals developed. Our assessment of the potential NGO and private sector applicants was that they typically have a narrow view of their role in disaster preparedness and recovery, and that they will require support if they are to look beyond these self-imposed limitations and develop fundable projects accordingly. For both the managed and the challenge fund components, the fund manager will be required to work with applicants and then monitor the implementation of projects and disburse funds, reporting to the Management Board. The costs associated with monitoring and disbursement will vary according to the number and complexity of funded projects, the frequency of disbursement triggers and the capacity of fund recipients to meet reporting requirements. There is therefore a trade-off between fund management costs (larger portfolio means higher costs) and the size and risk profile of the project portfolio (smaller portfolio means increased risk from individual project failure). Based on experience of managing a fund of a similar size, we estimate that fund management costs would be in the region of £1.5 million over the lifetime of the fund. Technical Advisory Group: The TAG’s inputs are also largely up-front – during the development and selection of the projects. The TAG can play a significant role in encouraging innovative approaches and at the same time, reducing the risk of project failure by ensuring that project design takes account of relevant international experience. The TAG would also provide inputs on an as-needed basis during implementation of funded projects, safeguarding DFID Bangladesh’s interests by advising organisations that find that their projects are struggling. There is a balance to be struck between effective design support and excessive planning during the design of projects – it is also important that ownership of projects remains with the implementers. The TAG inputs should therefore be limited and focussed where they will be most effective in order to maximise value addition and should be viewed as a project development and implementation cost, rather than an administrative cost. Assuming a typical input of 10 days per project during full proposal design and project selection, and an average of 10 days during implementation, we estimate TAG costs of approximately £500,000, although this amount may increase if more projects are shortlisted or funded projects turn out to be particularly complex.
11
Independent M&E Service Provider: The IMESP inputs would be later in the lifetime of the fund when the awards have already been made. Early activities would cover providing technical assistance in setting up the M&E and reporting system both of the Fund Manager and the grantees to ensure that the relevant, required indicators and a methodology for reporting and assessing them will be incorporated. Additionally, it would also cover both verification of the fund manager’s monitoring reports/disbursement of funds and evaluation of the results from funded projects. The cost of the IMESP would depend on the scope of M&E activities required by DFID Bangladesh, but based on the same portfolio assumptions, it is reasonable to estimate that they could amount to approximately £500,000 over the lifetime of the project.
3.6 Evidence base
The challenge fund model is well tried and tested across a wide range of applications (civil society, academic research, private sector investment). The questions over the challenge fund model are whether DFID can be confident that it could be applied successfully to the objective of achieving wider participation in a climate change programme in Bangladesh. When considering this option, we have looked at a number of examples of challenge funds that are either targeted NGO/private sector engagement and/or have climate change related objectives:
Scale and Innovation Fund components of DFID Bangladesh Economic Empowerment of the Poorest (EEP) programme;
Competitive contributory grant scheme of the Responsible and Accountable Garments (RAGS) programme;
Innovative Health Challenge Fund component of the Health Sector Development Programme in Bangladesh;
REACT window of the multi-donor African Enterprise Challenge Fund (AECF); and
The Afghanistan Business Innovation Fund (ABIF) component of the Supporting Employment and Economic Development (SEED) programme.
Further information about these challenge funds is included in Annex 4.
3.7 Risk assessment and risk management strategies
In any development project there will always be a risk of individual project failure, such risks are mitigated through the strategic direction and operational management of the fund. The work done at the detailed design stage will address such risks. The risk assessment at this stage focuses on systemic risks that would negatively impact the selection or implementation of the project portfolio as a whole and therefore jeopardise the achievements of DFID’s stated strategic objectives:
12
Risk Likelihood Impact Management strategy
Challenge fund fails to attract wider stakeholder participation
M H
Allow sufficient time and management resource to marketing effort. Prepare model concepts to illustrate type of projects and increase confidence among potential applicants. Focus on developing networks with potential applicants.
Challenge fund fails to stimulate productive innovation by NGOs and private sector
M M
Ensure that productive innovation is well defined and understood, and is widely communicated among potential applicants. Prepare model concepts to illustrate productive innovation. Focus on developing multi-sectoral partnerships between potential applicants.
Poor project scrutiny and selection of reduces the potential of the programme
M H
Ensure that the TAG has a clearly defined “gate keeping” role in the fund governance structure, and that all projects (whether through the managed fund or the challenge fund) are subject to the same degree of expert technical scrutiny. Whilst this will not ensure that all deserving projects are funded, it removes the risk of technically unjustified projects being funded.
Poor project implementation reduces the effectiveness of the programme
M H
Ensure that funding agreements include SMART objective and milestone indicators, and that the fund manager and the IMESP have clearly defined roles and responsibilities to monitor and report on project implementation progress. Disbursements to funded projects should be according to milestones being achieved and compliance with reporting requirements. Milestones should only be revised on the recommendation of the fund manager and with the approval of the Management Board. Ensure adequate investment in post-funding support.
Misappropriation of funds or corruption in allocation of funds
H H
Ensure that the governance and fund management structures impose sufficient segregation of duties. Use of corruption reporting mechanisms and codes of conduct (fund manager, applicants and grantees).
13
SECTION 4 Stakeholder reactions to options
The scoping mission team undertook a comprehensive stakeholder consultation in Dhaka, Bangladesh between 20 and 29 January 2015. We present below the general findings from these consultations. The complete list of stakeholders met is in Annex 5 of this report.
4.1 Government of Bangladesh
During the course of the fieldwork, the scoping mission team met with a number of government stakeholders:
Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief (MDMR)
External Relations Department (ERD)
Ministry of Women’s and Children’s Affairs (MWCA) The most valuable meetings in terms of inputs to this report were with the MDMR and the ERD, although the meeting with the MWCA was instructive in that it was clear that there was very little if any, senior management awareness of the relevance of disaster management or climate change to the Ministry’s work. Strategic priorities Discussions with the DG at MDMR and the CDMP PMU Director revealed a strong commitment to the continuation of CDMP activities. CDMP was seen as instrumental in shaping government policy – moving from disaster relief to a disaster management strategy. Future strategic priorities that were particularly emphasised included the need to increase pace of adaptation to climate change in agriculture. Partnerships and co-operation Whilst acknowledging the need for further capacity building, the DG pointed to the success of partnerships with local government and with universities. At the same time, he was adamant that there was a very limited role, if any at all, for NGOs and the private sector. The DG’s view is that climate change is a matter for government and that NGOs and the private sector are expensive and ineffective partners in the delivery of government related activities. A more detailed questioning on the role of the private sector led to a fairly damning assessment. All government respondents stated in one way or another that the private sector generally thinks in terms of charitable response to disasters, motivated more by marketing opportunities than anything else, and labelled as corporate social responsibility (CSR). One was explicit on the subject, “the private sector is more interested in publicity, image, and getting favours out of government than solving problems”. However, some positive examples of private sector engagement were identified. For example Grameenphone send warning text messages through their mobile phone networks and Teletalk provides access to a dedicated number for weather and cyclone forecasts. The fact that this service is not provided free of charge was a cause for regret. Another
14
government respondent identified the potential for private sector responses to disasters and climate change:
Healthcare services;
New crop varieties that would increase food security in the face of climate change; and
New types of disaster resilient building materials. The view was that the private sector should develop and supply such products and services, possibly with government support for initial research and product development. Implementation achievements and challenges The assessment of DFID’s climate change programme by the MDMR can be summarised as it is working well as is, and that any future programme should follow the same implementation modality. In particular, the Ministry is strongly in favour of the continuing involvement of the UNDP as the managing agent. Delivery of CDMP was described as “efficient and effective”, and the fact that Nepal and Sri Lanka have copied CDMP was quoted as evidence of the programme’s success. The DG was particularly pleased that CDMP had allowed donors to pool funds and co-ordinate activities. However, the assessment of UNDP’s role was less positive. The perceived “dual reporting lines” were a particular cause for concern – the PMU Director felt that his job was made unnecessarily difficult by the fact that UNDP recruits, evaluates and pays CDMP staff. Challenge fund model Each of the government respondents rejected the idea of government agencies competing for support through a challenge fund. The ERD did however say that they see no reason why a challenge fund aimed at NGOs and the private sector would be problematic.
4.2 Donor agencies and projects
Strategic priorities All of the donor agencies and projects that we spoke to emphasised the importance of climate change and disaster management. However, there was also an acknowledgement that climate change was a convenient label to apply to already planned activities in order to secure funding. This view was confirmed in discussions with NGOs and donor projects. Climate change and disaster management is one of three strategic priorities for Norwegian support to the GoB. The Swedish Embassy also plans to continue and increase the allocation of resources to climate change and risk reduction – one of the results areas in its new development strategy for Bangladesh. However, the Swedish emphasised the importance of “tangible achievements in the field, not just capacity building”. Partnership and co-operation When questioned about the CDMP experience, donors consistently identified DFID’s strategic engagement and technical leadership, and the fiduciary responsibility assumed by UNDP as key strengths. The Norwegian Embassy particularly valued UNDP’s role in the implementation of the existing CDMP II, and mentioned that they have initial clearance to contribute funds to a future programme and were already in discussions with UNDP. The conclusion was that “it is always better to go through UNDP”. Another donor described UNDP as a “very responsive partner”, although there was a sense that UNDP had become a filter between GoB and the funding donors, who would value a more direct relationship.
