AFB/EFC.7/4.Rev.

2
12 December, 2011
Adaptation Fund Board
Ethics and Finance Committee
Seventh Meeting
Durban, 12 December, 2011

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2
II. Reporting Process Requirements ......................................................................................... 3
III. Active Portfolio .................................................................................................................... 7
IV. Effectiveness and Efficiency Indicators............................................................................. 13
V. Lessons Learned from Process to Date .............................................................................. 16
VI. Recommendation................................................................................................................... 16

Annex 1: Project Approved Through September 30, 2011....................................................... 18

Annex 2: Update on the Status of AF Board Approved

UNDP-implemented Adaptation Fund Projects........................................................................ 19

Annex 3: Project Performance Report Template ...................................................................... 26

Annex 4: Disbursement Matrix ................................................................................................. 37

Annex 5: Matrix Alignment of Project Objectives/Outcomes

with Adaptation Fund Results Framework .............................................................................. 38

Annex 6: Endorsed Project Concepts ....................................................................................... 40

1
 I. INTRODUCTION

1. At its tenth meeting in June 2010, the Board agreed to the Results Based Management
(RBM) approach outlined in document AFB/EFC.1/3/Rev. 2. The document delineated that fund
level portfolio performance will be presented annually at the last Board meeting of the calendar
year, through an Adaptation Fund Annual Performance Report (AFAPR). Under the direction of
the Ethics and Finance Committee, the secretariat will be responsible for preparing this report,
which will be the principal instrument for reporting on the Fund’s active projects and
programmes.

2. The following document presents the Adaptation Fund’s first annual performance report.
Since this is the first such report, the period covered is from the Adaptation Fund’s first call for
proposals at the 10th Board meeting in June 2010 through September 30, 2011. The secretariat
suggests that subsequent AFAPR reports cover one fiscal year (July 1-June 30) and be
presented to the fall Board meeting.

3. As of September 20, 2011, 11 projects for a total dollar amount of $69.8 million have
been approved for funding.1 In addition, the Board has approved project formulation grants for a
total of $ 0.06 million, and endorsed project concepts for a total dollar amount of $69.4 million.
There are currently six projects that have started implementation, totaling $36.8 million. A total
of $14.2 million has been transferred to implementing entities. A list of approved projects is
provided in Annex 1.

4. Of the 11 projects approved, four projects have included proposed co-financing

amounts. The total co-financing proposed totals $11.4 million, approximately 17% of the total
grant amount approved.2 UNDP is implementing nine out of the eleven projects approved. The
World Food Programme (WFP) is implementing one project and the Centre de Suivi Ecologique
(CSE) in Senegal is implementing one project.3

5. CSE has submitted its first progress report, which is included as a report to the Ethics
and Finance Committee (AFB/EFC.7/4, http://www.adaptation-
fund.org/sites/default/files/AFB.EFC_.7.4%20CSE%20report.pdf). UNDP has also provided a
status update on the nine projects being implemented by the agency. The update is included as
Annex 2 of the document.

6. The current report provides the details of the performance monitoring and reporting
system for the Adaptation Fund, an analysis of project approvals and project concept
endorsements, a presentation of the management effectiveness and efficiency indicators, and
an analysis of the accreditation process to date. The table below provides a summary of key
figures for the reporting period.

1
All figures are in USD. The figures above include implementing entity fees but not project formulation grants
2
Co-financing is based on declaration by the implementing entity in the project document.
3
CSE is the only National Implementing Entity (NIE), implementing a project to date.

2
 T ABLE 1: ADAPTATION F UND AT A GLANCE (AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2011)
Adaptation Fund Approvals
Total number of projects approved for 11
Funding
Total grant amount approved (excluding fees
$59.2 million
& execution costs)
Total execution costs $5.4 million
Total entity fees $5.2 million
Total grant amount approved $69.8 million
Fees as percentage of total grants approved
7.4%
Adaptation Fund Pipeline
Total number of project concepts endorsed4 12
Total value of project concepts endorsed $69.4 million
Number of fully developed projects proposals
19
submitted
Number of fully developed projects not
8
approved5
Number of fully developed projects rejected6 0

II. REPORTING PROCESS REQUIREMENTS

7. Reporting on projects/programmes is important to capture results and implementation

progress. It is also an important accountability tool. The following section outlines the specific
reporting requirements proposed for the Adaptation Fund. Most of the reporting requirements
are embedded in the Operational Procedures and Guidelines (OPG), RBM Approach paper,
Evaluation Framework, and the standard legal agreement between AFB and implementing
entities7. There is an additional reporting requirement, the project/programme inception report
being introduced for the first time here for the Board’s consideration.

8. To balance simplicity and accountability the proposed reporting system consists of six
main reports as outlined in table two and described in the paragraphs below.

4
These are project concepts that have been endorsed but not yet approved for funding
5
Projects that are not approved can be resubmitted for approval at later board meetings after revision by the
implementing agency
6
Rejected projects can’t be resubmitted for approval by the board; the rejection is a final decision.

3
 T ABLE 2: REQUIRED REPORTS

Report Type Frequency Responsibility Proposed/OPG

1. Project/Programme Start of Implementing Proposed for first

Inception Report project/programme Entity time

2. Project/Programme Yearly, rolling basis Implementing RBM Approach

Performance Report Entity (AFB/EFC.1/3/Re
(PPR) v. 2), OPG (para.
56)

3. Project/Programme Mid- Mid-term/End of Implementing OPG (para 57);

term/Terminal project/programme Entity Evaluation
Evaluations Framework

4. Audited financial Once, end of Implementing Standard Legal

statement project Entity Agreement (p. 6,
para 7.01)

5. Adaptation Fund Annual Yearly, fiscal year AF secretariat RBM Approach

Performance Report (AFB/EFC.1/3/Re
(AFAPR) v. 2)

6. Adaptation Fund Yearly, fiscal year8 AF independent RBM Approach

Evaluation Report evaluation function (AFB/EFC.1/3/Re
v. 2)

9. Project/program Inception Report: Implementing Entities have different definitions for

project start dates. In order to have a consistent definition, the Adaptation Fund, will consider
the start date to be the date the inception workshop for the project/program takes place. The
Implementing Entity must therefore submit both the date of the inception workshop and the
entity’s inception report to the Fund secretariat no later than one month after the workshop has
taken place.

10. Project/Programme Performance Report (PPR): Once a project is approved and the
first funds are transferred to the project, the implementing entity is required to submit a
project/programme performance report (PPR) on an annual basis to the Ethics and Finance
Committee (EFC) through the secretariat.9 The PPR should be submitted on a rolling basis, one
year after the start of project implementation (date of inception workshop) and the last such

8
An evaluation report will first be presented to the Board when the first AF has completed a terminal evaluation
9
An annual report is the minimum requirement. There may be cases where the Board requests more frequent
reporting or additional reports, as for example through requirements linked to the accreditation of an implementing
entity.

