module_6_final_0.pdf

Facilitator: Make sure to change the date on the slide so that it is the correct date.
Estimated Time: 8 hours
1

Facilitator: Make sure to change the date on the slide so that it is the correct date.
This module focuses on the general steps for preparing an effective proposal. Though the point will
be made clear later in the module, it should be emphasized that preparing proposals is a separate
task from developing climate change adaptation and resilience policies.
Materials needed:
--Flip chart and markers
--White board and markers
--Powerpoint projector
--Valenzuela information pack
The learning objectives for this module are to:
• Identify the key components of proposals for financing to support urban climate adaptation
initiatives
• Show how to develop a problem tree, objectives tree, and logistical framework (logframe) for a
project or program
• Explain what is meant by “due diligence” for donor appraisal of funding proposals
• Demonstrate some “best practices” and lessons learned for developing effective proposals.
2

Note to Facilitator: The purpose of this slide is to briefly review the material from the
last module and build a bridge between this module and the last module. The
facilitator should step through each of the bullets individually and engage the
participants in summarizing each of the points from the previous module. This would
be a good time to ask if there are any questions or additional points to discuss from the
previous module, now that the participants have “slept on it.”
3

Note to Facilitator: Introduce the section by putting it in the context of moving from
adaptation options to a concrete proposal for financing. Discuss the steps that we have
just completed. The facilitator may choose whatever technique is deemed appropriate
for reviewing material from the previous module, but it is important to create some
sort of bridge between module #5 and the current module (#6).
4

Note to Facilitator: To give workshop participants a chance to apply the concepts
introduced with each “step” of this project preparation and due diligence process, key
elements from a flood management and CCA Project in Manila will be used as an
example. Participants can be shown what the donor agencies and local officials did and
how it decided to address key issues, and relate on how they would apply such an
example in their own home context or setting.
The first part of this module will focus on general steps for project proposal
development that are common to many funders/lenders. We draw heavily on World
Bank policies and procedures, but these steps are useful in preparing proposals for
USAID, ADB, and other bi- and multilateral institutions.
During the second part of the module we will discuss some of the procedures that
lenders/funders use to appraise project proposals. The idea here is to give you some
insight into the funder’s perspective and to understand some of the basic
considerations that funders are using to judge proposals.
In the last section of the module we will discuss some useful rules of thumb for
developing effective and “bankable” proposals.
5

Here we reiterate that in this module we are moving away from policy development
processes and into project/proposal development. Make sure that the participants
understand that project/program/proposal development is a distinct and separate
activity than developing a CCAR policy or plan. The CCAR policy or plan serves as a
baseline guiding framework upon which different proposals and programs will build.
Hence with your proposal you are developing a step-by-step methodology for
addressing part of your priority vulnerabilities and the associated direct and indirect
impacts, exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. In other words, the proposal
being developed in this module will support the overall objectives of the CCAR plan or
policy.
6

Note to facilitator: It is important to stress that really good project/program proposals
are best prepared in a participatory process involving all key stakeholders, especially at
the very early conceptual and problem analysis stages. Through a formal workshop or a
series of more informal field level dialogues, inputs from affected populations are vital
to avoid later conflict and opposition. The project proposal will generally be prepared
with the technical assistance of a team of specialist consultants, who will be contracted
to assist in the preparation of documentation for the donor or lender’s due diligence
and appraisal process.

At this stage of the training we are shifting gears to discuss developing proposals for
funding. This is a separate process than conducting your vulnerability assessment and
creating CCAR policy. This is an ad-hoc activity in which the exact steps will depend on
the requirements of the specific grant or loan you are applying for. These are general
steps that should help you navigate the proposal preparation process.
It is important to understand that the vulnerability assessment should inform project
proposals. In other words, conducting the vulnerability assessment will prepare you for
developing project proposals. Over the course of this module, some of the activities
may seem redundant. However, they are an essential part of developing a good,
“bankable” proposal.
Note to facilitator: Here are the steps in developing a typical project proposal. We will
explain each of these further using Integrated Flood Risk Management Project for
Valenzuela that we used in previous modules, which is summarized in exercises and
handouts provided to the participants, as an applied “hands-on” example. No need to
go into any detailed discussions or explanations here.
8

Note to Facilitator: If you choose to use the Valenzuela case study, make sure the
participants have the Valenzuela handout. It should have been given to them in earlier
modules. Otherwise, this material can be used as an example of a project proposal.
If you are using the material that has been generated by the participants themselves,
use this slide as context for a description of the Valenzuela city project proposal. If you
choose to use examples that have been generated by the participant groups, after
describing the Valenzuela case, ask the participants to move back into their groups and
proceed with the activities described in the speaker notes using their materials rather
than the Valenzuela case study material.
9

Note to Facilitator: This map shows flooding in Valenzuela during a recent tropical
cyclone (2012). Blue shaded areas show the extent of the flooding.
10

The point of the “problem tree” and subsequent “objectives tree” is to clearly define
the problem that you intend to address with this project. Though it might seem trivial,
a common complaint from donor and lending organizations is that there is no clear,
concise statement of the problem that is being addressed. In many cases, proposals
jump right to the project components and intended interventions, which, without a
clear statement of purpose, can seem more like a mish mash of unrelated activities,
rather than a coherent program or portfolio of strategies designed to systematically
address a major threat.
A “Problem Tree” provides an overview of the causes and effects to an identified
problem. The idea is to help ensure that the project design considers the full context of
the problem. It involves identifying the core problem, and then working together as a
group to discuss the immediate and secondary causes, along with the effects. The
problem tree can help stakeholders understand and visualize the complexity of the
problem by identifying multiple causes. It can also help to reveal lines of intervention
and other factors that may need to be tackled with complementary projects. The
finished problem tree provides a starting point for defining an outline of possible
solutions through the use of an “Objective Tree,” including the activities that need to
be undertaken, the desired goal or outcomes of the project.
11