15
Several donors pointed to the lack of co-operation within government, “it is not that they won’t talk with each other, they won’t even sit in the same room”. Another problem that was identified was the politicisation of science, which could undermine the quality of projects if the government had control over the allocation of funds. Comments were made about the risks associated with increasing the range of implementation partners, one donor said that it is “very difficult to bring too many types of actors into the same programme”. Meanwhile, the Embassy of Sweden plans to continue to work with the MDMR, but wants to engage other actors – they are already in informal discussions with the Swedish Red Cross. Katalyst reported problems with engaging the private sector in climate change related initiatives. Their assessment was that in the absence of a clear commercial incentive or risk imperative, the short-term payback demanded by private sector investors meant that climate change simply wasn’t an issue for the private sector. Katalyst has a small challenge fund component in its phase III designed to stimulate business innovation. However, they say that the “private sector is not used to the idea” and “very few businesses have the initiative or the capacity, or willingness to align their businesses with the fund’s objectives”. It is interesting to note that one example of a climate change market based innovation cited by Katalyst (Lal Teer small seed packets) is actually regarded as “a loss-making, CSR activity” by the company itself. One donor regarded the attempt to include the private sector as “ideological”, and claimed that new technologies could not be introduced through market mechanisms due to coincidence of poverty and vulnerability. Implementation achievements and challenges On the whole, there were high levels of satisfaction with CDMP II, although some donors did refer to the need to apply lessons learned to a future CDMP III (if it were to happen), and one criticised UNDP for failing to provide adequate technical assistance to the PMU. On the positive side, donors appreciated that CDMP had grown from a pilot to cover all districts and unlike many other programmes had genuinely engaged the GoB and managed to work across different ministries. Measuring and reporting results was seen as very important by all donors, although the challenges of M&E in relation to disaster management were also widely acknowledged. One donor expressed concerns about the short-term nature of results being incompatible with the long-term nature of the problem. Challenge fund model Donors were generally positive about the idea of a challenge fund, summed up by one who said, “we are very familiar with challenge funds and would be very happy to use one”. When questioned about a challenge fund as a follow on to CDMP, lack of innovation in past climate change programmes was cited as a problem by one donor (in relation to the BCCRF). The same donor expressed the wish that any such fund would be more innovative than BCCRF, “the World Bank wants to do the same things that have been done before, they are not particularly open to embracing innovation.” However, one respondent was less positive, “the government wouldn’t cope, the private sector is not really interested, and the money would just go to the same old people”.
16
4.3 Non Government Organisations and academic institutions
Strategic priorities All of the NGOs and academic institutions with whom we met emphasised the importance of climate change in their activities. One respondent estimated that INGOs were implementing climate change projects in Bangladesh with a cumulative value of US$50-60 million. Partnership and co-operation The INGOs with whom we met all criticise their exclusion from the CDMP. One leading INGO complained that they “have not been able to influence the design of CDMP or the direction of investment”, another said that “INGOs are treated as sub-contractors by UNDP, because of their top-down approach we are not allowed to add value”. CDMP is criticised for its “default emphasis” on infrastructure. The leading academic institutions engaged with climate change meanwhile form an apparently tightly knit research community. However, they struggle to exert influence on government policy, a failure that they attribute to the housing of climate change policy in the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Attitudes towards the MDMR are much more positive. CDMP is said to be “steps ahead, they realise there is a problem, they understand the problem and then they are able to implement solutions.” The private sector is described by one academic as being “at the very first stage” of realisation of climate change as an issue. Efforts to engage the private sector in climate change dialogue are “really about awareness raising”, there was little scope for partnership. Although the view was challenged by another respondent, one academic did say that he thought that what he saw as an on-going generational change in the ownership and control of the private sector in Bangladesh created opportunities for increased engagement because “younger business leaders have studied abroad, they know about climate change and they want to do something about it”. Implementation achievements and challenges With few exceptions, the NGOs with whom we spoke, are operating on a local level, implementing intensive programmes that appear to offer very little scalability potential. One example of claimed scalability was the index-based insurance being piloted by Oxfam. However, when questioned, it was clear to us that this pilot as it has been implemented is unlikely to achieve any degree of commercial viability necessary to scale up. Our view is that this pilot scheme is an example of “innovation for its own sake”, a pitfall that any future fund should seek to avoid. Challenge fund model The INGOs were positive about the idea of a challenge fund. One said that they would be “very interested, but keen to influence the governance”. The academic institutions were also positive about the challenge fund model. One respondent was particularly critical of the quality of research and identified a research challenge fund window as a way to incentivise better quality research and to improve the “science/policy dialogue, which has been one of the least successful initiatives”. However, many respondents emphasised the need for technical assistance to challenge fund applicants. One said, “a cold call would simply lead to the usual suspects, the fund needs to provide help to write proposals”.
17
4.4 Private sector
Strategic priorities We spoke with a limited number of private sector businesses, but those with whom we met had been introduced as companies with an interest in climate change. However, none of the private sector companies with whom we spoke had any real commercial engagement with climate change – it would be no exaggeration to say that climate change was totally irrelevant to their business strategies and plans. Partnership and co-operation The prevailing private sector attitude towards partnerships and co-operation with donor programmes was summed up by two respondents: one said “there are too many meetings and far too much planning, we are results oriented and we have a business to run”, whilst the other commented, “this is a loss-making CSR activity, we do it because they pay us.” Implementation achievements and challenges Private sector engagement with climate change has been a CSR approach. The potential of a challenge fund supported by technical assistance is to draw on international experience in order to identify activities that are commercially viable, or can be incorporated into commercially viable business models. Challenge fund model When we explained the challenge fund model to private sector interviewees, they showed some interest, but were not particularly enthusiastic.
4.5 UNDP’s position
Although the discussion was more about the past implementation of CDMP II, UNDP’s perspective is valuable in informing DFID’s future investment. Strategic priorities Looking back on the two phases of CDMP, UNDP’s view was that the focus had been on achieving scale across a wide range of issues. Their view was that any future programme should be narrower and deeper, with a tighter geographic focus. Without explaining specifics, UNDP says that the CDMP follow-on “already under consideration” should have a different structure and a different mechanism. Partnership and co-operation UNDP acknowledges that CDMP II should have been more inclusive, but says that this realisation emerged towards the end of the second phase, by which time it was too late in the project cycle to make significant changes. Cross-government co-operation was achieved to some extent, with disaster management seen as part of the wider development policy challenge. On the other hand, the exclusion of INGOs is seen as a limitation on the programme. The role of the private sector in disaster management was acknowledged: examples of co-operation with big business in the use of mobile phone networks for early warning, and the connection between resilience and secure livelihoods.
18
Implementation achievements and challenges In summary, UNDP claims that there has been a paradigm shift and that government believes that it should and can do something about disaster management as a result of the CDMP programme. The evident breakdown in relationship between the CDMP PMU Director and the UNDP was explained as clash of personalities and a confusion of roles, and contextualised by reference to more than 30 other projects being implemented by UNDP without such problems. UNDP points to the appointment of a full-time NPD as a “design mistake”. UNDP’s view is that donor expectations “need to be more realistic”, there is a tendency to “expect linearity” in a complex environment. UNDP also believes that CDMP suffered from the “personalisation of authority in government” and “exposed governance issues in the MDMR”. A “lack of effective oversight” from MDMR was also highlighted as an issue, allowing CDMP to focus activities according to personal preferences, rather than policy priorities. Challenge fund model UNDP’s view is that a challenge fund would work best if it were part of a wider programmed approach – otherwise the danger is that synergies are lost. The way that the fund is managed would determine its success. The problem with the challenge fund approach identified by UNDP is that there is an element of “cherry picking”, by definition it is not a comprehensive approach. One issue that UNDP particularly highlighted was the low capacity of institutions to respond to a challenge fund, capacity building for applicants would be “really important to avoid capture by the usual suspects”.
19
SECTION 5 Proposed approach
5.1 Selection criteria
The selection criteria applied to the options that we identified relate to our understanding of DFID’s objectives for the next phase of the climate change programme in Bangladesh:
To widen the range of stakeholders engaged as implementation partners in DFID Bangladesh’s disaster management programming; and
To stimulate productive innovation in response to the anticipated increasing severity and frequency of slow and rapid onset disasters.
To understand our assessment and recommendations, we first define what we mean under each objective:
Wider engagement: One of the criticisms of CDMP voiced by stakeholders was that it was too government-centric. International NGOs were particularly aggrieved that they had been excluded from funding. It is also apparent from our stakeholder consultations that the private sector has very little, if any, engagement with the either the commercial incentives or the risk imperatives arising from climate change and disaster management.