4
report should be submitted six months after project completion. This will be considered the
project completion report.10

The PPR requires reporting on a number of areas including, financial, procurement, risk,
implementation progress, and progress toward outputs and outcomes, and against the identified
milestones. The proposed reporting template is attached as Annex 3. Details of each part of the
template are included in the following section.

The disbursement schedule will be linked to the submission of the PPR. Once the PPR is
submitted, the secretariat will review the report and provide a recommendation to the Board
within two weeks of the report’s submission as to whether additional funds should be
transferred. In order to ensure that projects/programmes are not delayed the Board may
consider accepting the secretariat’s recommendation intersessionally on a “non-objection”
basis. The Secretariat will circulate the recommendation and the PPR document for two weeks.
If any Board member objects to the recommendation, then the PPR for the project/programme
will be discussed at the next Board meeting. A proposed disbursement template is presented in
Annex 4.

The secretariat will develop procedures for the review of the PPRs and establish a set of criteria
the secretariat will use for clearing PPRs. The procedures and criteria will be provided to the
next Board meeting for approval.

11. Project/Program Mid-term and Terminal Evaluations: According to the Adaptation

Fund’s operational policies and guidelines all projects/programmes are required to undertake a
terminal evaluation. A mid-term evaluation must be undertaken for projects/programmes that
are under implementation for over four years. Guidelines for terminal evaluations were approved
at the 14th Board meeting (AFB/EFC.5/5). These guidelines provide the minimum requirements
of the Fund for undertaking terminal evaluations.

12. Audited Financial Statement: As described in the standard legal agreement a final
audited financial statement of the Implementing Entity Grant Account, prepared by an
independent auditor or evaluation body, must be submitted to the Ethics and Finance
Committee through the secretariat within six (6) months of the end of the Implementing Entity’s
financial year during which the project]/programme is completed

13. Adaptation Fund Annual Performance Report (AFAPR): Fund level portfolio outcome
monitoring will occur on an annual basis to track progress towards reaching intended outcomes.
The status of portfolio monitoring will be presented annually at the Board meetings, through an
Adaptation Fund Annual Performance Report (AFAPR). Individual project/program reports will
be analyzed and reported on through the AFAPR11. In addition to analysis of project level data,
the AFAPR will report on Fund efficiency and effectiveness (process monitoring) to track
whether the Fund’s portfolio is being implemented as intended, standards are being met, and
resources are being used efficiently. The present document is the first AFAPR submitted to the
Board.

14. Adaptation Fund Evaluation Report: Once project/programmes have undertaken a

terminal evaluation, the organization undertaking the evaluation function for the Adaptation

10
The standard legal agreement requires a project/programme completion report (p.6): “including any specific
[Project]/[Programme] implementation information, as reasonably requested by the Board through the Secretariat,
within six (6) months after [Project]/[Programme] completion.”
11
Upon request from the Board individual reports may be analyzed and reported on at any Board meeting.

5
Fund will undertake a review of these evaluations and present the report to the Ethics and
Finance Committee on an annual basis.

FIGURE 1: REPORTING PROCESS

Project Design
•Project concept
•Fully developed project
Project Inception Report
Project Performance Report
Project Completion Report

Effectiveness and Efficiency Tracking

Adaptaition Fund Anual Performance Report

Project /program Mid-term and Terminal Evaluations -->

Consolidated Evaluation Report on Completed Projects

PROJECT/PROGRAMME PERFORMANCE REPORT SECTIONS

15. The secretariat has designed a comprehensive Project Performance Report (PPR)
template, which each project/programme will have to submit to the Ethics and Finance
Committee, through the secretariat on a yearly basis. The full report template is included as
Annex 2.

16. There are eight sections for the template. These include the following:

i. Section 1 Basic Data: This section contains a project/programme summary, milestone

dates, project/programme contacts. Most parts of this section will only need to be filled
out once during the project/programme lifetime.

ii. Section 2 Financial Data: This section includes data on disbursements to date,
expenditure data, and planned disbursement schedule for the following year. Data will
be filled out every year.

iii. Section 3 Procurement Data: This section includes data on the call for proposals, the
number of contracts issued, and the number of bidders. Information should be filled out
every year as applicable.

6
 iv. Section 4 Project/programme Risk: This section asks for risks identified through the
project design stage, additional risks faced by the project/programme during
implementation, and risk mitigation steps taken. Data will be filled in every year.

v. Section 5 Project/programme Rating: This section will include a self-rating from the
project management and implementing entity on implementation progress and any
project delays. Data will be filled in every year.

vi. Section 6 Project/programme Indicators: This section will track progress against
project level outputs and outcomes. Data should be filled in every year as applicable.

vii. Section 7.AF Results Framework Tracker: This section will be used to track
project/programme indicators that align with the AF’s strategic results framework. The
indicators should be provided for the baseline either at the time of project approval or
through the first PPR submitted. Actual progress should be reported at mid-term and
again at project completion.12

viii. Section 8: Qualitative Questions and Lessons Learned: This section will ask for
answers to open-ended questions on implementation progress, adaptive management
measures taken, and gender considerations undertaken. These questions should be
filled out on an annual basis. The section will also ask questions related to the success
of project/programme results, the contributions toward climate resiliency, and the
lessons learned from implementing concrete adaptation measures. These questions
should be filled out at mid-term and project completion.13

III. ACTIVE PORTFOLIO

17. The Adaptation Fund’s first call for proposals occurred at the 10th Board meeting, in June
2010. From the first call for proposals through September 30, 2011, a total of 11 projects have
been approved by the Adaptation Fund Board. The table below breaks down the total grant
amount by region including a breakdown of the entity fee, execution cost and total co-financing
amounts proposed.

12
For those projects not required to have a mid-term review, the indicators should be submitted for the project
baseline and again at project completion.
13
For those projects not required to have a mid-term review then the questions should be answered only at project
completion.

7
 TABLE 3: TOTAL GRANT AMOUNT APPROVED PROJECTS BY REGION (USD MILLIONS)14

Region Number Execution Manage- Grant Total Co- Total +

of Cost ment Fee Amount Grant Finance Co-
Projects finance

Africa 3 1.4 1.6 21.2 24.3 24.3

Asia 5 2.5 2.1 22.4 26.8 11.3 38.1

Latin 3 1.6 1.4 15.6 18.6 0.05 18.7

America
Caribbean

Total 11 5.4 5.2 59.2 69.8 11.4 81.1

18. The largest amount of grant funding approved thus far has been to the Asia region with
five projects totaling $26.8 million in grants, followed closely by Africa with three projects totaling
$24.3 million in grants. The two regions together comprise close to 70% of the total grant
amount approved to date.

19. In terms of sector, the largest amount of grant funding has been for water management
reduction totaling $28.6 million (41%), followed closely by coastal management totaling $17.7
million (25%). The figure below provides a breakdown of total grant amount approved by sector.

