Proposal for Jamaica
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AFB/PPRC.9/7 14 June 2012 Adaptation Fund Board Project and Programme Review Committee Ninth Meeting Bonn, 26-27 June 2012 PROPOSAL FOR JAMAICA I. Background 1. The Operational Policies and Guidelines for Parties to Access Resources from the Adaptation Fund, adopted by the Adaptation Fund Board, state in paragraph 41 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 approval by the Board. In the second step, the fully-developed project/programme document would be reviewed by the PPRC, and would finally require Board’s approval. 2. The Templates Approved by the Adaptation Fund Board (Operational Policies and Guidelines for Parties to Access Resources from the Adaptation Fund, Annex 3) 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. In its 17th meeting, the Adaptation Fund 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. 6. Based on the Adaptation Fund 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 Adaptation Fund was sent out on April 8, 2010. 7. According to the paragraph 41 of the operational policies and guidelines, a project or programme proposal needs to be received by the secretariat not less than nine weeks before a Board meeting, in order to be considered by the Board in that meeting. 8. The following fully developed project titled “Enhancing the resilience of Agriculture and Coastal Resources for Food Security and Livelihoods Protection” was submitted by the Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ), which is the National Implementing Entity of the Adaptation Fund for Jamaica. It was first submitted as a project concept, using the two-step approval process, along with a request for Project Formulation Grant, for the 14th Adaptation Fund Board meeting, and the Board decided to: (a) Approve the Project Funding Grant Request in the amount of US $30,000; (b) Endorse the project concept, as supplemented by the clarification response provided by the Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) to the request made during the technical review of the proposal; (c) Request that the secretariat transmit to PIOJ the following observations: (i) The fully-developed proposal should expand on the information provided in the project, particularly on Part III of the proposal; (ii) At the full proposal stage, the proponent should revise Part 2, section I of the document by elaborating on the full cost of adaptation reasoning, to ensure that the project would meet the full cost criterion; (iii) The linkages between the first two components should be made clearer; (iv) The proponent should clarify in the fully developed proposal if the artificial reefs to be installed are in addition to the breakwaters or are the breakwaters themselves. If they are in addition, then this should be added as a Concrete Output for Component 1 in the Programme Components and Financing table. If they are one in the same, then the proponents should justify that the breakwaters proposed will encourage growth of corals. Overall, the full proposal should describe very clearly the integrated approach to tackle the identified issues in the Negril area, and the combined soft and hard engineering structures which will be installed; (v) At Negril, the project must consider the role of upstream agriculture practices and effluent from coastal development, and the extent to which these issues need to be addressed, to make sure that the erosion solutions being proposed are not compromised; (vi) For Component 2, the current climate scenario should be described, in order to better assess the vulnerability of the targeted areas. A vulnerability map of the region should be provided; (vii) Sections A and B of component 3 should be merged, and redundancy in the sought activities avoided; (viii) The water collection and management engineering solutions in Component 2 will have a limited life-span if not protected from the ongoing poor land management which leads to flash flooding, soil erosion and siltation. Measures to address and avoid these problems must have priority in order to protect any proposed dam work. This should not be limited to green gullies but also on-farm soil and crop management techniques being widely adopted by individual farmers; (ix) Stronger and clearer links to the existing and recently completed projects on improved land management and agriculture adaptation to climate change need to be built into the proposal, and the added value in relation to the overall objective of the programme clearly demonstrated. There will be many lessons learned already which are directly related to the proposed activities; best use should be made of the experience gained. Where clear lessons are already known, these need to be built into the project from the start. (d) Request the PIOJ to transmit the observations under item (c) to the Government of Jamaica ; and (e) Encourage the Government of Jamaica to submit, through the PIOJ, a fully- developed project proposal that would address the observations under item (c). (Decision B.14/9) 9. The current submission of a fully-developed project document was received by the secretariat in time to be considered in the 18th Adaptation Fund Board meeting. The secretariat carried out a technical review of the project proposal, assigned it the diary number JAM/NIE/Multi/2011/1, and filled in a review sheet. 10. In accordance with a request to the secretariat made by the Adaptation Fund Board in its 10th meeting, the secretariat shared this review sheet with PIOJ, and offered it the opportunity of providing responses before the review sheet was sent to the Project and Programme Committee of the Adaptation Fund. 11. The secretariat is submitting to the Project and Programme Review Committee 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. II. Project Summary Jamaica – Enhancing the resilience of Agriculture and Coastal Resources for Food Security and Livelihoods Protection Implementing Entity: PIOJ Programme Execution Cost: USD 415,000 Total Programme Cost: 9,185,000 Implementing Fee: USD 780,000 Project Formulation Grant: 30,000 Financing Requested: USD 9,965,000 Programme Background and Context: Jamaica is a small island developing state, particularly vulnerable to climate related hazards, in particular hurricanes, floods, storm surges and droughts. The programme seeks to improve water harvesting and management and implement erosion and flood control, which improve soil moisture retention. The programme will also support climate resilient coastal management in Negril. In addition, capacity building interventions will be undertaken to complement the other two components. The sites selected for programme intervention will cover 7 of the 14 parishes in the country, namely namely Westmoreland, Manchester, Clarendon, St. Mary, St. Ann, Trelawny and St. Thomas. The programme objective is to protect livelihoods and food security in vulnerable communities by improving land and water management for the agricultural sector, strengthening coastal protection and building institutional and local capacity for climate change adaptation. To that end, the proposal presents three components: • Component 1: Increasing climate resilience of the Negril coastline • Component 2: Enhancing climate resilience of the agricultural sector by improving water and land management in select communities • Component 3: Improving institutional and local level capacity for sustainable management of natural resources and in disaster risk reduction in the targeted vulnerable areas; and raising awareness for behavior modification Component 1: Increasing the climate resilience of the Negril coastline (USD 5,480,780) Through this Component, hard engineering structures