Stimulating innovation: DFID Bangladesh is rightly concerned that the emphasis should be on productive value-adding innovation, rather than innovation for its own sake in response to donor-funded incentives. Without in any way wanting to inhibit creative thinking, particular potential is seen in innovation in how things are done (e.g. multi-sector partnerships), rather than innovation being entirely focused on what is done.
When looking at the three options of a challenge fund, a managed fund, and a hybrid fund, we considered the extent to which each option would be likely to achieve these objectives. Additionally, we were asked to consider the appetite for each viable option among key stakeholders so our selection criteria also take account of the subjective views of stakeholders, which may in the end over-ride other more objective considerations.
5.2 Assessment of viable options
It is important to note that we have not simply assessed the theoretical potential of each option against the selection criteria, rather we have based the assessment summarised in the table below on the evdience of other related funds and the demonstrated capacity and attitudes of the stakeholders included in this consultation process. In all cases, we are assuming that the implementing agent, who will be critical to the success or otherwise of the fund, would be selected through an open competition, thus maximising the quality of the implementation approach.
20
Objective Challenge fund Managed fund Hybrid fund
Wider engagement
Relatively high engagement potential due to open competition format and low formal barriers of entry (concept note stage), although intensive marketing is required in order to build awareness and overcome informal barriers to participation (e.g. lack of familiarity with donor requirements among private sector).
Targeted engagement potential could include implementing partners from all stakeholder categories. However, existing networks/gatekeepers, higher formal barriers of entry may limit more marginal organisations.
Highest engagement potential, as managed fund only applicable to government, whilst challenge fund open to both NGOs and private sector.
Stimulate innovation
High innovation potential in response to prioritised problems, but with safe guards in place to prevent innovation for its own sake. Allows greater freedom to implementing partners to adapt to changing circumstances. Potential constrained by lack of private sector capacity to respond to challenge fund and by NGOs having established approaches focussed on disaster relief rather than disaster preparedness. Innovation can be stimulated by fund manager, and TAG.
Moderate innovation potential, but relies on the fund manager as the source and facilitator of innovation. Terms of project tenders can be developed that stimulate innovative partnership models, but less flexible implementation approach once funding agreement or contract has been signed.
Moderate innovation potential as the separation of the funds into a government “pot” and a NGO/private/academia sector “pot” could limit multi-sectoral partnerships. However, terms of funding could include criteria that incentivise such partnerships. The allocation of funding between “windows” aligns the emphasis of the project portfolio to the fund’s strategic objectives. Synergies between Policy/strategy-making and non-govt sector can be forged
Stakeholder endorsement
Government strongly opposed to competing in a challenge fund, is suspicious of international NGOs and does not see value in private sector engagement in climate change and/or disaster management. NGOs welcome the challenge fund model. Private sector unfamiliar with challenge fund, so no strong opinions, but experience of public health innovation challenge fund not encouraging.
All stakeholders happy with the approach in principle, although government attitudes to INGO and private sector participation also apply to managed fund.
This approach could be seen as a workable compromise by all parties. It allows government access to a dedicated funding pot, and at the same time allows NGOs and the private sector to compete for funding. Needs support for capacity building.
5.3 Recommended approach
Based on the above assessment against the specified selection criteria, we recommend that DFID Bangladesh moves forward with the detailed design of a hybrid challenge/managed fund. Whilst there is an element of compromise involved, we believe that on balance, this is
21
the approach that is most likely to achieve DFID’s objectives and meet with stakeholder approval.
5.4 Strategic value of proposed approach
The strategic value of the proposed approach lies in its balance of:
Achieving DFID’s objectives of wider engagement and innovative partnerships to address disaster preparedness and adaptive recovery;
Ensuring that the Government’s commitment to disaster management and climate change, and the momentum of policy development (exemplified by the Seventh Five Year Plan) is maintained;
Demonstrating the positive contribution of NGOs and private sector as stakeholders and partners in disaster management and climate change projects and activities; and
Integrating disaster management and climate change awareness with economic development objectives.
To summarise, the recommended approach is the best mechanism to engage all stakeholder groups with the programme while retaining the flexibility required to maximise the chances of eventual programme success in the light of changing circumstances. The proposed hybrid fund is therefore simply the mechanism that is best suited to achieving DFID’s objectives. Beyond these immediate objectives, the fund should be seen in its wider context. Although detailed considerations of implementation strategy are beyond the scope of this report, the real value of this approach lies more in how it is applied than in the approach itself. Bangladesh faces significant longer-term forces that are constantly moving the disaster management target:
Industrialisation and urbanisation: Inevitably over the next decade(s) new industrial sectors will emerge alongside, or even replacing RMG – nobody knows when or what, but it is inevitable in a country that offers such plentiful human resource at competitive prices – this will serve to continue the current rapid rates of urbanisation;
Increased prosperity: As more and more Bangladeshis (particularly in the cities) move out of poverty, their consumption demand will increase. Bangladesh (and other countries on such a growth trajectory) will face a more complex development strategic challenge. It will not only be focussed on eradicating poverty but also on managing the process and effects of prosperity including the almost always increased inequality that goes with it, and the vulnerability of the not-poor that are just over the poverty line; and
Climate change: Already having a significant impact on Bangladesh, hard to predict how things will progress in the future, but most likely to become more of an issue, rather than less!
These three forces are enormous and unstoppable, and the risk is that unless they are acknowledged, disaster management efforts would be forever playing catch up. Despite the momentum of these forces and the existing legacy of past development, future directions can be influenced if the disaster preparedness and adaptive recovery fund is used strategically and is able to leverage/engage private capital with the programme’s strategic objective. One thing that is clear from the scoping mission, is that notwithstanding the reservations and scepticism of many respondents, the private sector plays a significant role in the disaster
22
management solution, because it plays such a significant role in the problem. It will be the scale, location and type of private sector investment and activity over the next decades that determines Bangladesh’s vulnerability to disasters associated with climate change. In the absence of effective regulation and sanctions that would otherwise limit individual behaviour that is detrimental to the public good, the strategic value of the fund will lie in its ability to shape this process and behaviour – to at least influence the trajectory of a rapidly moving target. A framework for private sector engagement could look something like the table below: Preparing for disasters Providing immediate response
Engagement Innovative partnerships at the nexus of public and private interests, recognising the respective roles, sharing risk and building understanding Opportunity to bridge government and non-government approaches and to leverage complementary capacities.
Investment Developing commercially viable innovative technologies, materials, and equipment appropriate to local market demand
Activity Influencing the economic development process through incentive and managing the transition from poverty to prosperity
Realising the commercial potential and participating in adaptive disaster recovery
5.5 Assessment of the capabilities required of the delivery partner
The eventual delivery partner (the Fund Manager) will require a wide range of capabilities:
Challenge Fund management expertise: As a delivery mechanism, challenge funds bring their own particular requirements in terms of financial management systems and the financial strength required to pre-finance disbursements (the approach typically encapsulated in DFID challenge fund contracts). Whilst this challenge fund is not as large as others, the potential financial exposure for the Fund Manager could be quite significant.
Disaster preparedness and early recovery expertise: Whilst the Fund Manager will not be the ultimate source of technical authority, it is important that the Fund Manager has a well-developed understanding of relevant technical matters. The Fund Manager has to have the technical capacity to be able to market the fund effectively and to assess concepts at the pre-concept note stage, encouraging potential applicants to develop promising ideas, whilst also weeding out ideas that lack technical feasibility. Ultimately, the Fund Manager needs to have sufficient technical capacity to know when to call on specialist inputs from the TAG and to be able to support the development of promising ideas.
Understanding of Bangladesh context: The Fund Manager must have good insight into the institutional, political, social, and economic context in which the fund will be implemented.
Ability to work with a wide range of stakeholders: The Fund Manager needs to be able to interact effectively with national and sub-national government agencies, NGOs and private sector businesses, and to understand the incentives and constraints within which each group of stakeholders operates. Fund processes will have to be developed in response to the differing circumstances of each group.