14
Numbers may not add up due to rounding

8
 FIGURE 2: GRANT AMOUNT FOR APPROVED PROJECTS BY SECTOR (PERCENTAGE)

Coastal
Management
Water 25%
Management
41% Disaster Risk
Reduction
6%

Food Security
19%

Rural
Development
9%

20. For this year’s annual report, the secretariat undertook an analysis of all approved
project documents to provide an estimate of the grant amount programmed per Adaptation Fund
outcome. Since the alignment was not done by project proponents, these figures should serve
as a general estimate and not as a definite figure. In order to ensure a more accurate figure
moving forward, project proponents will be requested to fill out a matrix for fully designed
projects (to indicate the alignment of project/programme outcomes and objectives to Fund level
outputs and outcomes). The matrix is included as Annex 5.

21. Table 4, below provides a break-down of the grant amount indicated in approved project
documents broken-down by Adaptation Fund outcome. It does not include project execution
costs, project fees or any project level output that does not align with the Adaption Fund results
framework (the secretariat’s analysis estimates that funds used for outputs that do not align are
less than 1% of the total).

9
T ABLE 4: GRANT AMOUNT PROGRAMMED BY ADAPTATION FUND RESULTS FRAMEWORK
OUTCOME 15

Grant Amount
Programmed by
Adaptation Fund Results Framework Outcome
(Through September
2011 in millions USD)

Outcome 1: Reduced exposure at national level to climate-related

Hazards & Threats
5.2
Output 1: Risk & vulnerability assessments conducted & updated annually

Outcome 2: Strengthened capacity to reduce risks associated with

climate-induced socioeconomic & environmental losses
3.4
Output 2.1: Strengthened capacity of national & regional centers and
networks to respond rapidly to extreme weather events

Outcome 3: Strengthened awareness and ownership of adaptation and

climate risk reduction processes at local level
4.1
Output 3: Targeted population groups participating in adaptation and risk
reduction awareness activities

Outcome 4: Increased adaptive capacity within relevant development &

natural resource sectors
16.0
Output 4: Vulnerable physical, natural & social assets strengthen in
response to climate change impacts, including variability

Outcome 5: Increased ecosystem resilience in response to climate

change and variability-induced stress
28.2
Output 5: Vulnerable physical, natural and social assets strengthen in
response to climate change impacts, including variability

Outcome 6: Diversified and strengthened livelihoods & sources of income

for vulnerable people in targeted areas
-
Output 6: Targeted individual & community livelihood strategies,
strengthened in relation to climate change impacts, including variability

Outcome 7: Improved policies and regulation that promote and enforce

resilience measures
2.0
Output 7: Improved integration of climate-resilience strategies into country
development plans

Total 58.9

22. As can be seen from figure three below the largest amount of grant money approved to
date has been channeled toward outcome five, increased ecosystem resilience in response to
climate change and variability-induced stress ($28.2 million) and outcome four, increased
adaptive capacity within relevant development and natural resource sectors ($16.0 million).

15
Figures may not add due to rounding

10
Together these outcomes total 63% of the total resources allocated to approved projects. Within
the Fund’s results framework, outcomes four and five deal measure most closely concrete
interventions proposed within projects/programmes. This provides a strong indication that a
greater share of the Fund’s resources has been programmed to “finance concrete adaptation
projects and programmes.”

FIGURE 3: GRANT AMOUNT BY AF’S RESULTS FRAMEWORK OUTCOMES

30 000 000

25 000 000

20 000 000

15 000 000

10 000 000

5 000 000

0
Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Outcome 4 Outcome 5 Outcome 6 Outcome 7

23. In addition to the alignment of project/programme’s objectives to the outcomes

embedded in the Adaptation Fund’s results framework, the secretariat also conducted a
preliminary analysis of the indicators and targets described in the approved project documents.
Table 5 below provides a preliminary aggregation of a select set of indicators based on the
projects/programs approved:

11
 T ABLE 5: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF INDICATORS

Preliminary Indicators Target in Comments

(targeted) Project
Documents

No. of Beneficiaries 430,000 A few projects did not give specific figures for
this; others have given figures by household (for
those with household figures have used 4
persons per household to estimate population);
the actual figure is therefore likely higher

No. Early Warning 39 Difficult to aggregate because some projects

Systems are targeting several small scale EWS at the
village level, while others include only one that
is larger in scale

No. of people trained 1600 Not all projects gave specific targets for
numbers trained so figure actual figure likely
higher

No. of policies adopted 12 Includes any policy whether at the local level,
regional or national level

No. of physical assets 14 These include: Artificial groundwater recharge

strengthened or systems; Improved rainwater harvesting and
constructed to withstand storage capacity installed; wastewater
conditions resulting from management and sewage systems which
climate variability & integrate targeted measures to reduce
change groundwater pollution; sloped rock mounds;
planting of mangroves; planting of beach crest
vegetation; reconstructing public buildings at
risk on stilts; repair and re-sloping of seawall;
development of a drainage scheme for the
backshore; canal irrigation improvement
measures; frontal dam; anti-salt dikes

No. of natural resource 5 These include: riparian and wetland habitat

assets created, restored; floodwater harvested; soil and water
maintained, or improved to conservation measures implemented
with stand conditions
resulting from climate
variability & change

24. These indicators are in no way comprehensive, they are an initial indication of what has
been programmed thus far through project approvals. Once projects/programmes begin utilizing
the Fund’s PPR template, a more accurate baseline can be reported on. In addition, once
projects/programmes start reaching mid-term, reporting on progress made toward achieving
these targets will also be feasible.

12
25. In addition to project/programme approvals the Board has endorsed a total of 12 projects
concepts for a total of $69.6 million. While there is no guarantee that the fully developed
proposals from these concepts will be funded, it is useful to keep track of the Board’s early
indications. Annex 5 provides a more detailed analysis of project/programme concepts that have
been endorsed.

IV. EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY INDICATORS

26. As approved by the Board through the RBM Approach Paper (AFB/EFC.1/3/Rev. 2),
Indicators for Fund level processes will be tracked and reported annually. These indicators
cover: (i) secure financing, financing mechanisms, and efficiency of use; (ii) project cycle
efficiency; (iii) results driven performance; and (iv) accreditation processes.

27. Table 6, provides the data from inception through September 30, 2011. Where
applicable, targets may be set for many of the indicators below. At this stage, it may be too early
to set targets for some of the indicators because of insufficient data. There are certain indicators
however, that the Board may wish to consider setting targets for at this meeting.

T ABLE 6: ADAPTATION F UND LEVEL EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY RESULTS FRAMEWORK

1. Secure Financing and Financing Mechanisms

1.1 Increased and Diversified Resources
As of September 30,
Item
2011
Total value of CERs (US$ millions) 167.9
Average price for all CERs sold (EUR/ton) 12.44
Number of donors 9
Actual donor contributions (US$ millions) 85.8
1.2 Efficient Cost Structure16
Item Target
Board, Secretariat, and Trustee operational expenses against total
21%
Adaptation Fund resources committed - %
Implementing Entities fees against total Fund resources allocated 7.4%
Execution Cost against total grant (minus fees) - % 8.4%
Total cash transfers vs. committed 37%

2. Improve Efficiencies in Project Cycle

2.1 Project Cycle Efficiency17
Item Target
3.4 months /
Average time to process fully developed proposals for approval
13.5 weeks

16
Board approvals for project/programmes as well as project formulation grants are considered commitments
17
Project cycle time frame includes agency preparation and review time; all project proposals submitted up to 8
weeks before a board meeting are decided upon during that meeting.

