Proposal for the Federated States of Micronesia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AFB/PPRC.22/10 9 March 2018 Adaptation Fund Board Project and Programme Review Committee Twenty-Second Meeting Bonn, Germany, 20-21 March 2018 Agenda Item 8 e) PROPOSAL FOR THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA AFB/PPRC.22/10 Background 1. The Operational Policies and Guidelines (OPG) for Parties to Access Resources from the Adaptation Fund (the Fund), adopted by the Adaptation Fund Board (the Board), state in paragraph 45 that regular adaptation project and programme proposals, i.e. those that request funding exceeding US$ 1 million, would undergo either a one-step, or a two-step approval process. In case of the one-step process, the proponent would directly submit a fully-developed project proposal. In the two-step process, the proponent would first submit a brief project concept, which would be reviewed by the Project and Programme Review Committee (PPRC) and would have to receive the endorsement of the Board. In the second step, the fully-developed project/programme document would be reviewed by the PPRC, and would ultimately require the Board’s approval. 2. The Templates approved by the Board (OPG, Annex 4) do not include a separate template for project and programme concepts but provide that these are to be submitted using the project and programme proposal template. The section on Adaptation Fund Project Review Criteria states: For regular projects using the two-step approval process, only the first four criteria will be applied when reviewing the 1st step for regular project concept. In addition, the information provided in the 1st step approval process with respect to the review criteria for the regular project concept could be less detailed than the information in the request for approval template submitted at the 2nd step approval process. Furthermore, a final project document is required for regular projects for the 2nd step approval, in addition to the approval template. 3. The first four criteria mentioned above are: 1. Country Eligibility, 2. Project Eligibility, 3. Resource Availability, and 4. Eligibility of NIE/MIE. 4. The fifth criterion, applied when reviewing a fully-developed project document, is: 5. Implementation Arrangements. 5. It is worth noting that since the twenty-second Board meeting, the Environmental and Social (E&S) Policy of the Fund was approved and consequently compliance with the Policy has been included in the review criteria both for concept documents and fully-developed project documents. The proposals template was revised as well, to include sections requesting demonstration of compliance of the project/programme with the E&S Policy. 6. In its seventeenth meeting, the Board decided (Decision B.17/7) to approve “Instructions for preparing a request for project or programme funding from the Adaptation Fund”, contained in the Annex to document AFB/PPRC.8/4, which further outlines applicable review criteria for both concepts and fully-developed proposals. The latest version of this document was launched in conjunction with the revision of the Operational Policies and Guidelines in November 2013. 7. Based on the Board Decision B.9/2, the first call for project and programme proposals was issued and an invitation letter to eligible Parties to submit project and programme proposals to the Fund was sent out on April 8, 2010. 2 AFB/PPRC.22/10 8. According to the Board Decision B.12/10, a project or programme proposal needs to be received by the secretariat no less than nine weeks before a Board meeting, in order to be considered by the Board in that meeting. 9. The following project concept document titled ”Practical Solutions for Reducing Community Vulnerability to Climate Change in the Federated States of Micronesia” was submitted by the Micronesia Conservation Trust (MCT), which is a National Implementing Entity of the Adaptation Fund. 10. This is the fourth submission of the proposal. It was first submitted to the twenty-seventh meeting of the Board, and was not endorsed. It was re-submitted to the twenty-ninth meeting of the Board and the Board decided to: a) To endorse the project concept, as supplemented by the clarification response provided by Micronesia Conservation Trust (MCT) to the request made by the technical review; b) To request the secretariat to transmit to MCT the observations in the review sheet annexed to the notification of the Board’s decision as well as the following issues: (i) The fully-developed project document should further strengthen the adaptation reasoning, and the cohesion between the objective, expected outputs and expected outcomes of the project; (ii) At the fully-developed project document stage, a further update on the status of policy frameworks (likely for Chuuk and Yap) for state-level protected areas networks should be provided; (iii) The fully-developed proposal should provide more information on the equitable distribution of benefits to vulnerable communities, households, and individuals; (iv) A learning and knowledge management component to capture the lessons learnt