Key guidelines for problem trees include the following:
--They should be completed with all of the stakeholders present
--The time required varies from a couple of hours to half a day or more depending on
the complexity of the problem and the diversity of the stakeholders.
Here we’re going to go through the steps in developing a problem tree, using the
Valenzuela project as an example. It can (and probably should) be repeated or
“verified/confirmed” in subsequent meetings to ensure the robustness of the analysis
and conclusions reached.
The first step of the problem tree is to settle on the core problem. As noted previously,
this involves all of the stakeholders. The core problem is a simple, objective statement
of the physical process that is causing difficulties. In the case of the Valenzuela
example, there are two major problems
--Frequent flooding
--Water/sanitation deficiencies.
A key point to make here is that though we are describing this as a climate change
adaptation and resilience project, which is indicated by the problem of frequent
flooding, the related water issue has been identified as well. In the case of Valenzuela
there is a clear adaptation deficit, and by integrating it into the flooding project, the
project planners take advantage of synergies between adaptation and broader
development needs. Those are examples of co-benefits and of the mainstreaming
process we discussed in the last module.
The second step is to identify the direct causes and direct effects. What is the obvious
cause of the problem, and what are the obvious effects of the problem? In the case of
Valenzuela, there are several obvious causes including:
--heavy rains
--rapid urban growth in flood-prone areas
--Overtaxed infrastructure: the city is built to accommodate 300,000 but now has 2.7
million residents
--Damaged dike walls and related issues
--broken pumps
--Many people have settled in flood prone areas. This is exacerbated by a recent long
lasting drought since people have moved into areas that are historically vulnerable to
flooding
--Obstruction of natural drains by solid wastes .
Direct effects include
--Increased stress and vulnerability for the urban poor
--Significant damage to infrastructure, public equipment, and private property
11

The third step is to identify the indirect or “driving” causes. These are the broader
scale (spatially and temporally) processes that are driving the more immediate causes.
In developing your problem tree, you may add several layers of secondary causes,
depending on the complexity of the issue, and how ambitious your project planning is.
In the case of the Senegal project, some of the driving causes would include
--Rural to urban migration (3% per year growth in city population)
--Deficiencies in urban planning
--No lead agency responsible for storm water management and maintenance
Note to Facilitator: Sometimes the trickiest part of developing a problem tree is to
identify the core problem. For example, in some instances “drought” may be identified
as the core problem. However, drought is a condition that creates problems; it is
difficult if not impossible to address “drought” as a problem. Thus participants should
be careful in identifying actionable problems, such as “water shortage”, or “insufficient
drinking water”. Clearly stated core problems are a key feature of useful problem tree
analysis.
11

Note to Facilitator: This is an example of the messy process involved in brainstorming
with a group of stakeholders in trying to define what the focal problem is and what
might be the primary causes. Note that the items in red, were to illustrate how the
probable causes could be turned into project activities/objectives. In this particular
case, the government official believed that climate change may have been the main
cause of the decline in fish production. Through the brainstorming exercise, it was
realized that many other causes may be contributing to the decline and a good project
design would need to include solutions to some of these causes, as well as addressing
climate change adaptation.
Hint: If the participants have difficulty deciding what should go in the middle of the
problem tree, ask them to think about the problem which lends itself to solution. For
example, there is not much the participants can do about drought. However, there may
be things they can do to create a more sustainable water supply. So in this example,
“water shortage” might be the issue that goes in the middle of the problem tree.
12

Note to Facilitator: The very messy mind-map generated by the brainstorming exercise
can then be turned into something more “organized” and included in a design report,
as in this example, which is a neater version of the flip-chart problem tree shown on
the previous slide.
13

This is an example of a problem tree that was developed during the Quezon City pilot of
this training series. The participant group, from the municipality of Malolos, identified
flooding as their primary threat, but when it came to identifying the core problem, they
choose to highlight displacement of informal settlers. The problem tree demonstrates
all of the direct and indirect impacts resulting from the participants’ discussion of the
problem.
Some of the indirect impacts they described include
--increasing welfare costs
--disruption of public service provision
--disruption of school/church activities
--decreased budget on other government services
--increased incidence of illness
--garbage and human waste disposal problems
--pest infestation
--loss of lives
--poor education
--increased crime rate
--disruption of livelihoods
14

Factors contributing to the problem included
--Makeshift houses
--increased number of informal settlers living along riverbanks
--Poor enforcement of zoning and building regulations
--poverty
--Unprotected and silted rivers
--reclamation of rivers
--improper waste disposal
--land conversion
14

Most of these general points for developing a problem tree are fairly self explanatory.
--The problems that are identified should be based on evidence and experience. In
other words, there should be clear agreement on the problems. The core/focus
problem should be identified by consensus and should be stated as an effect, impact or
condition that the shared learning dialogue or other stakeholder involvement
mechanism agrees is the core situation to be remedied for the health, safety, or well
being of the community.
--The problem tree should clearly illustrate the cause-effect link between problems and
contributing factors/issues that arise from the problems so that the root causes are
clear
--The immediate causes suggest all the major aspects of the core problem.
--Problem trees should exclude overall constraints that are not solvable. Examples
include institutional corruption, population pressure, unmanaged urbanization.
However, be careful with this because sometimes difficult issues can be addressed.
15

Note to Facilitator: Work with participants to put together a problem tree, using background
documents from the Valenzuela PFS. Note that many of the problems are actually beyond the
power of the City itself to solve, such as upstream flooding in the two major rivers bounding the
City. Nevertheless, these problems should be identified, as the City may need to appeal to the
national government or neighboring cities to deal with these issues.
At this point you may choose to use the Valenzuela case study materials, of you can continue using
the example generated in previous modules.
Example from Maumere training: In Maumere the participant groups continued to work on the
primary threats they had identified in the previous modules. The options they had generated, along
with the concept maps of exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability, were also used
to conduct this exercise.
Example from Quezon City Training
In Quezon City the participants used their own materials to develop the problem and objectives
tree, but they did not begin until the facilitator described the objectives tree. Then the participants
were given approximately 1.5 hours to discuss and develop a problem and objectives tree.
If you are not using the Valenzuela example for the group work, another option is to model the
development of a problem tree using the Valenzuela example and input from all of the participants.
16

The participants can then be dismissed to their groups to work on their own problem tree.
16

This slide demonstrates the transformation from Problem Tree to Objective Tree. In
summary, the problem tree starts with what the project team believes to be the main
problem and, using a brainstorming approach, tries to find the dominant causes of the
problem through cause-effect linkage.
The objectives tree basically reverses the process and tries to find a potential solution
to each of the causes. From this web of potential solutions, the elements of a project
design begin to emerge, where specific activities lead to anticipated results which
contribute to the project objectives (which in turn contributes to broader development
objectives.
In the context of preparing a proposal, you can think of the positive outcomes as
Development Objectives. The desired results can be thought of as the “key outcome
indicators”, and the direct causes can be thought of as “Activities and Inputs”. This is a
useful way of organizing the contents of the proposal.
Remember that climate change projections may be uncertain, so consider building into
your project design what are called “real options” (e.g. setting aside land now for a
climate change investment later) rather than incurring a cost now which might turn out
17

to be “maladaptive” later (this is an example of the concept of maladaptation called
“path dependency” or “locking in” unwise investments).
Also remember that the choice of discount rate can make a significant difference in the
economic viability of a proposed project, especially where benefits are expected to
occur at some time in the future.
The graphic in the slide is based on a model from a USAID website
(http://usaidprojectstarter.org/content/problem-trees-and-objective-trees) that
provides some useful information on how to develop project and objective trees in the
context of development projects.
17