5.6 Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the preferred option
General M&E system The M&E framework must be located within a theory of change that elucidates the process through which the programme will achieve its combined results on adaptive early recovery
23
and disaster preparedness. This theory of change must also be linked with the ICF’s Adaptation theory of change, of which some of the assumptions can be adopted and adapted, including (i) mobilisation of private sector finance and delivery capacity, (ii) availability and uptake of finance will unlock constraints to adaptation, (iii) donors are able to cooperate effectively. It will conceptualise the programme’s climate-specific results as a contributing factor to the overall goals of poverty reduction and potentially, other MDG outcomes, rather than an end goal in itself. At the project level, each funded intervention in partnership with the private sector, NGOs, and others must have a results framework that in turn locates itself within the programme-level theory of change. The overall M&E system must be harmonised with the national M&E system. We recommend that the proposed approach adopt a light touch reporting to reduce administrative costs and reporting burden of the implementation partners. It will be important, however, for a third party assessor or for an IMESP (as above) to be appointed alongside the Fund Manager in order to provide support in the development of M&E systems, perform periodic data audits, provide capacity building activities to implementation partners on reporting and results measurement, synthesise and disseminate learning, and measure programme-level results through periodic evaluations. This arrangement will provide a guarantee that a robust reporting and results measurement system is in place whilst building the capacity of various implementation partners. Indicators In selecting the appropriate indicators that will enable the monitoring and assessment of the effectiveness of the proposed approach, a number of considerations must be taken into account: (i) Adaptive early recovery and disaster preparedness projects will have huge variations in
terms of outputs and to a certain extent some of the outcomes that they will aim to deliver, which means that there will be a range of project-level indicators that will be included, tracked, and measured;
(ii) Challenge funds respond to a wide array of development issues and in the context of adaptive early recovery and disaster preparedness intervention, may cut across various sector and themes, and as such, results measurement frameworks will be tailored to individual projects’ specific objectives;
(iii) Despite such a disparity across projects, there is a need for common programme-level indicators that will enable comparison between projects (important for scaling up decisions) and aggregation of results across projects to measure programme-level effectiveness;
(iv) As an intervention that aims to strengthen adaptation to disasters, measuring effectiveness relies on (a) a disaster (or any climate shock or stress) actually happening, (b) being able to adjust the achievements of the intervention against the changing nature, frequency, and/or severity of the disaster, and (c) understanding the evolving contextual factors which affect the ability of the people to recover or of the government’s or other parties’ ability to mitigate and respond against climate shocks and stresses; and
(v) Disaggregation of monitoring data (gender, age, etc.) is imperative in climate interventions because of the differential impact of disasters and other climate shocks/stresses on different groups.
Given the lack of specific details and information, we are only able to provide preliminary reflections and general guidance on what might be included as indicators. In addition to project-specific indicators, it is imperative that the M&E system of the preferred approach include common DFID Results Framework (DRF) and ICF indicators at the output, outcome, and impact levels.
24
ICF KPI1: Number of people supported by DFID programmes to cope with the effects of climate change may be required to be reported against by project partners. KPI1 is both an ICF and DRF indicator. It can be disaggregated into direct-indirect beneficiaries and by gender, which are both important in the context of a market development and climate intervention.
At the outcome level, the programme logframe must include ICF KPI12: Volume of private finance mobilised for climate change purposes as a result of ICF funding. Disaggregation of this indicator can include the origin of financing and the theme being financed, thereby capturing how much has been mobilised from different types of partners (i.e. private, NGOs) and on which sectors/thematic classifications.
Specific to the disaster preparedness component (and especially if this is foreseen to be implemented with the government), the programme-level framework may also include ICF KPI13: Level of integration of climate change in national planning as a result of ICF support.
At the impact level, we recommend that together with climate-specific indicator/s such as reduced losses/damages, indicators pertaining to key development outcomes in the form of progress in the MDGs (DRF Level 1 Results) be included.
25
SECTION 6 ICF principles and DFID Bangladesh strategy
6.1 Consistency with the principles of ICF
The proposed approach delivers one of the three priorities of the ICF, namely helping the poorest people adapt to the effects of climate change of their lives and livelihoods.16 By adopting a delivery mechanism that fosters greater partnership with the private sector, DFID can better tap the opportunity to instigate “innovation and new ideas for action” especially on slow on-set disasters whilst leveraging financing and industry expertise for climate-related projects (also a recurring theme in the UK Government’s Humanitarian Policy and DFID Bangladesh’s Operational Plan 2011-2016). The management arrangement that may be adopted will ensure that administrative overheads can be kept at a reasonable level thereby providing good value for money. There is a myriad of projects that may be supported for adaptive early recovery and disaster preparedness with the proposed approach and they can respond directly to the priority sectors for adaptation as identified in the ICF Implementation Plan. These priority sectors include agriculture, disaster risk reduction, social protection, and health systems amongst others.
ICF Guiding Principles for resources allocation i) Developing, pilot and scale up innovative low carbon, climate resilient programmes and
approaches to reduce emissions, support adaptation and protect forests, including biodiversity.
ii) Support country level action on low carbon, climate resilient development, including REDD.
iii) Building an enabling environment for private sector investment and to engage the private sector to leverage finance and delivering action on the ground.
iv) Mainstream climate change into UK overseas development assistance, EU development assistance and Multilateral Development Bank (MDB) lending.
6.2 DFID Bangladesh strategy
The latest iteration of the DFID Bangladesh Operational Plan (2011-15) was finalised in December 2014. Absorbing the shocks of natural disasters and climate change are identified as one of the “key development challenges” facing Bangladesh. Within the context of improving earning opportunities, increasing “resilience to natural disasters and climate change” is a strategic priority, and ensuring that “programmes promote long-term climate resilience” is listed as a theme that runs throughout DFID Bangladesh programming. The Operational Plan also emphasises the commitment to disaster management and climate change as integral to the alignment of the DFID Bangladesh programme to UK Government and DFID strategic priorities.
16
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48217/3389-uk-international-climate-fund-brochure.pdf
26
SECTION 7 Design phase terms of reference and timelines
7.1 Procurement approach
We propose two options for the split of work between the design phase and the implementation phase, characterised by the principal outputs:
Option 1: Business Case + Implementation Phase TORs (section 7.2 and 7.3)
Option 2: Business Case + Implementation Phase TORs + Fund Operations and
Governance documents (section 7.4 and 7.5)
In any case the Fund Operations and Governance documents would have to be prepared, either during the design phase or during an inception period at the start of the implementation phase. So it is really a question of whether DFID prefers to clear issues of process and governance (which could be politically sensitive) before or after the procurement for the implementation phase. On balance, our recommendation would be option 2, on the grounds that changes to process and/or governance after an implementation contract has been awarded may lead to contract renegotiations and/or unnecessary delays in the start of the implementation phase.
7.2 Option 1: Terms of reference
DFID Bangladesh wishes to appoint an experienced consultancy firm (“consultant”) to design its Disaster Preparedness and Adaptive Early Recovery Fund, expected to start in 2016 as a follow on to the current second phase of the Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme (CDMP).
1. Background Information
Climate change is already having the most adverse impacts in Bangladesh with floods, droughts, cyclones and sea level rise having the most adverse impacts on a large number of people. Disaster management is a key priority for the Government of Bangladesh.
The geographic location, and a high dependence on traditional agricultural practices that are adapted to established climate and weather patterns, combined with the fact that the geography of Bangladesh is dominated by low-lying delta plain, increase the country’s vulnerability to climate change. Meanwhile the pace of economic development and the rapid rate of urbanisation impose additional pressures on urban and rural poor and vulnerable people.
The Government of Bangladesh is seen as a key player in climate change for a, leading the LDC caucus in climate change negotiations. Key government institutions such as the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief (MDMR), Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) and others have made significant progress with the development of a cross-government policy framework that responds to the threats of climate change. For example, climate change and disaster management have been effectively mainstreamed in the Seventh Five Year Plan (2016-20) and the Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme has allowed the MDMR to establish an effective Flood Forecasting and Warning Centre. Local government authorities and communities have also made progress in establishing relevant mechanisms. The positive impact of this progress has been evidenced
27
by the significant reduction in the number of casualties of equivalent disasters over recent years.
However, further work is required 1) to continue to build the capacity of national and local government to implement policies in a systematic manner, 2) to engage a wider range of stakeholders in disaster preparedness and adaptive early recovery (including national and international NGOs, and the private sector) and 3) to stimulate productive innovation in response to the threats of slow and rapid onset disasters.
In this context, DFID completed a scoping mission in February 2015, and now intends to support the Government of Bangladesh in the design of a fund to help prepare for disasters and adopt adaptive early response measures.
2. Assignment Objective
The objectives of this assignment are:
To assist DFID and Government of Bangladesh develop the scope of work and implementation plan for the Disaster Preparedness and Adaptive Early Recovery project;
To prepare a project and detailed work-plan for project activities based in the existing climate change strategy and scoping mission report produced;
To ensure effective consultation process and communications of the findings from the process to be considered in the programme, and incorporate if possible in the programme; and
To ensure synergy with other relevant projects.
3. Activities
The consultant should ensure that the following activities are carried out and results are achieved:
Review the scoping mission report and update where necessary;
Prepare and present a draft package of detailed design documentation (Business Case and Implementation Phase TORs) and carry out consultation process among key stakeholders on the draft design, adapting it according to feedback received;
Finalise all project documentation necessary to secure the relevant approvals and allow DFID Bangladesh to procure a suitably qualified implementing agency; and
Present the final package of detailed design documentation to DFID, other donor agency partners and the relevant ministries of the Government of Bangladesh.
4. Expected Results
The Disaster Preparedness and Adaptive Early Response project secures appropriate approvals and DFID Bangladesh is able to launch the procurement process for the project implementation.