of the project as a whole should be provided. The activities presented under the relevant section in the proposal should be reflected in existing outputs; (v) The environmental and social risks table, based on the 15 Principles of the Adaptation Fund’s Environmental and Social Policy (ESP), should be evidence and risk-based, and the activities envisaged to help manage those risks should be more explicit, hence demonstrating how the Adaptation Fund ESP requirements will be met; c) To approve the Project Formulation Grant of US$ 30,000; d) To request MCT to transmit the observations under sub-paragraph (b) to the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia; and e) To encourage the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia to submit through MCT a fully-developed project proposal that would address the observations under sub-paragraph (b) above. (Decision B. 29/5) 3 AFB/PPRC.22/10 11. The proposal was re-submitted as a fully-developed project proposal to the thirtieth meeting of the Board and the Board decided to: (a) Not to approve the fully-developed project document, as supplemented by the clarification response provided by the Micronesia Conservation Trust (MCT) to the request made by the technical review; (b) To suggest that MCT reformulate the proposal taking into account the observations in the review sheet annexed to the notification of the Board’s decision, as well as the following issues: (i) The proposal should explain how the lessons learned from previous and ongoing projects informed the proposed project in the preparation phase; (ii) The budget should be revised so that the monitoring and evaluation budget is fully covered by the administrative costs; (iii) The results framework should include gender-disaggregated data, targets and indicators; (iv) The project results framework should include at least one of the five core outcome indicators of the Adaptation Fund’s results framework; (v) The proponent should give due consideration to the potential impacts on marginalized and vulnerable groups in applying the environmental and social management plan; (vi) The proposal should strengthen and provide adequate publicity for the included grievance mechanism; and (c) To request MCT to transmit the observations referred to in subparagraph (b) above to the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia. (Decision B.30/17) 12. The present submission was received by the secretariat in time to be considered in the thirty-first Board meeting. The secretariat carried out a technical review of the project proposal, assigned it the diary number FSM/NIE/Multi/2016/2, and completed a review sheet. 13. In accordance with a request to the secretariat made by the Board in its 10th meeting, the secretariat shared this review sheet with MCT, and offered it the opportunity of providing responses before the review sheet was sent to the PPRC. 14. The secretariat is submitting to the PPRC the summary and, pursuant to decision B.17/15, the final technical review of the project, both prepared by the secretariat, along with the final submission of the proposal in the following section. In accordance with decision B.25.15, a response table is also attached, explaining where and how the observations made by the Board when endorsing the concept project document at its thirtieth meeting had been addressed by the proponent in the fully-developed project document submitted for this meeting. The proposal is also submitted with changes between the initial submission and the revised version highlighted. 4 AFB/PPRC.22/10 Project Summary Federated States of Micronesia – Practical Solutions for Reducing Community Vulnerability to Climate Change in the Federates States of Micronesia Implementing Entity: Micronesia Conservation Trust (MCT) Project/Programme Execution Cost: US$ 84,930 Total Project/Programme Cost: US$ 894,010 Implementing Fee: US$ 75,990 Financing Requested: US$ 970,000 Project Background and Context: Located in the Western Pacific, the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) is comprised of four states: Yap, Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae. Its population of over 100,000 people is largely dependent on ecosystem services (e.g. nearshore fisheries, coastal protection) for their livelihoods, both for subsistence and as sources of incomes. The overall goal of the project is to build the ecological, social and economic resilience of communities in the FSM through practical solutions for reducing community vulnerability to climate change stressors. The project aims to ensure that all four State Governments and the National Government in the FSM have the mechanisms in place to develop and successfully implement a robust nearshore fisheries management and nationwide protected areas network inclusive of proper enforcement and sustainable finance mechanisms. The project also seeks to provide communities with the resources and support needed to implement successful eco-based adaptation actions to protect their marine ecosystems and increase resilience to climate change impacts. The project has three components: Component 1.