Note to Facilitator: This objectives tree corresponds to the previous problem tree
example. The facilitator may want to flip back and forth between the slide so that the
participants can see how the different elements have been altered to go from problem
tree to objectives tree.
18

This slide shows a photograph of the objectives tree that was developed by the Malolos group
in the Quezon City, Philippines training. In this case the core problem, displacement of
informal settlers, was altered to “zero displacement”. Outcomes of this include
--balanced/managed budget funds
--improved education
--Functional institutions and agencies
--more job opportunities
--more development projects
--safe and resilient community
--healthy community
--improved basic social services.
Contributing factors to these outcomes included
--Strictly enforced existing laws and policies on housing and buildings
--reduced river siltation
--improved garbage and human waste disposal
--compliance of developers on storm drainage
--Waterways system in subdivisions monitored
--no informal settlers along riverbanks
--managed development
19

Note to Facilitator: The Objectives Tree is the second step after creating a Problem
Tree and simply builds on the structure of the Problem Tree.
The first step is to reexamine the negative statement of the problem and change that to
a positive statement. This is a participatory process, because this involves envisioning a
goal that is agreeable to all stakeholders. Then each of the causes are changed so that
they lead to the desired effect. By changing the causes the stakeholder participators
are able to think about ways to bring the positive causes into being, and what practical
steps should be taken. This will also help to prioritize actions.
20

This hints for developing an effective objectives tree are fairly self explanatory.
--Are the links between each statement logical and reasonable? In other words, will
the achievement of one help support the attainment of another that is above it in the
hierarchy?
--Is there a need to add any other positive actions and/or statements? Is more detail
required?
Are the positive actions at one level sufficient to lead to the result in the level above
it? Or do these need other conditions (external to the project?
21

The “initial concept note” is a short description or executive summary of a potential
project that is used to begin negotiations with a donor or lender. The Proposal
Rationale/Justification is where you take your problem tree and objective and turn them
into a narrative of the problem and proposed interventions.
Questions: This slide shows some of the questions a project description or rationale
should answer from the outset. What other questions should it answer?
How long should a rationale statement be?
How do we make it short AND persuasive?
How do we ensure that it provides enough information for a potential financing source
to express interest?
22

An additional consideration is how the proposed project fits in with
--existing mandates
--other development objectives
--current or planned development programs and projects.
Remember, the best projects are those that address adaptation as part of a broader
development program and have co-benefits that help to achieve other development objectives.
In other words, you proposal should be harmonized with other development goals and should
describe how it fits in with a broader framework. Some lender/donors require an explicit
statement of how the project reinforces other goals.
Talk through these bullets one by one. They are self explanatory. Specific information from the
example of Valenzuela Flood Risk management and CCA Project is given below to contextualize
the concept. Some projects will reference national development plans, regional development
plans, climate adaptation plans and other national, regional and donor plans
1st Bullet: Valenzuela referenced climate change and climate change adaptation
2nd Bullet: Explicitly referenced its National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
3rd Bullet: Mentioned Regional Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Project)
23

The project development objective is a short, succinct statement describing the overall
goal of the project.
For a large project with multiple sub-components, the overall project objective need
NOT:
--specify HOW the project activities will lead to the intended outcome
--specify a time period for project achievement;
--indicate what metric will be used to assess project success.
The World Bank provides some tips for effectively stating strategic objectives, including:
--Maintain a single focus. Multiple objectives with multiple components are challenging
to manage and measure
--Test the wording to make sure it is clear. Test the wording with various stakeholders to
make sure the objective is understood and not interpreted differently by different
constituents.
24

Activity: Have the groups develop a Project Development Objective for the sample
project proposal they are developing.
25

Note to Facilitator: what is the primary value of a Results Framework? A results
framework is an explicit statement of the results expected from a project, program, or
development strategy. It can come in the form of a graphic display, matrix, or summary.
The results come in the form of long-term objectives and the intermediate outcomes
and outputs that preceded and lead to those desired longer-term objectives.
Can be supplemented by identifying the key behavioral assumptions for each activity.
The primary value in communicating to all those involved in the project about how parts
of the project are linked to outputs and outcomes. Showing activities and assumptions
provides clarification to all stakeholders and makes it easier for those engaged in
monitoring and evaluation to determine what parts of the project were implemented
successfully.
The image is of a World Bank publication on developing results framework that might
be of interest to the participants. It can be downloaded at
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTEVACAPDEV/Resources/designing_results_fram
ework.pdf
A PDF of the guide book is also included in the resources pack for the participants.
26

A project logic framework links the goal of a project to specific outcomes. So the goal in
this project might “strengthen community capacity to create local resilience activities” or
“increase community resiliency by designating and implementing hazard zones for flood
prone areas”
What do we mean by resource inputs? [funding, skills, knowledge, information].
What do we mean by activities? [specific steps that lead to changed knowledge, capacity,
behavior, understanding, systems “resiliency”, etc. Might include training, construction of
some facility that increases redundancy or modularity in the system]
What assumptions do we make about activities? [Implemented as designed; Reach all those
for whom activity was intended; those who are responsible for implementation
understand and support the intent of the activity, etc.]
What are intended outputs? [# and quality of disaster reduction training sessions
compared to intentions; % of intended communities/groups reached; % of plans for
intended infrastructure completed, etc.]
What are intended outcomes? [# and % of project communities effectively performing
climate impact management functions by 2017; climate adaptation initiatives integrated
into community plans in all project communities]
What are intended impacts? [Losses from coastal flooding in project communities reduced
27

by ___% by 2020 from 2013 baseline]
27

For example, if your project aims at increasing the level of education in the city, you might
develop a project proposal to fund new school construction. A simple logframe might be:
1. Resources/Inputs: Money, technical expertise, administrative
2. Activities: Planning designing, site selection, construction
3. Outputs: Finished buildings. How many.
4. Outcomes: Proportional increase in number of children educated
5. Impact: Broader effects. Economic growth, skilled labor force enhanced,
educated citizens
You may choose to provide several examples. The key questions that are addressed in the
Logframe are:
1. What is the project going to achieve?
2. What activities will be carried out to achieve the outputs and goals?
3. What resources (inputs) are required?
4. What are the potential problems which could affect the success of the project?
5. How with the progress and ultimate success of the project be measured and verified?
Source: W.K. Kellogg Foundation. 2004. Logic Model Development Guide. Battle Creek, Michigan.
28