5. Reporting Requirements:
The consultancy team will submit the drafts and final deliverables to DFID and GoB on dates to be agreed between the two parties at the inception meeting. The drafts will be reviewed by DFID and GoB’s institutions involved. Feedback comments will be provided to the consultants. The Consultants will be required to address the comments before submitting the final outputs
6. Profile of the consultants
The consultants appointed to undertake the assignment should together meet the following requirements:
28
Experience in designing and implementing challenge and managed fund programmes on behalf of DFID.
Knowledge of all thematic areas of disaster management and climate change (adaptation, mitigation, low carbon development, technology transfer, investments and financing, and land use), with a good understanding of the Bangladesh and the developing country context.
Understanding of disaster management, climate change and sustainable development issues.
Familiarity with the relationship between economic development and disaster preparedness and understanding of the role of non-government and private sector organisations.
Ability to conduct consultation processes among a wide range of stakeholders.
Good oral and written communication skills.
Understanding of the GoB and donor agency institutional arrangements relevant to such a project.
7. Duration and Location
The consultancy firm will be contracted for a period not exceeding 10 weeks (with a two week break during which time DFID will review draft documentation), starting from signing the contract. The location of the assignment will be in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
7.3 Option 1: Timelines
An indicative timeline for the design phase is set out in the table below:
Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Background reading/meetings
Confirm strategic framework, define objectives, identify and consult potential implementation partners on specifics of fund approach
Prepare draft business case
Present draft business case X
DFID/GOB review of draft business case
Finalise business case
Deliver final business case for approval X
7.4 Option 2: Terms of reference
As Option 1 above except for sections 3 and 7.
3. Activities
The consultant should ensure that the following activities are carried out and results are achieved:
Review the scoping mission report and update where necessary;
Prepare and present a draft package of detailed design documentation (Business Case, Implementation Phase TORs and Implementation Operational and Governance documentation) and carry out consultation process among key stakeholders on the draft design, adapting it according to feedback received;
Finalise all project documentation necessary to secure the relevant approvals and allow DFID Bangladesh to procure a suitably qualified implementing agency; and
29
Present the final package of detailed design documentation to DFID, other donor agency partners and the relevant ministries of the Government of Bangladesh.
7. Duration and Location
The consultancy firm will be contracted for a period not exceeding 3 months (with a two
week break during which time DFID will review draft documentation), starting from signing
the contract. The location of the assignment will be in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
7.5 Option 2: Timelines
The longer time period allowed for the design work under this option is a realistic estimate based on our understanding of a combination of the complexities of the institutional context, the volume of design documentation, and the approvals that will be required. It should be noted that work carried out at this stage would save time in the implementation phase inception period.
An indicative timeline for the design phase is set out in the table below:
Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Background reading/meetings
Confirm strategic framework, define objectives, identify and consult potential implementation partners on specifics of fund approach
Prepare draft fund operations manual
Prepare draft fund governance TORs
Present draft fund documentation X
DFID/GOB review of draft fund documentation
Finalise fund documentation
Present final fund documentation
Deliver final fund documentation for approval X
Prepare draft business case
Present draft business case X
DFID/GOB review of draft business case
Finalise business case
Deliver final business case for approval X
30
Annex 1 Terms of Reference
A. INTRODUCTION DFID-B seeks a team of experts (one of whom should be a locally recruited Bangladeshi national) to conduct a scoping study on its behalf (see person specifications). The study will assess and advise DFID-B on recommended options relating to the development of a Challenge Fund via which DFID-B can allocate resources from the International Climate Fund (ICF) in support of disaster preparedness and adaptive early recovery activities. B. OBJECTIVE DFID-B is a major provider of climate financing in Bangladesh. At present UK climate financing is, for the most part, delivered through the Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme (CDMP), which is managed by the United Nations Development Programme, and the Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund (BCCRF), which is administered by the World Bank. Both CDMP and BCCRF have had their successes and the UNDP and World Bank programmes have provided tangible benefits to millions of people across Bangladesh. However, a key weakness identified by recent internal evaluations of UK climate financing in Bangladesh relates to the use of two primary delivery partners. The use of such a small number of partners in a high-risk and highly climate vulnerable context such as Bangladesh is potentially problematic. Looking forward DFID-B, through the ICF, intends to expand the range of partners it supports in relation to disaster preparedness and early recovery. Doing so will enable the UK to more equitably share risk amongst different actors, to support niche service providers and to more effectively plug critical gaps. Working in this manner will also enable the UK to more speedily respond to Ministerial climate-related priorities such as the impact of climate disasters on women and girls, the role of the private sector in disaster management etc. We have identified that a Challenge Fund could be the most effective mechanism for delivering future ICF supported disaster preparedness and adaptive early recovery activities in Bangladesh. We envisage that a Challenge Fund will enable us to support a range of different partners including the Government of Bangladesh, civil society and the private sector. We will use the fund to promote climate sensitive / adaptive approaches to risk reduction and post disaster recovery activities. We envisage that the fund will be comprised of separate but related funding windows which DFID-B will design but are likely to include a focus on adaptive post-disaster recovery and the role of women and the private sector in disaster management. We recognise that there are potential pitfalls which we must avoid. For example, increasing the number of delivery partners we intend to support could encumber DFID-B with an unwieldy administrative burden if we assume responsibility for day-to-day management of the Challenge Fund. As such we seek initial options on the types of arrangements whereby a third party would be appointed by DFID-B to oversee management of the fund in terms of effecting payments to delivery partners, for monitoring and evaluation of UK funded activities, for reporting etc. C. THE RECIPIENTS
The recipient of the final report will be DFID Bangladesh. The recipient of any new programme will ultimately be the Government of Bangladesh.
31
D. PROCESS We envisage a two-phased process to developing our Challenge Fund concept: Phase 1 (the current phase): An independent assessment and scoping mission to review the feasible options relating to the Challenge Fund concept. This mission will make an independent assessment of the options available to design a new programme to deliver optimal long-term and sustainable results. It will look at the combinations required to deliver in the most effective manner possible including through the Challenge Fund model. Phase 2: A more detailed mission which will take forward the design of the fund itself based on recommendations from Phase 1. E. REQUIRED OUTCOMES & DELIVERABLES The scoping study will deliver to DFID-B, within five weeks of the study commencing, a final report totalling no more than 30-40 pages which sets out recommendations relating to the use of a Challenge Fund to deliver ICF resources in Bangladesh in support of disaster preparedness and adaptive early recovery. Recommendations will be consistent with the UK’s ICF commitments and will be sufficiently tangible for DFID-B to take forward (or not depending on recommendations) the design of a Challenge Fund within a period of 9 months. The final report will include:
A brief overview of climate financing in Bangladesh.
An assessment of the appetite amongst stakeholders in Bangladesh (the GoB, UN agencies, NGOs, academia, other donors and the private sector) for the development of a Challenge Fund to deliver disaster preparedness and adaptive early recovery programmes that are ICF compatible;
The final report will also include: an overview of options considered and how feasible options were assessed; criteria used, basis for elimination/inclusion;
All feasible options for further consideration should be substantiated with detailed information on the nature of the option, partnership/model/structure/indicative costs;
The evidence base (based on national and international evidence) should underpin all feasible options, outlining clearly how and why it is expected to deliver the proposed project outcomes. The evidence base should be fully referenced so that recommendations relating to feasible options can be substantiated;
Explain why the option/approach is strategic for DFID Bangladesh and DFID globally;
Link the purposed approach with the ICF principles and outcomes;
An overview of the proposed modus operandi in Phase 2 including preparation of initial terms of reference;
Proposed governance and management arrangements and donor coordination modalities that would work for the proposed option/s;
An assessment of the capacities and human resources required within delivery partners;
An assessment of the risks to implementation under each option and risk management strategies;
Appropriate indicators that will allow assessment of the effectiveness of the option. The Scoping Team will hold an initial meeting with DFID-B which will be conducted prior to the study team meeting with external stakeholders. Before departing Bangladesh the Scoping Team will also present initial findings to DFID-B.