13
 Average response time for secretariat initial review of 1.8 months /
projects/programs 7.2 weeks
1.6 months
Average time for one step projects approval 18
/ 6.5 weeks
9 months /
Average time for two step projects approval
36 weeks
Average time from first cash transfer to project start (NIEs) 2 months19
Average time from first cash transfer to project start (MIEs) 4.6 months

3. Results Driven Implementation

3.1 Fund Performance Rating20
Item Target
Percentage of projects/programs that have received
N/A
[good/satisfactory] performance ratings
Number of project/program concepts that were endorsed 19
Number of project/program concepts that were submitted but not
15
endorsed
Number of project/program concepts that were endorsed after initial
2
non-endorsement then revision
Number of fully developed proposals that have received funding 11
Number of fully developed proposals that were not approved 2
Number of project/program concepts that were rejected 1
Number of fully developed proposals that were rejected 0
Percent of projects/programs that have received good/satisfactory
N/A
rating at midterm review
Percent of projects/programs that have received good/satisfactory
N/A
rating at terminal Evaluation
Number of suspended/canceled projects/programs N/A
3.2 Efficient Reporting
Item Target
Percent of project monitoring reports (PPR) submitted in complete
N/A
form and meeting deadline

4. Accreditation Applications
4.1 Increased and Diversified Access Modalities
Item Target
21
MIEs Number of Applications Accredited 9

18
Only one project that has come in through the one step process has been approved to date.
19
This includes only one project (Senegal, implemented by CSE)
20
Values reflect an overview of all decisions by the board, including multiple decisions on the same projects that were
updated and re-submitted to the Board.
21
To date the Board has only invited 15 MIEs to apply for accreditation.

14
 Number of Applications Not Accredited 0
Number of Applications Accredited 6
NIEs Number of Applications Not Accredited 3
Number of Applications Under Consideration 11
Number of Applications Accredited 1
RIEs Number of Applications Not Accredited 0
Number of Applications Under Consideration 1
Total number of field visits to date 6
Field visits (percentage over total number of applications received) 13%
22
Average number of weeks between first submission of accredited
weeks/5.5
application and Board’s decision (NIEs and RIEs)
months
Average number of weeks between first submission of accredited 20 weeks/5
application and Board’s decision (MIEs) months
Average number of weeks between first submission of non- 32 weeks/8
accredited applications and Board decision (NIEs and RIEs) months
Average number of meetings of the Accreditation Panel to consider
3
an application (both accredited and non-accredited NIEs)

V. ACCREDITATION PROCESS
a. Analysis of Entities Accredited

28. Six National Implementing Entities (NIEs) have been accredited by the Adaptation Fund
Board to date, whereas two NIE applicant entities have not been accreditation. Thus far
accredited NIEs come from the following sectors: national development planning and
implementation entities, national research and development entities, environmental-related
national agencies and national environmental funds or trust funds.

29. Unsuccessful applications, to date have come mostly from government ministries.
Applications under consideration by the Accreditation Panel (AP) or at the early stages of the
accreditation process come from a wider variety of governmental sectors.

30. One Regional Implementing Entity (RIE) has been accredited by the Adaptation Fund
Board to date. Nine Multilateral Implementing Entities (MIEs) have been accredited thus far
following an invitation to apply by the Adaptation Fund Board to a total of eleven multilateral
organizations.

31. The Secretariat estimates that the Fund has incurred approximately $264,000 in costs
for the accreditation process during fiscal year 2011 (July 1 2010-June 30, 2011). A breakdown
is provided in table 7 below.

15
 T ABLE 7: ESTIMATED COST OF ACCREDITATION PROCESS 22

Cost Category USD (approximate figures)

AP experts (fees) 155,000
AP members travel 65,000
Meeting Logistics (excluding Panel member 2,000
travel)
Field visits 42,000
Total 264,000

VI. LESSONS LEARNED FROM PROCESS TO DATE

32. The experience so far shows that successful applications for accreditation as NIEs under
the direct access modality have come mostly from public entities with certain degree of
decentralization from their respective central national governments.

33. Further, it can be observed that the most successful cases denote a strong level of
cohesion and integration across relevant government areas and institutions, as well as capacity
to effectively interact with other important stake holders with a multidisciplinary approach.

34. It has also been observed that successful participation in the accreditation process
brought about enhanced institutional capacities within the applicant NIEs, especially in
functional areas directly related to the fiduciary standards of the Adaptation Fund.

35. Participants in the regional accreditation workshops indicated that the workshops served
to enhance their awareness not only of the accreditation process, but also of the mid-to-long
term benefits of the direct access modality for the institutional capacity of their countries.

36. Regarding RIEs, it has been observed that small countries or economies find it more
attractive to join efforts and pursue accreditation at the regional level rather than at an individual
national level.

VII. RECOMMENDATION

37. The EFC may want to consider document AFB/EFC.7/4 and recommend to the Board
the following:

1) To approve the reporting process contained in the document, including requesting

implementing entities to submit inception workshop reports;

2) To approve the Project Performance Report (PPR) Template as contained in Annex 2 of

the document;

22
The figures below do not include secretariat costs (i.e. staff time, office space, etc)

16
3) To approve the Adaptation Fund Level Effectiveness and Efficiency Results Framework
as contained in the current document;

4) To approve the proposed disbursement procedures outlined in paragraph 10, approve

the disbursement template contained in Annex 3 of the document and request the
secretariat to include the template as part of the project agreements; and

5) To request the secretariat to develop a process for the review of PPRs and to establish a
set of criteria for clearing PPRs. The procedures and criteria should be presented to the
EFC at the next Board meeting.

17
ANNEX 1: PROJECT APPROVED THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2011

Co
Implementing Grant Execution Total
Country Region Sector Status of Project Entity Fee Financing
Entity Amount Cost Amount
Amount
Food Under
Ecuador LAC* WFP 6,329,200 632,920 487,348 7,449,468
Security Implementation

Rural
Eritrea Africa Approved UNDP 5,423,000 587,000 510,850 6,520,850
Development

Water Under
Honduras LAC UNDP 4,680,000 500,000 518,000 5,698,000 50,000
Management Implementation

Water
Maldives Asia Approved UNDP 7,510,398 774,602 704,225 8,989,225 1,800,000
Management
Coastal
Mauritius Africa Approved UNDP 7,904,830 500,000 714,410 9,119,240
Management

Water
Mongolia Asia Approved UNDP 4,589,124 480,000 430,876 5,500,000 5,500,000
Management

Water Under
Nicaragua LAC UNDP 4,620,000 450,000 430,950 5,500,950
Management Implementation