Note to facilitator: After you discuss the contents of this slide, there is an activity.
Simple example of a project logframe that focuses on effort to educate/mobilize community to
waste dumping in canals and to participate in periodic canal cleaning efforts.
Sample indicators for monitoring effectiveness:
Convene community meetings: How many meetings were organized and in what areas of
Valenzuela? What proportion of community participated?
Mobilize communities: What means were used to educate public? How effective were they
perceived to be? How many signed pledge to avoid dumping wastes?
Reduce waste disposal in canals/Clean canals: How many people have participated in canal
cleaning activities? How much as waste in canals been reduced? What measures have been taken
to sustain efforts to clean canals? How effective are they perceived to be? What other measures
[e.g. more waste disposal facilities in community] have been undertaken?
Increase stream flow: What impacts, if any, have canal cleaning efforts had on canal flow?
ACTIVITY: The participants should be in their groups. Together they will develop a simple log-
frame for the sample project they are developing for either the Valenzuela case, or the case study
29

they have generated in previous modules.
29

This slide illustrates a general method for transferring the results of the objective tree
analysis into a logframe for a project proposal.
The information on this slide was developed by and appears courtesy of the School of
Urban and Regional Planning, University of The Philippines, Diliman.
30

This slide reiterates the structure of the logframe and describes some common
language that is used in logframes.
31

Different organizations use different language for the various parts of the logframe, but
the overall structure is similar across organizations. This table illustrates this point.
32

The next step in developing a project is to design the project components.
This slide shows the project components for the Valenzuela project. The cost of the structural
components of the Valenzuela flood control project is estimated to be US$54.5 million
Note to Facilitator: You can prompt a critical-thinking review of this project’s designed with
questions, such as:
-- Was this project well-designed?
--In addition to structural components, the project also focused on community level activities such
as organized stream cleaning. How will these efforts be sustained?
--Shouldn’t affected communities be involved in preparing flood risk maps with local gov’t and
external GIS specialists?
-- And vice-versa: shouldn’t planners be working with communities once they have the base info
and maps on the risk reduction or prevention CCA strategies to enhance their resilience to any
disaster?
These are just some of the more obvious questions you could ask the workshop participants to
prompt a discussion about how to structure projects of their own in the future.
33

Another major component of project proposals is the institutional arrangements for
project implementation.
Note to Facilitator: This is not an iron-clad list for all projects, just an illustrative one of
a typical project funded by an MDB, such as the World Bank or Asian Development.
1st Bullet: Borrower – This is typically a central government entity, often the Ministry of
Finances or Economic Development. They are the entity ultimately responsible for
conducting the project in accordance with the conditions and requirements contained
in the legal and financial agreements signed between the lender and borrower. In
some cases, there is more than one borrower, but it is rare.
2nd Bullet: Implementing Agency(ies) – While a central financial ministry is typically the
“borrower,” the agency(ies) actually implementing the project is/are a “line ministry,”
such as housing, natural resources, education, etc. They are also typically national level
agencies, although that is not true in all cases, as we can see in this Valenzuela
example, being implemented the Department of Public Works and Housing, the Flood
Control Division, etc.
34

3rd Bullet: Key Partners or Collaborators – self-explanatory. These are the other
involved agencies and non-government entities that are considered “key stakeholders”
or whose help and collaboration will be useful in conducting the project’s activities and
eventually achieving its objectives.
4th Bullet: Project TA provided – In many cases, specialized expertise is brought in to
help with the project staff with the implementation of a project, or to comply with the
lender’s requirements. It is usually long-term TA in nature, as many lenders schedule
regular supervision missions to verify the progress being made and compliance with
applicable project implementation requirements.
5th Bullet: Lender – the lender’s roles and responsibilities should also be laid out clearly
in its function of supervising and overseeing project implementation. Depending on the
progress being made or any issues of concern that might arise during implementation,
the level of supervision and oversight can change during project implementation.
34

This diagram approximates, but is not exactly the same as the the organization of the
Project Design Team shown on p. 12 of the Integrated Flood Risk Management of the
City of Valenzuela, Philippines.
One of the issues identified in the development of the project is that planning for
stormwater and drainage involves a number of agencies including the Flood Control
Division, the Department of Public Works and Highways, Department of City and
Planning and other agencies, but at the time of drafting the pre-feasibility study, the
arrangements for coordinating construction and operation and maintenance activities
had had not been specified.
35

Most funders require a statement about potential problems related to implementation.
Though it is impossible to anticipate everything that might come up, it is important to
put some careful deliberation into potential problems.
Implementation problems may occur because of unclear agency responsibilities, lack of
legal authority, inadequate resources, inadequate or incomplete project design and
related governance issues. In this slide possible social impacts associated with the
existing project design have been identified. This list is representative of the types of
design issues that can occur.
36

After describing the potential issues that could arise, address contingency plans, or
efforts to mitigate or decrease the likelihood or severity of these implementation
problems. This slide describes how this was done in the context of the Valenzuela
project.
Activity: An optional activity here is to ask the participant groups to identify
implementation issues that may come up in the project they are designing. The second
step is to brainstorm ways to addressing the issues.
37

In addition to ad-hoc analyses of potential, project-specific implementation issues, most
funders have institutionalized project risk assessments that must be conducted for every
proposal. There are many different types of risk, but the World Bank and other agencies
require that these risks be analyzed in a structured and comprehensive manner so that
appropriate mitigation measures can be devised.
After discussing some of the risks of the Valenzuela project, ask the participants what sorts of
risks might be associated with a project of this nature, and what kinds of risks might be present
in their home contexts?
Then ask the participants what sorts of mitigation measures might be designed to address
these risks. Risks might include construction quality control, lack of agency coordination,
project complexity, lack of community support, currency devaluation resulting in inability to
complete some portions of the project. What else?
The term “force majeure” in this context refers to a clause in the contract that frees the parties
from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of
the parties prevents one or both from fulfilling the obligations under the contract. These
events might include war, volcanic eruptions, and other similarly unforeseeable disruptions.
38