32
F. PERSON SPECIFICATIONS The Scoping Team, which must include a Bangladeshi national resident in Bangladesh, should have a proven track record in the following:
The design and management of or evaluations of post-emergency humanitarian response and early recovery interventions in Bangladesh plus other contexts;
The design and management of or evaluations of climate change adaptive development interventions in Bangladesh or other contexts;
The design and management of or evaluations of UK funded ICF activities. In addition to the above the Scoping Team must be able to demonstrate familiarity with the work of DFID including its commitment to value for money, accountability, procurement guidelines, and the department’s obligations towards the Gender Equality Act. G. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Individual team members who work on the scoping study will not be permitted to undertake any future design activities related to the Challenge Fund. In addition, individual team members who worked on the scoping study must agree to and sign a confidentiality agreement by which they undertake not to disclose or share information pertaining to the findings or recommendations resulting from the scoping study. The organisation selected by DFID-B to lead the initial scoping study may bid for future contracts resulting from this work including the design of a future Challenge Fund and they may also bid to act as management agent of a future DFID-B supported Challenge Fund itself. However, individuals who supported the initial scoping study will not be permitted to work on bid preparation teams of any organisation participating on competitive tenders for managing agent contract nor proposals for the Challenge Fund. H. TIMEFRAME & WAYS OF WORKING The in-country design mission will be for five weeks (comprised of one week’s preparation, two weeks in country and two weeks report writing) and starting in January 2015. Prior to arrival in Bangladesh the Scoping Team must submit to DFID-B a suggested itinerary which will include details of pre-arranged meetings and interviews which the Scoping Team will be responsible for organising. The meeting itinerary must be agreed with DFID-B prior to the commencement of the scoping study. I. CO-ORDINATION & MANAGEMENT PEAKS will liaise with DFID-B to help procure the required services for the assignment. The team will report to Dan Ayliffe, Humanitarian Adviser DFID Bangladesh on technical issues. For all contractual and financial issues, the team will liaise with Farzana Mustafa, Deputy Programme Manager. J. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND LOGISTICS All mandatory requirements in DFID information notes (copy attached) and requirements for all visiting consultants and suppliers must be adhered to. The Scoping Team will be responsible for arranging all in-country travel and their schedule in Bangladesh.
33
Some definitions Challenge Fund
A challenge fund is a financing mechanism used to allocate funds. Instead of writing and funding projects written by the funding organisation itself, the Challenge Fund asks for proposals to be submitted from organisations and institutions working in the targeted fields in this case climate related disaster preparedness and adaptive early recovery. Challenge funds are set up to meet specific objectives – such as delivering ICF objectives. Applications are assessed against transparent criteria. A Selection Committee then awards grants to those projects that best meet the aims of the objectives of the Challenge Fund. A key feature of the challenge fund mechanism is the sense of competition that is created among the organisations involved and the way their ideas seed the debate on climate change related issues. ICF The UK Government has set up the ICF to provide £3.87 billion between April 2011 and March 2016 to help the world’s poorest people adapt to climate change and promote cleaner, greener growth. As Official Development Assistance, the ICF must comply with the eligibility criteria determined by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48217/3389-
uk-international-climate-fund-brochure.pdf for more information. Adaptive Early Recovery
Early Recovery is defined as recovery that begins shortly after an exogenous shock such as displacement following a period of flooding. Early recovery encompasses the restoration of basic services, livelihoods, shelter, governance, security and the rule of law, environment and social dimensions, including the reintegration of displaced populations. It stabilises human security and addresses underlying risks that contributed to the crisis. Adaptive Early Recovery includes the above but includes a specific focus on addressing the climate related risk that contributed to the subsequent crisis. The provision of saline resistant crop varieties to communities following a cyclone which caused sea water inundation of farm land is one example of adaptive early recovery. Disaster Preparedness
Disaster preparedness can be defined as the organisation and management of resources and responsibilities ahead of an emergency occurring. The principal objective of disaster preparedness is to mitigate against the impact of shocks through effective planning. Key Documents Available on request.
34
Annex 2 Interview guidelines
1. Context and purpose of interview DFID Bangladesh has appointed Landell Mills Ltd to undertake an assessment and scoping mission in preparation for the delivery of an Adaptive Disaster Preparedness and Early Recovery Fund (ADPERF) – effectively a second phase of the Comprehensive Disaster Management Fund (CDMF), one of three components of the DFID Bangladesh Climate Change Programme. The first phase CDMF was implemented by UNDP on behalf of DFID, and co-financed by Australia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. A report by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) on the Climate Change Programme (November 2011) inter alia found evidence of delays in start-up and co-ordination, and recommended that DFID should ensure that organisations implementing UK aid are selected competitively and managed according to clear performance targets. The purpose of the current interview is to solicit informed opinions from stakeholders on a range of design options for the ADPERF. The stakeholders include: DFID staff and DFID programme implementing partners, other donors and multilateral agencies, the Government of Bangladesh (but subject to DFID confirmation), leading relevant private sector and civil society organisations. Our objective is to “assess the appetite” among stakeholders for various design options. There are a number of points that need to be kept in mind during the interviews: 1. We need to prepare a standardised summary outlining project objectives/approach,
for distribution prior to interviews, or to be used at the introduction stage of each interview.
2. Whilst DFID has asked us to focus on the possible use of a challenge fund model, this should be considered alongside other design options, for example: a) Managed fund: A single implementing partner commissioning predetermined
pieces of work on behalf of DFID; b) Individual programmes: A series of standalone projects implemented by a
number of implementing partners; and c) Existing programmes: Incorporating Climate Change Programme activities
into new and existing DFID programmes. 2. Whilst opinions of past performance will point to useful lessons and inform the level
of appetite for future options, we are not conducting an evaluation of the first phase. 3. When discussing options, we should encourage stakeholders to explain their
opinions and stated preferences, wherever possible referencing back to specific personal or institutional experiences (to add to the evidence base and to inform our risk assessment).
2. Briefing/debriefing with DFID Bangladesh Before any interviews, we will have an introductory meeting with DFID (scheduled for 2pm on 20 January). We will provide a draft in advance (on Monday) and then run through this note and the proposed questions for each group of stakeholders during that meeting to ensure that our plans are aligned with DFID expectations. During the course of the in-country work, we will have a de-briefing/presentation of initial findings with DFID. The date for this presentation is yet to be finalised, but is proposed for 26 or 27 January.
35
3. Stakeholders to be interviewed We have a list of prioritised GoB, donor and CSO stakeholders to be interviewed from DFID. We are producing our own list of private sector stakeholders (based on proposal and discussions with DFID). We will be guided by any expressions of particular sensitivities with individual or groups of stakeholders as communicated by DFID. For example, no interviews with GoB will take place until we have the go ahead from DFID. DFID has also emphasised the importance of cultural sensitivity. 4. The interview process We will prepare set of generic interview questions supplemented by further questions tailored to each respondent group – e.g. other donors’ experience with challenge fund tool, and climate change interventions, private sector experience of accessing donor funds. To the extent possible, a full schedule of interviews will be developed before the DFID meeting on 20 January and contacts/appointments made accordingly. Further interviews will be set up as the field work progresses. Both consultants will together conduct “pilot interviews” with one of each class of stakeholder, thereafter, and taking account of any refinements from the pilot, the two consultants will conduct interviews separately. We will have regular planning meetings throughout the assignment. Specifically, at the end of each day, the two consultants will meet to compare findings and discuss any further proposed refinements to the interview process. 5. Structure of interviews We will use a semi-structured interview process to allow advisors to drill into emerging themes and explore a range of options. The structure of the interview will be as follows: 1. Introduction of the team and assignment - explanation of the purpose of the interview 2. Contextual discussion on the range of climate change related programming in
Bangladesh (what activities the stakeholder is aware of and level of knowledge/understanding)
3. Solicit opinions on DFID’s Climate Change Programme and other climate change related programmes, cover issues of co-ordination and experience of co-operation/realising synergies between programmes
4. Talk through delivery options for ADPERF (design, governance and management options), particularly asking about experience of CDMP 1 and any relevant national or international personal/institutional experience of different programme delivery models
5. Solicit opinions on who (what type of organisation or specific examples) might implement the preferred option (examples of success will be equally informative as examples of problems or failures)
6. Identify any specific emerging challenges or opportunities that should influence the design of ADPERF.
7. What success looks like and how results should be measured 8. Conclusions and summarising main points covered (including agreeing possibility to
return for clarifications or follow up questions).
36
6. Recording, reporting and storage of information Obtain consent to record the interview. Consistent with DFID’s Ethics Principles, ensure that interviewers are explicitly clear on anonymity/confidentiality – quotations must only be identified with a stakeholder if not sensitive and upon consent. Team will systematically take down notes and store in a project folder for reference during the analysis and reporting period. Ensure that we have permission to quote interviewee in the report. Make sure that any “off-the-record” comments are clearly identified.
37
Annex 3 Interview questionnaire
TOPIC GENERIC QUESTIONS
FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ACCORDING TO WHICH STAKEHOLDER IS BEING INTERVIEWED:
Government Donor community INGOs, Bangladeshi CSOs and research organisations
Private sector
Contextual discussion on the range of climate change related programming in Bangladesh (what activities the stakeholder is aware of and level of knowledge/understanding)
How important do you think climate change as a policy issue is for Bangladesh? What (if any) climate change activities are you aware of (government or international)?
Current Govt policy stance and thinking on climate change? Any expected policy developments? What are your views on the government’s approach to implementing its climate change strategy? What do you consider to be any particular successes, or any examples where things have not gone according to plan? How well do you think that different donor funded activities are co-ordinated?
What are your views on the respective approaches of the government and the donor community to climate change programming? How effective do you find donor co-ordination mechanisms? What climate change programme financing are you providing, and how have you allocated resources? Plans for future programmes/funding?
