AFB/PPRC.14-15/2 4 June 2014 Adaptation Fund Board Project and Programme Review Committee PROPOSAL FOR FIJI AFB/PPRC.14-15/2 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. 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. 6. 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 8 April 2010. 7. In its twenty-third meeting, the Adaptation Fund Board (the Board) discussed a recommendation made by the Project and Programme Review Committee (PPRC) of the Board, on arranging intersessional review of project and programme proposals. Having considered the comments and recommendation of the PPRC, the Board decided to: 1 AFB/PPRC.14-15/2 (a) Arrange one intersessional project/programme review cycle annually, during an intersessional period of 24 weeks or more between two consecutive Board meetings, as outlined in document AFB/PPRC.14/13; (b) While recognizing that any proposal can be submitted to regular meetings of the Board, require that all first submissions of concepts and fully-developed project/programme documents continue to be considered in regular meetings of the PPRC; (c) Request the secretariat to review, during such intersessional review cycles, resubmissions of project/programme concepts and fully-developed project/programme documents submitted on time by proponents for consideration during such intersessional review cycles; (d) Request the PPRC to consider intersessionally the technical review of such proposals as prepared by the secretariat and to make intersessional recommendations to the Board; (e) Consider such intersessionally reviewed proposals for intersessional approval in accordance with the Rules of Procedure; (f) Inform implementing entities and other stakeholders about the new arrangement by sending a letter to this effect, and make the calendar of upcoming regular and intersessional review cycles available on the Adaptation Fund website and arrange the first such cycle between the twenty-third and twenty-fourth meetings of the Board; (g) Request the PPRC to defer to the next Board meeting any matters related to the competencies of the Ethics and Finance Committee that may come up during the intersessional review of projects/programmes and to refrain from making a recommendation on such proposals until the relevant matters are addressed; and (h) Request the secretariat to present, in the fifteenth meeting of the PPRC, and annually following each intersessional review cycle, an analysis of the intersessional review cycle. (Decision B.23/15) 8. The Board also decided: (b) That the deadline for submissions for the intersessional project/programme proposal review cycle between the twenty-third and twenty-fourth meetings will be 14 April 2014. (Decision B.23/28 (b)) 9. The following fully developed project titled “Enhancing Resilience of Rural Communities to Flood and Drought-Related Climate Change and Disaster Risks in the Ba Catchment Area of Fiji” was submitted by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which is a Multilateral Implementing Entity of the Adaptation Fund, on behalf of the government of Fiji. This is the fifth submission of the proposal. It was submitted as a concept to the twelfth and fourteenth meetings of the Adaptation Fund Board, and was endorsed by the Board in the latter, in June 2011. It was then submitted as a full proposal to the eighteenth Board meeting, and the Board decided to: 2 AFB/PPRC.14-15/2 (a) Not approve the project document, as supplemented by the clarification response provided by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to the request made by the technical review; (b) Suggest that UNDP reformulates the proposal taking into account the following: (i) The project must demonstrate how it goes beyond plans and studies to reducing vulnerability at the community and beneficiary level and it is recommended that the implementation, application and mainstreaming of the proposed capacity-building activities be further described and clarified; (ii) While it has been demonstrated that communities will be engaged throughout the lifetime of the project, the proposal should provide more details on the scope and outcome of community consultations in regards to the design of the proposal, specifically emphasizing how community participation had informed the prioritization of activities; the number of beneficiaries cannot be determined at the inception phase and should be provided in the proposal, even if only approximately, for the various components, and particularly for the investments at the community level; (iii) The proposal should elaborate on measures to preempt potential land-use conflicts such as agreements based on the outcomes of community consultations; (iv) The proposal should justify the project based on the cost evaluation of alternative options to the proposed interventions; and (v) The budget should provide budget notes explaining each budget line. (c) Request UNDP to transmit the observations referred to in paragraph (b) above to the Government of Fiji. (Decision B.18/16) 10. The proposal was then submitted to the nineteenth meeting of the Board but was withdrawn by the proponent following the initial technical review for that meeting 11. The current submission was received by the secretariat in time to be considered for the intersessional project/programme proposal review cycle between the twenty-third and twenty- fourth meetings. 12. The secretariat carried out a technical review of the project proposal, using the diary number FJI/MIE/DRR/2010/3, and completed a review sheet. In accordance with a request to the secretariat made by the Board in its 10th meeting, the secretariat shared this review sheet with UNDP, and offered it the opportunity of providing responses before the review sheet was sent to the PPRC. 13. 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. 3 AFB/PPRC.14-15/2 Project Summary Fiji – Enhancing Resilience of Rural Communities to Flood and Drought-Related Climate Change and Disaster Risks in the Ba Catchment Area of Fiji Implementing Entity: UNDP Project/Programme Execution Cost: USD 499,000 Total Project/Programme Cost: USD 5,280,000 Implementing Fee: USD 448,800 Financing Requested: USD 5,728,800 Programme Background and Context: The objective of the project is to reduce the exposure and increase the adaptive capacity of communities living in the Ba catchment in Fiji, which is vulnerable to drought and flood-related climate and disaster risks. The proposed project would address these risks in an integrated way, i.e., through Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), combining concerted efforts at the community and household levels in the Ba watershed area to increase local resilience to flood and drought risks and hazards through implementation of on-the-ground adaptation measures. The framework for this project strategy includes an integrated and climate-sensitive flood and drought management plan, specifically developed for the Ba watershed area, through community consultation processes, involving national and local authorities and