Donor agencies have established social and environmental safeguards to help ensure
strong protections for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people and for the
environment. The World Bank’s current policies – often called “safeguards” – were
developed over the last 20 years to help identify, avoid, and minimize harms to people
and the environment. These safeguards require borrowing governments to address
certain environmental and social risks in order to receive Bank financing for
development projects.
Examples of such requirements include conducting an environmental and social impact
assessment, consulting with affected communities about potential project impacts, and
restoring the livelihoods of displaced people
*http://consultations.worldbank.org/Data/hub/files/safeguardsreviewapproachpaper_
3.pdf. The World Bank has 12 standards from which these are drawn
Other examples:
 The international Finance Corporation (IFC) has 7 Performance Standards. They
are:
39

PS 1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts
PS 2: Labor and Working Conditions
PS 3: Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention
PS 4: Community Health, Safety, and Security
PS 5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement
PS 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural
Resources
PS 7: Indigenous Peoples
PS 8: Cultural Heritage
http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/115482804a0255db96fbffd1a5d13d27/PS_En
glish_2012_Full-Document.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
 World Bank is developing new “Social and Environmental Standards” now. They
are:
1. Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts
2. Labor and Working Conditions
3. Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention
4. Community Health and Safety
5. Land Acquisition, Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary Resettlement
6. Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living natural
Resources
7. Indigenous Peoples
8. Cultural Heritage
9. Financial Intermediaries
10. Information Disclosure and Stakeholder Engagement
http://consultations.worldbank.org/Data/hub/files/safeguardsreviewapproachpaper_3.pdf
 ADB has three (3) Safeguards Policies and Safeguard “elements” in several sectors.
The three Safeguard Policies for the ADB are:
1. Environment
3. Involuntary Resettlement
http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/32056/safeguard-policy-
statement-june2009.pdf
39

FM = Financial Management
MDA = Manila Development Authority
Funders also require certain procedures to prevent financial malfeasance. The World Bank’s
policies require the borrower and/or the implementing entity to use financial management
arrangements that are in compliance with the banks standards as part of the overall
arrangements for implementing the project. This includes providing a reasonable guarantee
that the Bank’s funds are used for the purpose for which they are granted, and that the
payments are made.
Financial management includes planning, budgeting, accounting, internal control, funds flow,
financial reporting, and auditing arrangements.
Relevant World Bank policies include
--OP/BP 8.60, which contains rules for Development Policy Lending (DPL)
--OP/BP 9.00 which contains rules for Program-for-Results Financing (PforR)
--OP/BP 10.00, which contains rules for Investment Project Financing.
Graphic from the World Bank:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPRS/0,,contentMDK:2
1629917~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:384201~isCURL:Y,00.html
40

Note to Facilitator: The reason for separating out this section of the project preparation
process is that funding agencies will take the initial project preparation documents usually
prepared by consultants under project preparation technical assistance and put the proposal
through a series of “screens” – technical feasibility, economic and financial due diligence,
rationale for additional climate finance, environmental and social safeguards, adequate
fiduciary controls of procurement and invoicing of goods and services, disbursements and
accounting of project funds, etc. All of these steps (plus others not covered here) are required
as part of most funding agencies’ due diligence procedures, although they vary from
organization to organization.
It is not our intention to show you how to do all of these analytical review processes as that
would be beyond the scope of our purpose of describing what types of review will occur to any
proposal. However, it is important for project proponents to know what these screens are and
how they work in order to prepare and submit better (that is, more “bankable”) CCAR project
proposals with a higher probability of being approved to receive financial assistance.
In other words, this section aims to give you the funder’s perspective on your proposal.

Note to Facilitator: Other important components of project proposals address technical
feasibility, financial analysis, environmental and social safeguards, fiduciary principles of
financial management and procurement. These are discussed in the slides that follow.
Go through each bullet point-by-point, but without delving too deeply into any one of
them since all of these project review screens are described in greater detail in
subsequent slides.
1st Bullet (Step 1): Economic & Financial Analyses -- The objective of financial analysis (of
commercial profitability) is to assess the net financial results of a project from the
investor point of view, while the economic analysis (of “public” profitability) aims to
identify and measure the net economic benefits of the project from the society point of
view. The former uses market prices; the latter uses “shadow prices” to estimate what
true economic prices would be if they existed for that “shared common” public good or
service.
2nd Bullet (Step 2): Technical (and managerial) Feasibility – This is self-explanatory, but
basically the technical (but sometimes also having to do with the institutional
coordination or administrative/logistic issues of) complexity or difficulty of getting some
42

stated purpose or task done in a timely and cost-effective way.
3rd Bullet (Step 3): Financial Management (FM) and Procurement Systems – These are
highly technical and specialized fields of expertise and applied industry practices that will
be explained later. Basically, they refer to the financial controls over how funds are
collected and disbursed, how the accounting of project funds is kept track of (how the
“books” are done), and how goods and services are acquired and paid for. It is all about
keeping track of the money (that is, of project funds.)
4th Bullet (Step 4): Environmental & Social Safeguards – These “Safeguards” are comprised
of a set of common, but not identical “concerns” about unnecessary or excessive
damages done to the environment or to people and their cultural practices, history, or
sacred or special places that might be caused by a given project. They vary by
organization, but revolve around a similar set of concerns or policies to “cause no
(unnecessary) harm.”
5th Bullet (Step 5): Project Approval, Final Negotiations & Start of Project Implementation –
This is just the final set of steps that are required to make a project “effective” in terms
of receiving financial and technical assistance from an MDB or donor. Once a project
“passes” all the due diligence screens of the funding entity, it is then presented to that
institution’s governing board for its consideration, adjustment or amendment, and
approval or rejection. If it is approved with “conditions,” then these must be met and
the final legal and financial agreements are negotiated between the project proponent
and lender/grantee until a final agreement is reach. This normally takes 3 – 6 months,
but can last for years in some unusual cases. Then, a date is set by when the project
becomes “effective” and funds are transferred, staff are hired and project activities
commence, data on baseline conditions should start to be collected and entered into
project management information systems (MIS) as part of monitoring and evaluation
(M&E), and the project “clock starts ticking” in terms of the length of the project and
when certain milestones are expected to be met.
42

Note to Facilitator: Conduct an open discussion on the various aspects of technical
feasibility that need to be considered as part of the appraisal process (as well as any
additional considerations they develop). You may ask the participants to provide some
examples based on the Valenzuela City case study of the information they have been
developing on their own locality.
1st Bullet on Consideration of full range of “reasonable” alternatives: This is a very
common practice conducted by most, if not all, donors and MDBs. The terms
“reasonable” and “based on sound analysis” are of course subjective terms, but they
have been defined as generally conforming to prevailing international standards or
norms. The comparison of all “reasonable” alternatives must include the “no project”
or “without project” option.
2nd Bullet on “adjustments” required to account for “new normal” CC threats and
impacts: This bullet simply asks whether the project proponent has adequately taken
into account some of the different weather patterns and impacts that might be
expected (as well as the various kinds and severity of impacts based on the full range of
CC scenarios for the area in which the project is proposed).
43