What climate change related activities has your organisation been involved with? What are your views on government and donor financed climate change activities?
Do you consider climate change to be an important issue in general and are you aware of climate change as an issue for your business? Have you identified or can you think of any commercial challenges or opportunities for your business in relation to climate change?
Solicit opinions on DFID’s Climate Change Programme and other climate change related programmes, cover issues of co-ordination and experience of co-operation/realising synergies between
What are your views on DFID’s climate change programme? Have you had any direct experience of working with the DFID climate change programme? Can you compare DFID’s approach to climate change programme with any other climate change
How well do you think donors support the Govt strategy on climate change? What do you consider the most effective donor programmes and approaches in support of climate change? What are the strengths and weaknesses of
Have you identified and/or exploited any synergistic opportunities with the DFID climate change programme? Do you agree that the DFID climate change programme would benefit from a wider range of implementing partners?
Have you worked with DFID on climate change or any other programmes? What has your experience of working with DFID (on climate change or in other programmes) been?
Have you had any interaction with any donor funded programmes (climate change or other)? What have been your experiences of working with donor funded programmes in the past?
38
TOPIC GENERIC QUESTIONS
FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ACCORDING TO WHICH STAKEHOLDER IS BEING INTERVIEWED:
Government Donor community INGOs, Bangladeshi CSOs and research organisations
Private sector
programmes (examples of success will be equally informative as examples of problems or failures)
activities of which you are aware?
DFID’s Climate Change Programme? Do you consider DFID’s approach to climate change programming to have been aligned with government strategies?
What are your positive/negative experiences of different climate change programme delivery mechanisms?
Discuss delivery options for ADPERF (design, governance and management options), particularly asking about experience of CDMP 1 and any relevant national or international personal/institutional experience of different programme delivery models
What do you think are the best ways of achieving DFID’s objective to broaden the number of partners involved in the implementation of its climate change programme? What do you think are the challenges and opportunities associated with trying to broaden the number of partners?
If you are asked to design a climate change programme for DFID, what would you do? How do you think DFID’s activities can best be aligned with GoB strategies?
Based on your own organisation’s programming, do you have any experience of successful and not so successful approaches? Would you be interested to collaborate with DFID on a climate change programme delivered through a competitive challenge fund mechanism?
What do you think of the idea of a competitive process to identify ideas for funding? Would your organisation be interested and willing to propose ideas for future programme activities and compete for funding?
Solicit opinions on who (what type of organisation or specific examples) might implement the preferred option
What kind(s) of organisations do you think could be involved in the implementation of the next phase of the climate change programme? What characteristics do you think implementing partners should possess?
What has been your experience of implementing programmes through different types of organisations? What are the biggest risks in implementing these types of programmes? Based on your experience, can you give me examples of organisations – CSOs, consultancies etc. who have a successful track record in delivering these kinds of programmes? What do you consider to be the common characteristics of successful implementation partnerships?
Do you think that your organisation could make a valuable contribution to future climate change programme implementation? Would you respond to a tender for implementing partners on a future climate change programme? Would you consider forming a consortium with other organisations with complementary capacities in order to implement climate change programme activities?
Discuss what success How would you define Do you understand the Do you consider the How useful do you find Do you have any
39
TOPIC GENERIC QUESTIONS
FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ACCORDING TO WHICH STAKEHOLDER IS BEING INTERVIEWED:
Government Donor community INGOs, Bangladeshi CSOs and research organisations
Private sector
looks like for a climate change programme and how results should be measured
success for a climate change programme in Bangladesh? What do you consider to be the most effective way of measuring results? How to make future climate change related programmes/projects more accountable to the people? What M&E system they want to adopt in this connection? What do you consider to be the most significant challenges to results measurement?
success criteria of a climate change programme? Do you receive results reports and if so, do you find the reported results useful? How should results be measured? Is there a Government-adopted M&E system that the programme should align with?
success criteria of different donor climate change programmes to be sufficiently aligned? Your experience and lessons learned in terms of results measurement in the sector
success criteria in terms of defining implementation objectives? Do the success criteria establish useful management incentives?
experience of reporting results to donor programmes? If so, how easy or difficult have you found this to be?
40
Annex 4 Summary of challenge funds
The scoping mission reviews various programmes that use challenge fund mechanism to deliver results both in Bangladesh and internationally. The programmes cover different sectors and including climate-related initiatives. The review aims to strengthen the evidence base for how a challenge fund can work in Bangladesh (or not) and specifically for a climate adaptation programme by learning from past, on-going, and terminated programmes. We provide a brief summary of the programmes reviewed below. 1. Economic Empowerment of the Poorest (EEP)17 DFID’s EEP Programme in Bangladesh is an £85 million programme that aims to help the Government of Bangladesh achieve its targets on MDGs 1 (Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger) and 2 (Achieve universal primary education) by lifting 1.5 million extremely poor Bangladeshis out of extreme poverty by 2016. This outcome will be achieved through the programme’s five components, namely, a scale fund, an innovation fund, research and lesson learning, advocacy, and nutrition. The programme engages implementation partners, mainly non-governmental organisations, through a challenge fund mechanism under the scale and innovation funds components in the provision of assets and services to extremely poor beneficiaries. This is complemented by the provision of nutrition-enhancing services to households with pregnant or breastfeeding women, and adolescent girls or children under 2, and research and advocacy that explore innovative ways to address extreme poverty. This results chain is hinged on the theory of change that proven interventions to improve livelihoods, tailored to specific local context can enable people in Bangladesh to graduate out of extreme poverty. One of the important assumptions in this theory of change on which the programme banks for success is that the challenge fund mechanism allows access to a wide variety of regions, client groups, and NGO skills and experience which have demonstrated success already in livelihood projects targeted at the extreme poor section of the Bangladeshi population. EEP is a successful programme in terms of meeting deliverable targets. With DFID support, the programme and its implementation partners continue to exceed DFID expectations as per the available Annual Reviews. 2. Responsible and Accountable Garment Sector (RAGS)18 RAGS is a multi-country programme which aims to support projects across India, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Lesotho that are committed to improving working conditions in the ready-made garment sector. With a total budget of £3.5 million, the programme’s goal is to foster responsible, ethical production as a norm in the garment sector supplying in the UK. The programme has three outputs: (i) improved business case for ethical garment production; (ii) improved awareness of decent work and labour rights amongst workers and managers and better capacity to enforce them; and (iii) known barriers to suppliers and buyers scaling up ethical practices are reduced, which are envisaged to lead to the expected outcome of the programme acting as a catalyst to better working conditions in garment industries through the identification and development of scalable and replicable interventions in key labour areas. RAGS operates through a competitive grant mechanism which the private sector and civil society organisations. Potential partners are also required to provide contributions- private sector grantees will provide at least 50 per cent of the grant amount whilst for the civil society organisations, at least 33 per cent.