Dister Risk Under

Pakistan Asia UNDP 3,200,000 400,000 360,000 3,960,000 4,000,000
Reduction Implementation

Coastal Under
Senegal Africa CSE 7,850,000 350,000 419,000 8,619,000
Management Implementation

Solomon Food Under

Asia UNDP 4,600,000 500,000 433,500 5,533,500
Islands Security Implementation

Water
Turkmenistan Asia Approved UNDP 2,450,000 250,000 229,500 2,929,500
Management

*Latin American and Caribbean Region (LAC)

18
 ANNEX 2: UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF AF BOARD APPROVED UNDP-IMPLEMENTED ADAPTATION FUND PROJECTS

Update: As of 17 November 2011

Country Has the Govt signed the Status of Project When is the Other project implementation activities?
project document? Recruitments? inception meeting
planned for?
Honduras Signed by UNDP and the Update: 9 Nov,2011: Inception Workshop Update 17 Nov. 2011:
Government of Honduras on took place 27-29
1 April 2011. The recruitment of the project June, 2011 Letters of agreement signed between SERNA
assistant has been and national institutions (ICF, SANAA, UNAH y
completed. PMU operational. Update: 9 Nov,2011: SEPLAN), and memorandum of understanding
Inception Workshop signed between SERNA and SOPTRAVI y
Report posted in AMDC/COPECO for the implementation of
PIMS project activities:
http://www.undp.un.hn/Dinamizan_proyecto_prot
ege_subcuencas_agua_de_la_capital.htm

An event organized, and funded by the AF

project:
http://www.undp.un.hn/Expertos_pasar_teoria_a
_practica.htm
The event was organized to share experiences
on DRR and CCA, and was organized together
by the AF project, DIPECHO (EU), and the
Swiss cooperation.

PMU-managed project website has been

established http://www.undp-
adaptation.org/project/af_honduras/

Honduras CO is now in the process of hiring a

national UNV who will support in populating the
AF project website.

First Quarterly report covering July-August and

September (in Spanish) shared with RTA.

19
Nicaragua Signed by UNDP and the Update: 9 Nov,2011: Inception Workshop Update 16 Nov. 2011:
Government of Nicaragua took place 21-24
on 29 March 2011. Project manager, assistant June, 2011. Awareness events were organized with
and technical team (3 municipal councils and Communities to discuss
outreach workers and a civil project’s goals, objectives and planned activities.
engineer) recruited and PMU Update: 9 Nov,
operational 2011:
Inception Workshop Terms of references prepared as the basis for
Report posted in the tendering of the communal irrigation
PIMS systems. MARENA is committed to finalize of
procurement/bid process by December for the
construction of two irrigations systems in the las
Mercedes and Salale Municipalities. It is
therefore envisioned that the disbursement for
these major activities will take place in January
/February 2012.

Arrangements were made with the Water

Authority to obtain the concession for the
construction of hydraulic works for Salale and
Las Mercedes.

Coordination mechanisms were discussed with

UNAN and INTA for collecting field data for the
agro-ecological farm transformation plans.
Starting in November 2011, four students of
agro-ecology have been assigned in each micro-
watershed in order to enter into direct
relationships with farm families to provide
support for them in developing the agro-
ecological farm transformation plans.
Training from INTA staff and the programme
team extension workers was carried out in the
month of November, and 308 plans are expected
to be completed by mid-February 2012.

The Govt is currently in the process of finalizing

terms of reference for a hydrological study of the

20
 lower part of the Villanueva River basin, which
will identify the hydraulic works needed to
reduce the flooding caused by sediments from
the upper watershed. The study should
commence in January 2012, to be completed
within 6 months.

PMU-managed project website has been

established;
http://www.undp-
adaptation.org/project/af_nicaragua/

First Quarterly report covering July-August and

September (in Spanish) shared with RTA.
Pakistan Project document signed 4 Update: 9 Nov 2011 Update: 9 Nov, 2011
July 2011.  Project Manager: On
board Inception Workshop
Update: 9 Nov, 2011  Finance/ Admin in Gilgit- Baltistan
Assistant: On board confirmed to take
The signature and inception  Field Manager –Gilgit: place 15-18
of the AF project in Pakistan Offer letter to the November 2011
has fallen into a time in selected candidate
which the 18th Amendment issued, will be on board
to Pakistan’s Constitution by 10 November
has been passed by the  Field Manager – Chitral:
parliament and signed into Re-advertised as the first
law by the President. The round did not find
18th amendment (see suitable candidate
details under: The 18th
Amendment and Pakistan’s
Political Transitions) enacts
more than 100 changes,
both large and small, to
Pakistan’s constitution and
effectively redistributes
powers between different
government offices and
entities at the central and

21
 provincial levels. Following
the passing of the
amendment, the Ministry of
Environment has been
devolved on 30 June 2011
with most of the functions
transferred to provinces.
Some of its federal functions
have been transferred to the
Planning and Development
Departments. For the AF
project, this shift in
institutional arrangements
has caused a delay in the
designation of responsible
government officials, most
notably the National Project
Director. At this point, the
responsibilities have been
assigned to various sections
under the Planning
Commission. The office of
the Director General
(Environment) in the
Planning Commission now
holds responsibility for the
implementation of the GLOF
project.
Eritrea UNDP has sent the project
document to the Ministry of
Finance to review and
counter sign in order that
activities can commence.
UNDP is awaiting a
response from Government.

22
 Update: 9 Nov, 2011

UNDP/GEF sent second

letter to AFB on 4 November
2011 (first was sent on 8
August, 2011) requesting
extension and informing the
reason for the delay in
signing the project
document is due to the
planning exercise, which
would provide framework for
projects like this one that the
Gov’t of Eritrea is
undertaking at the moment.
An official letter from the
Gov’t is forthcoming
explaining the situation.
Solomon Govt signed the project Update: 9 Nov, 2011 Inception WS held on Update 13 November 2011
Islands document on 4 May 2011, June 28-30, 2011
UNDP RR signed on 5 May Eight positions (Technical Gov’t consultation to engage provincial gov’t in
2011. Advisors for Land Use Update: 9 Nov, 2011 project held in September.
Planning, Technical Advisor
for V& A assessment, Environment Field visits initiated by PMU to engage target
Coordinator for Community Premiers Roundtable communities
Base Adaptation, was co-sponsored
Coordinator for Policy from 12 to 15 Partners and experts have been engaged to plan
Frameworks Development, September to invite for implementation of technical activities, such as
Provincial Based all premiers from 9 NIWA and the Solomon Islands Meteorological
Environment Officers, ICT provinces of Solomon Service on climate early warning systems, or the
Assistant, Finance Assistant, Islands. AF project national NGO NGASI for the introduction of
and Procurement Assistant) was introduced and climate resilient fruit and nut tree growing
were advertised, and the project requested techniques.
currently under selection for cooperation on set
procedure. up provincial level The dissemination of project experience is
Climate Change continuing, e.g. through a presentation at the
Steering Committee. WMO regional workshop on climate services for
adaptation (November 1-4, Honiara).