3rd Bullet on the adequacy of risk-mitigating counter-measures to expected threats
and impacts: although this is usually handled as a separate analysis in most MDB
project proposals now, it can be considered as an integral part of the technical and
managerial feasibility analysis that a donor or lender typically uses.
4th Bullet on the adequacy of local capacity: Again, this is now typically handled as a
separate analysis in most MDB or donor due diligence reviews due to its importance in
the ultimate success or failure of many projects, it can be considered as part of the
technical or managerial feasibility of a given project.
5th Bullet on “other considerations: Are there any other issues or concerns that you
would consider appropriate or relevant to consider when assessing the technical
feasibility of a project or the managerial capacity of the recipient and implementing
agencies to successfully implement it? Discuss with the group.
43

Note to Facilitator: Once again, no need to focus on specific institution’s ESSs or on a
specific ESS. They are fairly similar and are continually coalescing around more and
more similarity due to donor coordination.
The key is to let participants know that they exist and vary by institution, and that
project proponents will need to show that they have adequate and credible safeguard
systems in place to ensure their compliance with these standards.
1st Bullet: Purpose: self-explanatory
2nd Bullet: just so Facilitator can refer to three of the largest lenders’ ESSs.
 IFC has 7 Performance Standards. They are:
PS 1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts
PS 2: Labor and Working Conditions
PS 3: Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention
PS 4: Community Health, Safety, and Security
PS 5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement
PS 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural
Resources
44

PS 7: Indigenous Peoples
PS 8: Cultural Heritage
http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/115482804a0255db96fbffd1a5d13d27/PS_En
glish_2012_Full-Document.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
 World Bank is developing new “Social and Environmental Standards” now. They
are:
1. Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts
2. Labor and Working Conditions
3. Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention
4. Community Health and Safety
5. Land Acquisition, Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary Resettlement
6. Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living natural
Resources
8. Cultural Heritage
9. Financial Intermediaries
10. Information Disclosure and Stakeholder Engagement
http://consultations.worldbank.org/Data/hub/files/safeguardsreviewapproachpaper_3.pdf
 ADB has three (3) Safeguards Policies and Safeguard “elements” in several sectors.
The three Safeguard Policies for the ADB are:
1. Environment
3. Involuntary Resettlement
http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/32056/safeguard-policy-
statement-june2009.pdf
44

Economic and Financial Analysis: Process of properly specifying and justifying the
assumptions [concerning costs, benefits, etc.] underlying financial and economic
analysis, particularly benefits with and without the projects.
Cost-benefit analysis is used to assess the desirability of a climate impact intervention by
weighing the expected costs against the expected benefits. Costs might include the
direct and indirect costs of constructing and maintaining a dike or the direct costs of
relocating a community. Benefits, such as reduction of hazard-related losses are also
computed. CBA usually involves converting benefits and costs into monetary units and
then converting future streams of expected costs and benefits into a present value using
a discount rate.
Cost effective analysis is used to compare two or more climate adaptation actions in
terms of their relative effectiveness per unit of cost or some other measure. Relative
effectiveness might involve comparing interventions in terms of the number of people or
households made relatively safer from climate hazards per $1000 in direct expenditures.
Risks and Uncertainties of analysis: Optimism Bias: projected costs of proposed project
are usually overly conservative and the expected long term benefits are oftentimes
45

overly optimistic. Analysis doesn’t always reflect possibility of cost over-runs,
implementation delays, etc. Optimism bias can be reduced by using sensitivity analysis to
examine how net present values, costs or other outcomes vary as individual assumptions
or variables are changed. Sensitivity analysis can test the robustness of the analysis as
well as allowing for optimism bias and uncertainty about future net present values.
45

Note to Facilitator:
1st Bullet: It is useful to distinguish between: Structural solutions [e.g. repaired dikes,
re-built drainage canals, etc.]; and Non-structural solutions [e.g. community-based
canal cleaning, improved waste disposal strategies, etc.].
2nd Bullet: What criteria could you or should you use to evaluate which solutions to
choose? Should the criteria for structural and non-structural strategies be different?
Why or why not?
46

Note to Facilitator: This matrix illustrates a simple way of assessing structural and non-
structural solutions in terms of simple ratings for just two possible selection criteria:
Cost and Effectiveness.
These might also be rated on five or ten point scales, or color-coded (e.g., green –
orange – red) to reflect comparative importance or advantage.
Who would do these ratings, and how would final rankings or scores be
determined/agreed upon? They could be done by experts, or they might be done by
affected communities, or by both?
Solutions could also be evaluated in terms of other, more appropriate or fitting “natural
units,” such as monetary amounts for costs, estimates of “% of flooding reduced”, or
by “number of lives saved,” etc. They don’t all have to be in the same units, but they do
need to be comparable to one another (relative).
Many of these technical issues involving ranking or scoring systems were addressed in
Module 4.
47

The net financial impact of the “with project” scenario on the City will be derived by
comparing it with the corresponding without project costs over the 25-30 year expected
lifetime of the project assets. From this standard financial performance indicators, such
as the financial internal rate of return [FIRR] and financial net present value [FNPV] will
be calculated with appropriate sensitivity analysis. [Pre-Feasibility Study p. 105]
Which of the costs and benefits identified above will be most difficult to estimate?
To examine some of the costs, community surveys are proposed that would be used to
estimate household impacts of 1] adverse health impacts; 2] loss of access to food and
water; 3] temporary or permanent loss of dwelling space; 4] economic damage to
houses, 5] repair costs; lost income due to inability to work because of floods; loss of
asset value.
What does “sensitivity analysis mean? How might such analysis be conducted?
Social benefits not calculated included averted costs associated with : Health effects
(premature death, injury, illnesses, water-related diseases and vector-spread diseases.
Ecological disruptions and damages caused by further water and air pollution, further
48