17
Based on the Business Case and Annual Reviews in http://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-107402/documents/
18 Based on the Business Case and Annual Reviews in http://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-
200634/documents/
41
RAGS has already closed and an independent evaluation has already been undertaken to assess its achievements. Assessed against the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria, the programme as a whole has mostly, partly achieved its objectives (with impact and sustainability not yet achieved due to the timing of the evaluation. 3. Health Sector Development Programme (HSDP)19 HSPD is a five-year programme with a total value of £120 million, the bulk of which is provided as a support to the Government of Bangladesh for the implementation of the national Health, Population, and Nutrition Sector Development Programme. This DFID support is part of a joint-donor programme, with the World Bank leading the trust fund and providing financial oversight. The programme has the following components: (i) UK government contribution of £90 million as financial aid through pool funding under a Multi- Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) managed by the World Bank; (ii) £10 million Joint Donor Technical Assistance Fund (JDTAF) aimed at providing technical support across the 32 Operational Plans of the MOHFW and managed by the Crown Agents; (iii) £5 million Midwifery Development Project implemented by BRAC University; (iv) £5 million pot for covering World Bank management costs and internal M&E and TA activities; (v) £8m for an innovative health challenge fund; and £2m for strengthening voice and accountability in the health sector. As above, the programme originally envisaged to include a challenge fund component to spur innovation in service delivery though the private sector and non-government organisations. After the inception phase, however, DFID together with the private contractor selected as fund manager, agreed to not implement the challenge fund component anymore. Various reasons have been identified in the Annual Review for this decision, including (i) questionable innovative and commercial viability aspects, (ii) current political climate and heightening civil unrest, (iii) unacceptably high risk associated with the delivery of the required return on investment and proving value for money, and (iv) limited timeframe to achieve the expected outcomes. 4. Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund (AECF)20 DFID is providing around £5 million to the £125 million AECF, a multi-donor programme that provides grants and interest-free loans to businesses who wish to implement innovative, commercially viable, high impact projects in Africa, in agriculture, financial services, renewable energy, and technology for adapting to climate change with a purpose of improving incomes of smallholder farmers and the rural poor. Funding is focussed on specific countries such as Kenya, Tanzania, and South Sudan, or at development corridors involving several countries. Grantees are required to match funding provided by AECF. According to KPMG, the facility has grown from US$30 million to US$ 190 million from 2008 and has already approved 133 projects in 22 African countries, positively impacting to an estimated four million rural poor. The Renewable Energy and Adaptation to Climate Technologies (REACT) is the climate change window of AECF. The window is open to companies in East Africa, specifically in Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, and Mozambique. The expected impact of the window is the growth of renewable energy and adaptation to climate change sectors in East African community. The outcome is to catalyse private sector investment and innovation in
19
Based on the Business Case and Annual Reviews in http://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-201645/documents/
20 http://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-201500/ and
http://www.kpmg.com/eastafrica/en/services/advisory/development-advisory-services/services_and_expertise/private_sector_development/aecf/pages/default.aspx
42
low cost clean energy and climate change adaptation that have significant development returns and can promote wider systemic impact. This will be achieved by putting in place mechanisms to identify, select, support, and monitor projects to ensure that they achieve market system improvements that benefit the poor, funding innovative projects and business ideas that demonstrate that new business models can have positive climate change and development impacts, and ensuring that that the projects and business ideas on clean energy and climate technologies selected are commercially viable and demonstrate profitable private sector. Whilst achieving beyond output targets, the REACT window faces the challenge of attracting good quality proposals. The 2013 Annual Review has indeed indicated the need for analysis of why climate adaptation entrepreneurs are not coming forward in sufficient numbers before further rounds. However, despite certain challenges, the Annual Review noted the presence of “circumstantial evidence” of REACT having an influence on (i) investor attitudes and behaviour, (ii) customer awareness, attitudes and buying behaviour towards renewable energy, (iii) marketing and support connections in similar activities including the Climate Innovation Centre in Kenya, the Energy and Environment Partnership in Southern and Eastern Africa and country renewable energy agencies (REAs). 5. The Afghanistan Business Innovation Fund (ABIF)21 DFID and AusAID together provided £7.2 million for a competitive challenge fund to incentivise private sector investment in innovative business models. Funding has been committed across a number of sectors, but with a heavy emphasis on agriculture – ABIF supported investments in both horticulture and livestock sub-sectors, and agri-inputs and agri-processing. ABIF faces extremely challenging circumstances of promoting investment in a conflict affected state, and was implemented in the context of low levels of business sophistication. Nevertheless, after a slow start, more than 90% of funded projects (21 out of 23) are expected to be implemented successfully and these projects are now delivering results that are significantly ahead of original expectations and targets. Whilst ABIF is not concerned with climate change, it is relevant to the current assessment as it has shown that with the right structure and strategy, a challenge fund can be a cost-effective mechanism to:
Incentivise private sector investment decisions according to development objectives; and
Encourage the adoption of commercially viable and sustainable business models that have a wider development impact.
Key elements of the ABIF structure and strategy relevant to the potential fund in Bangladesh are:
Independence of fund allocation: Funds are allocated by an independent investment panel based on the recommendations of the fund manager and subject to DFID’s approval. The government is not represented on the investment panel.
Targeted investment in project development: The ABIF fund manager marketed the fund as widely as possible (through sector associations, chambers of commerce, sector ministries etc.) and received more than 500 applications. From these, only 50 were shortlisted, but then significant expert support was provided to help applicants to develop full proposals. This level of support not only increased the strength of the proposals, but also opened up new variations on proposed investment led business
21
http://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-200898/
43
models that otherwise would not have been developed had the applicants been working by themselves.
Provision of post-grant support: Whilst many of the grantees managed to complete their investment projects successfully (ultimately 23 projects were funded, of which 21 have completed, or are expected to complete, successfully) ABIF has found that there is value in providing post-grant support to both help grantees to implement and/or amend the original business model and to further increase their business competitiveness. DFID’s investment in post-grant support is likely to be as important to the eventual outcome of the ABIF project as the original grants themselves.
44
Annex 5 List of Stakeholders Met
DFID Bangladesh Mr Dan Ayliffe, Humanitarian Advisor Ms Helen O’Connor, Climate and Environment Advisor Dr Liakath
Government of Bangladesh Mr Amirul Hossain, Flood forecasting & Warning Centre, Bangladesh Water Development Board Mr Md. Abdul Qayyum, National Project Director (Addl. Secretary), Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme-II, Ministry of Disaster Management & Relief, GOB Mr. Tariqul Islam, Secretary, Ministry of Women and Children Affairs, GOB Mr Ashdul Islam, Additional Secretary, External Resources Division, M/O Finance, GOB Dr RafiqMondal , Chairman, Bangladesh Agriculture Research Council, M/O Agriculture. Dr Mohamaad Abdul Wazed, Director General (addl. Secretary), Department of Disaster Management Mr Amirul Hossain, Executive Engineer, Flood Forecasting and Warning Centre Mr Saya Saha, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Disaster Management & Relief Mr Tarquil, Secretary, Ministry Women & Children Affairs
Donors & UN Agencies Mr Morshed Ahmed , Norwegian Embassy in Bangladesh Mr Mike Robson, FAO Representative in Bangladesh Dr Abu WaliRaghib Hassan, Climate Change Specialist, FAO Dr Mazharul Aziz, NPD, FAO project Enhancing Food security Through improved water management practices in Sother Coastal Areas of Bangladesh project, FAO Ms Pauline Tamesis, Country Director, UNDP, Bangladesh Mr Nick Dy Country Director, UNDP Bangladesh Mr Khurshid Alam, Assistan Country Director, Disaster, Climate Change & Environment Cluster, UNDP Bangladesh Mr Sifaetullah, Climate change Specialist, UNDP Bangladesh Mr Peter Medway, International Project Manager, CDMP-II, UNDP/Department of Disaster Management & Relief Mr Andre Magnus, SIDA, Swedish Embassy Bangladesh Ms SwarnaKazi, Disaster Risk Management Specialist & Global Facility for Disaster Reduction & Recovery, Bangladesh focal point, World Bank Bangladesh office Steven Louis, Disaster Risk Management Analyst, World Bank, Bangladesh office Swarna Kazi, Disaster Risk Management Specialist & GFDRR Focal Point, World Bank Mr Oliver Brouant , Head of Office, Humanitarial Aid & Civil protection, European Commission, ECHO, Bangladesh Mr Manfred Fernhold, Attache, Programme Manager, Food security & Climate Change, Delegation of EU to Bangladesh
CSOs/NGOS Mr Snehal Soneji, Country Director, Katalyst Mr M.B. Akhter, Programmes Chief, Oxfam Ms Morshida, Disaster Risk Reduction Specialist, Oxfam Mr Snehal V.Soneji, Country Director, Oxfam Ms Jamie D. Torzi, Country Director, CARE International-Bangladesh Ms Farah Kabir, Country Director, Action Aid-Bangladesh Mr Khemrai Upadhyaya, National Alliance Risk Reduction and Response Initatives (NARRI) Khondoker Tawhid, Regional and National Training Coordinator, Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre
45
Shabul Firaz, Country Director, Islamic Relief Christa Raeder, Representative & Country Director, World Food Programme Claire Conan, Evaluation Officer, World Food Programme Jimi Richardson, Head of programme, World Food Programme
Private Sector Mr Tawhidul Khan Tusher, Assistant Branf Manager, PRAB-BD Mr Md. Khaled Mostafa, Manager, Marketing, LalTeerseed Limited, Bangladeash , Mr Ruhul Amin, Executiveofficer, LalTeer Seed limited Mr Md. EleashMridha, Director, PRAN
External Advisors/Acedemics/Media Dr.SaleemulHuq, Director, International Centre for Climate Change and Development at Independent University, Bangladesh Mr Richard Lace, BBC Media Action, Bangladesh Mr AtiqRahman , Bangladesh Centre for Advance Studies. Mr Richad Lace, Country Director, BBC media Action Mr T Adil Choudhury, Sustainable communities, Dr Haseeb Md. Irfanullah, PC, IUCN Mr ShabelFiruz, Country Director, Islamic Relief, Bangladesh Dr Prof.Mizanur Rahman, Head of the Department, Environment/disaster /climate change, NSU, Dhaka Mr Richard Lace, Country Director, BBC Media Action Ms Masroora Haque, Coordinator communications, IUB Dr Ahsan Uddin Ahmed, ED Centre for Global Change Dr SharmindNeelormi, Associate Professor, JU Dr Hari Prasad, ADPC Dr Shanazefin, Director, Actionaid BD
46
Annex 6 Scoping Mission Work Plan
PHASE/KEY ACTIVITIES WEEK
11-Jan 18-Jan 25-Jan 01-Feb 08-Feb
A. INCEPTION PHASE
i. Inception Meeting
ii. Preliminary review of relevant documentation
iii. Finalisation of the approach for the data collection
iv. Logistical preparations
B. STUDY PHASE
v. Data collection
vi. Presentation to DFID-B
vii. Analysis (assumes that writing is being done concurrently)
viii. Reporting