23
 First contact missions
to the targeted PMU-managed project website has been
provinces were held established:
in August 2011. The http://www.undp-
second mission to adaptation.org/project/af_solomonislands/
select the targeted
communities was
commenced in Isabel
Province in October
2011. SIMS missions
were also conducted
to Isabel, Makira and
Choiseul provinces to
investigate potential
locations to set up
AWS in October and
November 2011.
Mauritius UNDP/AFB Agreement
signed 4 Nov 2011

Awaiting fund transfer from

AFB to UNDP in order to
initiate steps to commence
project implementation.
Maldives UNDP/AFB Agreement
signed 3 Nov 2011

Awaiting fund transfer from

AFB to UNDP in order to
initiate steps to commence
project implementation.
Mongolia UNDP/AFB Agreement Posts of the main project Inception Workshop
signed 3 Nov 2011 personnel (Project Coordinator is anticipated to take
and Admin and Finance place March, 2012 or
Awaiting fund transfer from Officer) are announced in early later, depending on
AFB to UNDP in order to September. The actual the progress of DOA
initiate steps to commence recruitment process has been and fund transfer.
project implementation. on hold.

24
Turkmenist UNDP/AFB Agreement
an signed 3 Nov 2011

Awaiting fund transfer from

AFB to UNDP in order to
initiate steps to commence
project implementation.

25
ANNEX 3: PROJECT PERFORMANCE REPORT TEMPLATE23

Section1: BASIC DATA

Project Performance Report

(PPR)

Project Title:

Project Summary:

Database Number:
Implementing Entity
(name):
Type of IE:
Country(ies):
Relevant Geographic Points (i.e. cities,
villages, bodies of water):

Project Milestones
Milestone
AFB Approval Date:
Start of
Project/Programme:
Mid-term Review (if
planned):
Terminal Evaluation:

List documents/ reports/ brochures /

articles that have been prepared about
the project.

List the Website address (URL) of

project/provide links to any videos,
photos or other digital material.

23
The actual template is in Excel. Each section is a separate tab in the Excel workbook.
26
 Project contacts:
National Project Manager/Coordinator
Name:
Email:
Date:
Government DA
Name:
Email:
Date:
Executing Agency
Name:
Email:
Date:

Section2: FINANCIAL DATA

Financial information: cumulative from project start to

[insert date]
DISBURSEMENT OF AF
GRANT FUNDS
How much of the total AF grant as noted in Project Document plus any project preparation
grant has been spent to date?

Estimated cumulative total

disbursement as of [enter
Date]

Add any comments on AF

Grant Funds. (word
limit=200)

EXPENDITURE DATA
List item / activity / action ITEM / ACTIVITY AMOUNT
and corresponding amount / ACTION
spent for the current
reporting period

27
PLANNED DISBURSEMENT
SCHEDULE
List item / activity / action ITEM / ACTIVITY PROJECTED COST Est.
planned and corresponding / ACTION Completion
projected cost for the Date
upcoming reporting period

ACTUAL CO-FINANCING (if applicable)

How much of the total co-
financing as committed in
the Project Document has
actually been realized?

Estimated cumulative actual

co-financing as verified
during Mid-term Review
(MTR) or Terminal Evaluation
(TE).
Add any comments on actual
co-financing in particular any
issues related to the
realization of in-kind, grant,
credits, loans, equity, non-
grant instruments and other
types of co-financing. (word
limit=200)

28
SECTION3: PROCUREMENT DATA

PROCUREMENT DATA

LIST OF CONTRACTS
List all contracts related to the project/program with signature dates
Contract Type Agency / Contracted Signature Date
party

BIDS
List all bids for each contact signed with date of open call and winning bid
CONTRACT Submitted Bids Winning Bid
Name of Contract and Date of
Call

Name of Contract and Date of

Call

Name of Contract and Date of

Call

Name of Contract and Date of

Call

Name of Contract and Date of

Call

29
SECTION4: PROJECT/PROGRAMME RISK

RISK ASSESMENT
IDENTIFIED RISKS
List all Risks identified in project preparation phase and what steps are being taken to
mitigate risks (word limit = 200)
Identified Risk Current Status Steps Taken to Mitigate Risk

Critical Risks Affecting Progress (Not identified at project design)

Identify Risks with a 50% or < likelihood of affecting progress of project

Identified Risk Current Status Steps Taken to Mitigate Risk

Risk Measures: Were there any risk mitigation measures employed during the
current reporting period ? If so, were risks reduced? If not, why were these risks
not reduced?
Add any comments relevant to risk alleviation (word
limit = 500)

30
SECTION5: PROJECT/PROGRAMME RATING

RATING ON IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS

For rating definitions please see bottom of page.

Progress to
Key Milestones Expected Progress
Date
Rating
Project
Manager/Coordinator:

Overall
Rating:

Please justify your rating. Outline the positive and negative progress
made by the project since it started. Provide specific recommendations for
next steps. (word limit=500)

Progress to
Key Milestones Expected Progress Rating
Date

Project Implementing
Entity

Overall
Rating:

Please justify your rating and address the following points:

31
1. Indicate trends, both positive and negative, in achievement of outcomes as per the
project indicators.
2. Detail critical risks that have affected progress.
3. Outline response to MTR undertaken this reporting period.
4. Outline action plan to address projects with a rating of HU, U or MU. Please keep your
input to 1200 words.

Rating Definitions
Highly Project actions/activities planned for
Satisfactory current reporting period are
(HS) progressing on track or exceeding
expectations to achieve all major
objectives/outcomes for given
reporting period, without major
shortcomings. The project can be
presented as “good practice”.
Satisfactory Project actions/activities planned for
(S) current reporting period are
progressing on track to achieve
most of its major
objectives/outcomes with only minor
shortcomings.
Marginally Project actions/activities planned for
Satisfactory current reporting period are
(MS) progressing on track to achieve
most major relevant
objectives/outcomes, but with either
significant shortcomings or modest
overall relevance.
Marginally Project actions/activities planned for
Unsatisfactory current reporting period are not
(MU) progressing on track to achieve
major objectives/outcomes with
major shortcomings or is expected
to achieve only some of its major
objectives/outcomes.
Unsatisfactory Project actions/activities planned for
(U) current reporting period are not
progressing on track to achieve most
of its major objectives/outcomes.
Highly Project actions/activities planned for
Unsatisfactory current reporting period are not on
(U) track and shows that it is failing to
achieve, and is not expected to
achieve, any of its
objectives/outcomes.

32
SECTION6: PROJECT/PROGRAMME INDICATORS

PROJECT Indicators
Please provide all indicators being tracked for the project as outlined in the project
document

Type of Indicator (indicators

towards Objectives,
Outcomes, etc…)
Target
Type of Progress to for
Indicator Baseline
Indicator date Project
End

SECTION 7: ADAPTATION FUND RESULTS FRAMEWORK TRACKER

Goal: Assist developing-country Parties to the Kyoto Protocol that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse
effects of climate change in meeting the costs of concrete adaptation projects and programmes in order to
implement climate-resilient measures. Impact: Increased resiliency at the community, national, and regional
levels to climate variability and change.