land degradation caused by continued unplanned urban sprawl; increased emissions of
GHGs due to continued reliance on private automobiles and increased traffic jams;
damage to public Infrastructure, such as transportation, energy, and water systems as
well as to private assets such as land and property damage, lost business and
employment opportunities due to flooding disruptions; and Social impacts and greater
socio-economic disparities due to lost wages and employment, days of schooling
provided, disrupted access to health services, and disproportionate impacts on the poor
and more vulnerable segments of the local population. These were not included
because of the difficulty and uncertainty of “monetizing” such public goods, and due to
“time constraints and *limited+ readily available data.” (PAD, p. 69.)
5th Bullet (Sensitivity Analysis): Importance is due to the fact that under even more
“pessimistic” assumptions of reduced benefits and/or increased costs, the project’s CBA
was still above one (1).
Ask the participants what were the factors or inputs into the calculations that changed
(answer: # of days of severe, disruptive flooding from 20 to 10 days, and 10% reduction
in flood-prone areas covered by the project).
Ask the participants if there are any other factors they might have wanted to change to
test their assumptions on the wisdom of investing money in this project (vs. other
alternatives).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value for fuller explanation to discount
rates and the , internal rates of return (IRR), and net present value calculations (NPV),
although it is written for application by firms in the private sector (vs. for public goods
and services provided by public financing sources).
48

Note to Facilitator: Fiduciary Principles and Financial Management Systems. A
fiduciary is a legal or ethical relationship of trust between two or more parties. In this
case, we are talking about legal relationships with specified roles, rights and obligations
or commitments secured by counter signed contracts.
1st Bullet: Towns and cities are going to have to develop or have credible, transparent
and accountable Financial Management (FM) systems in place to have a reasonable
expectation of receiving funds from international donors or lenders. The exact definition
of what ”credible, transparent and accountable” FM systems look like is fairly complex
and should not be delved into too deeply here..
2nd Bullet: There are various aspects or elements of a FM system involving the handling
of: (i) expenditures of project funds; (ii) the procurement of goods, works and
services; and (iii) disbursement of project funds.
3rd Bullet: Most, if not all, donors or lenders will require assurances that the “books”
are being kept properly according to their own policies and procedures. This can be best
49

achieved through the use of internal auditors or accountants, as well as through the use
of external, independent auditors typically provided for and paid by the donor or lender.
4th Bullet: Many times, a donor or lender will provide some level of technical support if
they assess weaknesses in the recipient’s FM controls or systems. That is not always the
case, but it is in many instances and varies from case-to-case.
5th Bullet: Both recipient countries and donors/lenders are trying to do a better job of
identifying and tracking CCA expenditures through special budget codes for such
activities. For recipient governments, it helps them get credit for taking actions to protect
their populations, land and assets to the impacts of CC while for donors and lenders,
better coding and tracking of CCA activities allows them to show their level of
commitment and contribution to helping developing countries adapt to the impacts of
CC.
49

Note to Facilitator: knowing the ‘ins and outs” of the WB’s Fiduciary Policies is not really the
point here. The important point for cities and towns to know and remember is that each lender
or donor is going to have their own operational policies and best practices (even if not as
“formalized” as the WB’s) that they will need to comply with and stay in compliance with
throughout the implementation of the project.
1st Bullet: These three WB OPs are intended to provide “reasonable assurance that the
proceeds of the Bank Loan *Credit or Grant+,… are used for the purposes for which they are
granted…” (OP 10.00, revised 1 July 2014 and replacing OP/BP 10.02 on FM Policies, which was
“archived” by the Bank and is no longer used).
2nd Bullet: fairly self-explanatory
The WB’s fiduciary principles require 1] recipient organizations to maintain sound financial
management systems and arrangements to ensure funds are used for intended purposes; 2]
require procurement actions to be taken on the basis of economy and efficiency; 3]
organization’s programs or projects include appropriate participation and consultation…; 4]
organization’s officials are subject to administrative instructions that prohibit unethical conduct,
fraud and corruption. World Bank. Fiduciary Principles Accord. Discussion Draft. 2008.
50

Note to Facilitator: These are generic steps in the process of approving (with or
without “conditions”) a proposed project and moving it into the Implementation Phase
of the Project Cycle. Refer to slide #6 (Project Cycle) of this Module. One of the most
difficult parts of the process is compiling all of the foregoing information into a project
document, using the format specified by the funding source or donor. Multiple drafts
may be needed with extensive internal and external review before submittal. However,
in many instances, the donor or lending institution will provide technical assistance in
the preparation of concept notes or full-blown project proposals, such as the World
Bank’s ‘Preparation Advances” under its “Project Preparation Facility (PPF).”
1st Bullet: Approval and Final Negotiations with Client – fairly self-explanatory. Once
the PAD in the case of the World Bank and this Senegal project, then final negotiations
over any part of the project or financial assistance package occurs. This normally takes
3 – 6 months, but can drag out for months or even years in some extenuating
circumstances, and culminates in the signature by the recipient and counter-signature
by the lender (WB in this case).
2nd Bullet: Project Effectiveness – this is the date upon which the project can officially
begin, although in actual practice, many activities may have already started or been
51

planned, including getting baseline data, hiring staff, and setting up project
management information tracking systems like the FM or M&E systems. It usually
occurs within a few weeks or months of the signature of all relevant legal and financial
agreements.
3rd Bullet: Implementation by Client, Supervision by Lender – the client implements the
project; the lender is supposed to supervise it to ensure compliance with applicable legal
requirements and obligations by the client and to assist the client in any way to
implement the project. There is always meant to be a clear distinction and definition of
the client’s and the lender’s roles and responsibilities.
4th Bullet: Project Restructuring and Extensions – during implementation, funds can be
shuffled around within or between various project components or activities, indicator
targets can be changed, and even PDOs can be altered (although this requires Board
approval for WB projects). This is called “restructuring.” Projects can also be extended in
time to achieve their objectives. All these changes must be done formally with the
required request made by an authorized agent of the recipient Gov’t and approval by an
authorized agent for the lending institution.
5th Bullet: Project Closure – when a project “closes” officially, any undisbursed loan
balances are cancelled meaning that the lender cannot accept any more withdrawal
requests from the client, but expenditures that have been previously authorized can still
be made during a 4-month grace period. Finally, within six (6) months of closing, the
World Bank (not true for all lenders) conducts a self-evaluation of the performance of
the project in accordance with its established format for Implementation Completion
Reports (ICRs), which is then “validated” by the Independent Evaluation Group of the
World Bank. This process varies by institution, but the World Bank is commonly seen as
having the “gold standard” in terms of fully implementing the Project Cycle as designed.
51

Note to Facilitator: Responding to this slide may be at facilitator’s option depending on
available time. [Internal Note: By the time this training program is implemented,
additional information will be available from the PFS team, so we may be able to add
further slides.]
52

Note to Facilitator: Make this an open-ended discussion that could include other
questions raised by the participants themselves.
53

The purpose of this section is to provide some insight into “best practices” for
preparing proposals.

Note to Facilitator: Based on experience from a wide range of projects prepared for
CCAR, the following key lessons have been learned:
1st Bullet: VA refers to the Vulnerability Assessment that was the topic of Modules 3 &
4.
2nd Bullet: There are many “key stakeholders” who need to be involved in the project
preparation process, including: local elected officials and government institutions,
leaders from communities, faith-based organizations and schools, influential sectors of
the private section and business community, public opinion-shapers in various forms of
the communications media, and interested NGOs, CSOs, and academic/research
institutions. This requires a lot of skill in coordinating inputs from all these
stakeholders, managing the inherent tensions and rigid ideologically or politically
motivated oppositional stances or agendas among different groups or individuals, and
facilitating consensus-building Shared Learning Dialogues as an “honest broker” in
discussions about climate change threats and solutions.
3rd Bullet: Balancing the inputs of “outside experts” with local traditional knowledge or
commonly-held views or beliefs has been one of the tougher challenges faced by many
55

projects. However, by allowing the time and “space” to hear different perspectives and
evidence bearing on different aspects of the challenges posed by climate change can go
a long way toward building greater credibility for both the process and the final
decisions emanating from it, as well as build greater acceptance and “buy-in” by local
government and business leaders, community groups and NGOs, the media, and other
key stakeholders and public opinion shapers.
4th Bullet: Team leaders of any CCAR initiative will need to be focused on their
objective, persistent in overcoming many expected and unexpected sources of
opposition or inertia, and yet flexible in dealing with stubbornly held beliefs and views
among some, if not most, of the key stakeholders. The need to possess these qualities
so that the resulting project proposal is focused and coherent on the main problem(s)
with pragmatic CCAR interventions proposed to address them, responsive to the
community’s, nation’s, and CF funding entity’s own priorities and needs, and well-
designed to achieve its intended outcome or objective.
Part of this material was drawn from a USAID publication - Compendium of Lessons
Learned from ARCC Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments (Wood, 2015). A PDF of
this document can be downloaded from
http://community.eldis.org/.5b9bfce3/Integrated%20ARCC%20Compendium_CLEARED.
pdf. A softcopy is also included in the resources packet provided to participants at the
end of training.
55

1st Bullet: The importance of “effective and meaningful” communication (vs. merely
one-way communication of making announcements or informing the public about
decisions already made) cannot be overstated. Many CCAR efforts fall short of
expectations and goals due to a failure to communicate effectively with all groups
involved in a meaningful way, not just paying “lip service” to communication when
what in fact is occurring is simply one-way “informative” public hearings or
announcements instead of two-way exchanges of ideas, concerns and preferences in a
Shared Learning Dialogue type of genuine communication.
2nd Bullet: Communicating about the uncertainties surrounding projections of future
impacts is problematic, and one of the reasons for the emphasis placed on building
“resilience” to any impact (expected or not) vs. the “predict and protect” approach
commonly taken. That said, there is still a need to try to focus on the threats perceived
to be the most serious and to develop CCAR strategies and responses to them. Thus,
sources and degrees of uncertainty must always be communicated since none of these
expected impacts are known with certitude. There may also be legitimate reasons for
resistance to investing in interventions in response to uncertain events, when more
pressing (and certain) needs are present. This is the whole argument behind “low
regrets” CCAR interventions, that is, those interventions that are still warranted even if
56

the anticipated CC impacts do not materialize as expected.
3rd Bullet: self-explanatory. Institutional strengthening components or activities should
almost always be included in project designs.
4th Bullet: One of the things that makes climate change different from BAU
development is that future conditions and impacts cannot be accurately depicted and
prepared for based on past experience and climatic conditions. This tendency to plan
for the future based on the past is known as “stationarity,” and is commonly known in a
colloquial sense as making the mistake of “preparing to fight the last war, instead of the
next one.” That is why it is so important to down-scale future climatic projections and
their expected consequences for the area in which the proposed project is being
prepared. This will oftentimes require outside expertise and assistance.
Part of this was drawn from a USAID publication - Compendium of Lessons Learned from
ARCC Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments (Wood, 2014).
56

GEF= Global Environment Facility
CF=Climate Finance
BAU=“Business as Usual”
1st Bullet: As mentioned earlier in this initial section of this module (Milestones in the
Proposal Preparation and Appraisal Process (Project Cycle), preparing and submitting
an Initial Concept Paper at the beginning of the project proposal process is one of the
first major “Milestones.” Many, if not most, of the principal CF funding sources (like the
World Bank or the GEF) work closely with “clients” to develop the scope and
orientation of projects from the very beginning. Thus, it is a practical and prudent
practice to communicate early on in the process with them to help orient the
development and direction of the concept note.
2nd Bullet: We touched upon the issues of “additionality” earlier in Step 3 of Part 1 of
this Module. It refers to the extra costs and benefits associated with additional
requirements imposed on a project design due to changing climatic conditions. Refer to
that slide again for additional information, if needed.
3rd Bullet: This refers to building codes, engineering standards, and other benchmarks
57

that go into infrastructure and other physical development projects. If these design
standards don’t take into consideration the impacts of climate change, the design
standards should be reviewed and updated.
4th Bullet: From project experience, it has been found that there is a “balancing act”
required in project design between the flexibility required to respond to unexpected or
changing conditions or circumstances “on the ground” with the need for a clear
definition and description of the problem and the proposed solutions. This is partly due
to the uncertainties surrounding downscaling global or even regional climate
forecasting models to the local level. Simply put, we just don’t know what the exact
timing, location, severity and even type of impacts that will be experienced in the future
in most cases. It is all “estimation.” This is why “no or low regret” CCAR strategies or
interventions, “real option” approaches of building in future contingencies in near-term
decisions or actions, and adaptive resilience approaches to preparing for, enduring, and
recovering from climate-induced disasters and “slow-onset” impacts is so important to
keep in mind when designing CCAR projects.
Part of this material was drawn from a USAID publication - Compendium of Lessons
Learned from ARCC Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments (Wood, 2014). Additional
lessons are drawn from the USAID Adapt Asia-Pacific project.
57

Note to Facilitator: self-explanatory. No facilitator notes required.
58

This says “Goodbye” in Tagalog.
Image from http://www.wattpad.com/11553083-paalam
59

module_6_final_0.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to module_6_final_0.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

module_6_final_0.pdf