Important: Please read the following Results Framework and Baseline Guidance (also posted on the
Adaptation Fund website) before entering your data
Link: http://www.adaptation-
fund.org/sites/default/files/Results%20Framework%20and%20Baseline%20Guidance%20final.pdf

Please select the relevant Fund

level Outcome and Output
indicators that align with the
project objectives and
outcomes

OBJECTIVE 1
Please
Please
select
select Target
Fund from Mid-
Fund from drop at Terminal
Outcome drop Baseline term
Outcome down Project Results
Indicator down Results
menu End
menu
below
below

33
 Target
Please
Please at
select Baseline
select Project
Fund from (see Mid-
Fund from End Terminal
Output drop Units in term
Output dropdown (see Results
Indicator down next Results
menu Units
menu sheet)
below in next
below
sheet)

Fund Outcome Indicator Units

1. Generation of relevant data, Stakeholders, and Timeliness
2.1. Include both qualitative and quantitative measures of capacity level within targeted institutions
2.2. Number (men and women and other vulnerable groups)
3.1. Use scale from 1 to 5: 5: Fully aware 4: Mostly aware 3: Partially aware 2: Partially not aware 1: Aware of neither predicted
adverse impacts of climate change nor of appropriate responses
3.2. Use scale from 1 to 5: 5: All 4: Almost all 3: Half 2: Some 1: None
4.1. Summarize in an overall scale (1-5): 5: Highly responsive (All defined elements ) 4: Mostly responsive (Most defined
elements) 3: Moderately responsive (Some defined elements) 2: Partially responsive (Lacks most elements) 1: Non responsive
(Lacks all elements )
4.2. Summarize in an overall scale (1-5): 5: Fully improved 4: Mostly Improved 3: Moderately improved 2: Somewhat improved
1: Not improved
5. Depends on the targeted natural asset:
Biological (species): measure through changes in population numbers (dynamics, structure, etc.)
Land: measure changes in hectares. Baseline data will be necessary to estimate the change. Supporting indicators baseline
and target (as well as contextual information) are needed such as the following: Farmers adopting recommended technologies,
Ha. of land improved, Average deforestation rate Etc.
Use scale from 1 to 5. 5: Very effective (All elements are present) 4: Effective (Most elements are present) 3: Moderately
effective (Some elements are present) 2: Partially effective (Most elements are not present) 1: Ineffective (No elements are
present)
6.1. Summarize in an overall scale (1-5): 5: Very high improvement 4: High improvement 3: Moderate improvement 2: Limited
improvement 1: No improvement
6.2. Household income by source of livelihood in project area (USD) prior and post project intervention
7. Summarize in an overall scale (1-5). 5: All (Fully integrated) 4: Most 3: Some 2: Most not integrated 1: None

Fund Output Indicator Units

34
1.1. Number, sector(s) and level(s) of projects or interventions in separate fields of monitoring plan
1.2. Number
2.1.1. Number of staff (male/female) of targeted institutions: a. Obtain baseline information: total number of staff from targeted
institutions b. Define target
2.1.2. Number of staff (male/female) of targeted institutions: a. Obtain baseline information: total number of staff from targeted
institutions b. Define target: needs to be defined by project proponents
2.2.1. Quantitative: Percentage (includes women – and other vulnerable groups – and men).
Qualitative: Adequacy: include direct analysis of major areas; adequacy/effectiveness of systems or analysis of perceptions of
populations and institutions.
2.2.2. Number (broken down by gender and, if possible, by vulnerable groups defined in the area of intervention) of people
3.1. Number and type (in separate columns) at local level.
3.2. Number
4.1. Number and type
4. 2. Number and type (entered in separate columns)
5. Number of interventions by type of natural asset and intervention
6.1. Number and type (in separate columns of monitoring plan)
6.2. Income sources per household; description of income source and number of households.
7.1. Number/Sector
7.2. Number; Effectiveness (see previous indicator) through enforcement level.

SECTION 8: QUALITATIVE QUESTIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

QUALITATIVE MEASURES and LESSONS LEARNED

Please Complete the following section every reporting period

Implementation and Adaptive Management Response

Describe any implementation issues/lessons affecting progress

(positive and negative)

Were there any delays in implementation? If so, what are the

measures taken to reduce delays?

Describe any changes undertaken to improve results on the

ground or any changes made to project outputs (i.e. changes to
project design)

How have gender considerations been taken into consideration

during the reporting period?

Please Complete the following section at mid-term and project completion

Lessons for Adaptation Response

Climate Resilent Measures

35
Please Describe the Climate Resilent measures being
undertaken by the project/programme.

Which of these masures has been most effective and why?

Which have been least effective and why?

Concrete Adaptaiton Interventions

Please desribe the concrete adaptation measures being
undertaken by the project/programme

What are/were the most difficult aspects of implementing such

measures?

What are/were the most successful aspects of the

implementation of the interventions?

Community/National Impact
What would you consider to be the most successful aspects for
the target communities?

What measures are/have been put in place to ensure

sustainability of the project/program results?

What measures are being/could have been put in place to

improve project/program results?

Knowledge Management
Describe what kind and how existing information/data/knowledge
has been used to inform the development and the
implementation of the project.

Describe any difficulties there have been in accessing or

retrieving existing information (data or knowledge) that is relevant
to the project. Please provide suggestions for improving access
to the relevant data.

Have the Project Learning Objectives been met? Please

describe.
Has the identification of learning objectives contributed to the
outcomes of the project? In what why have they contributed?

36
ANNEX 4: DISBURSEMENT MATRIX

Upon Agreement One Year Year 2b/ Year 3 Year 4c/ Total
signature after Project
Starta/
Scheduled Date
Project Funds
Implementing
Entity Fee
a/
Use projected start date to approximate first year disbursement
b/
Subsequent dates will follow the year anniversary of project start
c/
Add columns for years as needed

37
 ANNEX 5: MATRIX ALIGNMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES WITH ADAPTATION FUND
RESULTS FRAMEWORK

Any project or programme funded through the Adaptation Fund (AF) must align with the Fund’s
results framework and directly contribute to the Fund’s overall objective and outcomes outlined.
Not every project/programme outcome will align directly to the Fund’s framework but at least
one outcome and output indicator from the Adaptation Fund’s Strategic Results Framework
must be included at the project design stage.

There is currently, no place within the project document where an explicit link to the AF’s results
framework is delineated. As such, the secretariat is requesting project proponents to fill out the
table below to directly link, where relevant, project objectives and outcomes to the Fund level
outcome and outputs. The grant amount proposed per Fund Outcome should also be included.

Project Objective(s)24 Project Objective Fund Outcome Fund Grant Amount

Indicator(s) Outcome (USD)
Indicator

Project Outcome(s) Project Outcome Fund Output Fund Output

Indicator(s) Indicator

Example: The following table is an example of how a project’s objectives and outcomes
could align with the AF’s outcome and output indicators

Project Objective(s) Project Objective Fund Outcome Fund Grant

Indicator(s) Outcome Amount
Indicator (USD)
Strengthened ability of Number of risk- Outcome 2: 2.2 No. of 500,000
coastal communities to exposed coastal Strengthened people with
undertake concrete communities institutional reduced risk
actions to adapt to climate protected through capacity to to extreme
change-driven hazards adaptation reduce risks weather
measures associated with events
climate-induced
socioeconomic

24
The AF utilized OECD/DAC terminology for its results framework. Project proponents may use different terminology
but the overall principle should still apply

38
 &
environmental
losses
Strengthened ability of Number of Outcome 3: 3.1 250,000
coastal communities to communties with Strengthened Percentage
make informed decisions improved climate- awareness and of targeted
about climate change- related planning ownership of population
driven hazards affecting and policy adaptation and aware of
their specific locations frameworks in climate risk predicted
place reduction adverse
processes at impacts of
local level climate
change, and
of
appropriate
responses
Project Outcome(s) Project Outcome Fund Output Fund
Indicator(s) Output
Indicator
Reduced exposure and Number of Output 2.2: 2.21.
increased adaptive communities Targeted Percentage
capacity of coastal covered by population of population
communities to flood- improved warning groups covered covered by
related risks and hazards system and by adequate adequate
weather information risk reduction risk-
systems reduction
systems
Improved awareness of Percentage of Output 3: 3.1.1 No.
adaptation and climate population involved Targeted and type of
change-related hazards in developing population risk reduction
affecting coastal improved cliamte- groups actions or
communities related planning participating in strategies
and policy adaptation and introduced at
frameworks risk reduction local level
awareness
activities

39
ANNEX 6: ENDORSED PROJECT CONCEPTS

The following annex provides an analysis of endorsed projects concepts. Table 1 below
provides a breakdown by region including a breakdown of the execution cost and entity fee.

Table 1: Total Grant Amount Endorsed Projects by Region (USD Millions)25

Region Number of Execution Management Grant Total Cost
Projects Cost Fee Amount

13.2 15.6
Africa 3 1.2 1.3

Asia 3 1.4 1.2 13.3 15.9

Eastern
1 0.3 0.4 4.6 5.3
Europe
Latin
American 5 1.8 2.4 28.5 32.6
Caribbean
Total 12 4.7 5.3 59.6 69.4

The largest grant amount endorsed for project concepts has been in the Latin American and
Caribbean Region with five projects for $32.6 million (47%). This is followed by Asia and Africa
with three project concepts endorsed each for a total of $15.9 and $15.6 million respectively
(22%).

In terms of sector, the largest amount of grant funding that has been endorsed for project
concepts has been for Disaster Risk Reduction $21.2 million (31%) followed by Agriculture
$16.5 (24%), see figure 1 below.

25
Numbers may not add up due to rounding

40
 Figure 1: Total Grant Amount for Endorsed Project Concepts by Sector (percentage)

Rural
development
14% Agriculture
24%

Multi-sector
14%
Coastal
Management
9%

Infrastructure
8% Disaster Risk
Management
31%

The secretariat undertook an analysis of all endorsed project concepts to provide a general idea
of the grant amount proposed in endorsed project concepts per Adaptation Fund outcome.
Table 2 below provides a general break-down of the grant amount proposed in endorsed
concepts by Adaptation Fund outcome. It does not include project execution costs, project fees
or any project level output that does not align with the Adaption Fund results framework.

41
 Table 2: Grant Amount (USD) Indicated in Endorsed Project Concepts by Adaptation
Fund Results Framework Outcome26

Grant Amount
Programmed by
Adaptation Fund Results Framework Outcome(USD)
(Through
September 2011 )
Outcome 1: Reduced exposure at national level to climate-related
Hazards & Threats
Output 1: Risk & vulnerability assessments conducted & updated 0.5
annually
Outcome 2: Strengthened capacity to reduce risks associated with
climate-induced socioeconomic & environmental losses
Output 2.1: Strengthened capacity of national & regional centers and 1.2
networks to respond rapidly to extreme weather events

Outcome 3: Strengthened Awareness 7 ownership of adaptation and

climate risk reduction processes at local level
Output 3: Targeted population groups participating in adaptation and 3.0
risk reduction awareness activities

Outcome 4: Increased adaptive capacity within relevant development

& natural resource sectors
Output 4: Vulnerable physical, natural & social assets strengthen in 17.6
response to climate change impacts, including variability

Outcome 5: Increased ecosystem resilience in response to climate

change and variability-induced stress
Output 5: Vulnerable physical, natural and social assets strengthen in 14.1
response to climate change impacts, including variability

Outcome 6: Diversified and strengthened livelihoods & sources of

income for vulnerable people in targeted areas
3.6
Output 6: Targeted individual & community livelihood strategies,
strengthened in relation to climate change impacts, including variability

Outcome 7: Improved policies and regulation that promote and enforce

resilience measures
Output 7: Improved integration of climate-resilience strategies into 4.0
country development plans

Total 44.0

26
Figures may not add due to rounding

42
The largest amount of indicated funding for endorsed project concepts is tentatively allocated
toward outcome four with $17.6 million followed closely by outcome 5 at $14.1 million.
Combined these two outcomes account approximately 72% of the total. Figure 2 provides a
breakdown of grant amount by outcome.

Figure 2: Grant Amount (USD) Indicated in Endorsed Project Concepts by AF’s Results
Framework Outcomes

20 000 000

18 000 000

16 000 000

14 000 000

12 000 000

10 000 000

8 000 000

6 000 000

4 000 000

2 000 000

-
Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Outcome 4 Outcome 5 Outcome 6 Outcome 7

Table 3: Endorsed Project Concepts as of September 31, 2011

Country Implementing Amount Concept Sector
Entity requested endorsement
date
Jamaica Planning Institute $9,965,000 6/22/2011 Multi-sector
of Jamaica
Uruguay Agencia Nacional $7,350,000 3/18/2011 Agriculture
de Investigación e
Innovación
Argentina The World Bank $4,311,703 6/22/2011 Rural
development

Cook Islands United Nations $4,991,000 12/14/2010 Disaster Risk

Development Reduction
Programme

43
Djibouti United Nations $4,658,556 6/22/2011 Agriculture
Development
Programme
El Salvador United Nations $5,425,000 12/14/2010 Infrastructure
Development
Programme
Fiji United Nations $5,728,800 6/22/2011 Disaster Risk
Development Reduction
Programme
Georgia United Nations $5,316,500 12/14/2010 Disaster Risk
Development Reduction
Programme
Guatemala United Nations $5,500,000 9/17/2010 Rural
Development Development
Programme
Madagascar United Nations $4,505,000 9/17/2010 Agriculture
Environment
Programme
Papua New United Nations $5,227,530 6/22/2011 Disaster Risk
Guinea Environment Reduction
Programme
Seychelles United Nations $6,455,750 6/22/2011 Coastal
Environment Management
Programme
Total $69,434,839

44