Develop reference guidelines for incorporating
climate risk management into project and program
design, appraisal, and implementation.
Guidance is lacking on when and how to incorporate
climate risks into project design
and appraisal.
Current procedures are ad hoc.
Original Response: Agreed: World Bank: We have already started work in some sectors and country strategies, with support from Expert teams - such as those in Adaptation, Water, and Disaster Risk Management. We will build on
this engagement and explore partnerships to bring the best knowledge into operations and seek to mobilize resources to systematically scale-up and deepen our efforts in International Development Association (IDA) and International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) countries. We will work through existing knowledge platforms and learning programs to make the guidelines readily and widely accessible to project teams.
Action 1A: Develop Guidelines for incorporating climate risk in project design for key sectors.
Indicator: Climate risk guidelines delivered.
Baseline: No systematic existing guidelines for key sectors affected by changing climate.
Target: Guidelines for at least four key sectors delivered and made widely available through various knowledge platforms for use by WBG, clients and other stakeholders.
Timeline: End FY15
Action 1B: Develop sectoral screening frameworks guided by an overall framework for identifying and incorporating climate risks that draws on works of WBG, bilateral, multilateral development agencies and others. We would use the CASs/CPSs as entry points for such work.
Indicator: Screening tools and framework delivered.
Baseline: No existing systematic screening tools or frameworks exist.
Target: An overall framework and screening tools for at least four key sectors - including agriculture, energy, water, roads - delivered and made widely available through various knowledge platforms for use by WBG, clients and other stakeholders.
Timeline: End FY14
Action 1C: Develop knowledge product on good practices in developing guidance for climate change.
Indicator: Inventory and lessons for developing and applying screening tools and guidelines.
Baseline: No existing inventory and good practices.
Target: Knowledge product on lessons and good practices in developing and applying screening tools and guidelines.
Timeline: End FY15
Action 1D: Pilot and test application of climate risk screening and guidelines for energy infrastructure and a learning program for WBG TTLs to use such screening tools and guidelines.
Indicator: Climate risk pilots conducted, guidelines for energy infrastructure applied and learning delivered.
Baseline: No existing systematic application of screening or guidelines for climate risk.
Indicator: Climate risk screening pilot conducted and guidelines applied.
Target: Screening and guidelines piloted in energy in 10 countries and other sectors in at least one country each, including Kenya
Timeline: FY14-FY17
The climate change CCSA has produced, rolled out, and implemented a set of tools to support climate risk screening IDA and now IBRD (as of 2017) projects and for SCDs and CPFs.
As noted in previous updates, the tools that were created were decision support tools rather than the technical reference guidelines envisioned in the IEG evaluation. Technical reference guidelines that provided specific guidance on when to worry and when not about the most serious risks would have been more expensive to design upfront and could have been inflexible in meeting specific project needs. Decision support tools could be adequate if task team resources and expert judgment were sufficient, but there was also a risk that a lack of structured guidance or additional resources would mean that task teams would struggle to implement screening effectively.
IEG carried out a learning engagement to support the climate change CCSA in its ongoing work on climate and disaster risk screening guidelines. The engagement found that the implementation of climate risk screening for IDA coincided with increasing incidence of climate and disaster risk in new project appraisal documents. However, most TTLs indicated that the requirement for climate risk screening did not influence their decisions around the project design, that the roll-out of climate risk screening tools needed improvement on clarity of expectations, timeliness of communication, support for task teams for compliance, and feedback to the team at the concept note meeting. A majority of TTLs indicated that the distribution of roles and responsibilities for compliance was not clear, and a large minority stated that the data available to the project team was insufficient to support compliance with the screening requirement. A large majority of TTLs stated that no meaningful discussion of climate risks took place at the concept review meeting. TTLs were nearly unanimous that carrying out screening was not a good use of project preparation resources, and managers stated that resources provided were inadequate. The staff perception was that the screening requirement had check-box compliance, and that to be useful there would need to be specialized disaster and climate risk staff on the project team. The requirement was seen by TTLs as an unfunded mandate rather than a useful tool. One possibility would be to use climate risk screening more selectively rather than as a universal mandate.
Following this work, the climate change CCSA undertook additional surveys and consultations, which yielded similar conclusions around the lack of specialists on task teams, constraints from lack of expertise, time and budget, and the need for more specific climate information and guidance on the screening process. The CCSA subsequently produced a knowledge management product which carried out a number enhancements to the tool, including more specific data access, training, resources and guidance. They also updated the process to choose between a rapid lightweight assessment or a more guided in depth assessment. These enhancements may address many of the concerns raised. But they do not address the concerns raised about the lack of expertise on task teams - which is beyond the scope of what a knowledge management product could achieve.
The Bank update also describes the work being taken to expand use of climate risk screening in SCD/CPF, including through expenditures on increased staffing for analytical and advisory support.
The actions as laid out in the action plan were applied, and the Bank has made considerable efforts in assess their experience and making iterative improvements based on evidence and data. The Bank has also done an excellent job of describing and documents its actions on this work, including in the management updates in the MAR process.
During FY17, WBG completed developing reference guidelines for incorporating climate risk management into project and program design, appraisal, and implementation, and developed tools so that both IBRD and IDA projects may be screened for climate and disaster risks from July 1, 2017. The WBG Climate and Disaster Risk Screening tools were developed in response to the IDA-17 screening commitment, and screening at the concept stage may inform project design so that WBG may achieve corporate commitment to increase WBG climate co-benefit from 21 to 28 percent by 2020. The paragraphs below describe WBG's such efforts in the form of training, website development, engagement in CPF/SCD process, and TA. Since July 1, 2014, all IDA operations continue to be screened for short- and long-term climate change and disaster risks. The WBG's Climate Change Action Plan commits to extending the screening requirement to all IBRD operations starting in FY18. A kiosk announcement was released on April 26, 2017, indicating that all Project Concept Notes approved on or after July 1, 2017 must be screened for climate and disaster risks. To enable this, virtual decision meeting was held from June 26-30, 2017 for Enhancing the Climate and Disaster Risk Screening Tools (P163410), which finalized climate and disaster screening tools. Several additional activities have been initiated or planned to further support the mainstreaming of climate risk and resilience into operations. First, the climate and disaster risk screening process is being enhanced based on feedback received from an IEG learning engagement report (FY15, 16)(45 TTL and 14 PM respondents), user evaluations from screening applications (127 user respondents) and completed consultations with GPs. Enhancements are under development for four initial sectors (Agriculture, Energy, Health and Water) along several fronts, to be fit-for-purpose for FY18: (1) new sector level climate indices for the Climate Change Knowledge Portal (CCKP) that will enhance task teams' ability to assess climate risks under both current and future time frames (2) the development of sector dashboards for the CCKP that will provide interactive and facilitated interpretation of sector specific climate information (3) updated screening tools with differentiated entry and exit points for sector projects, improved interfaces and links to sector specific resources and updated output reports including suggestions for sector-based climate risk management measures (4) the integration of gender considerations into the updated screening tools (5) sector screening guidance notes that will provide an end-to-end roadmap for task teams on the screening process, including on ADM and how to use screening results during project concept and appraisal and (6) updated training resources for task teams. Sector guidance notes were finalized as FY17 deliverables and will be posted online in July 2017. Regarding development of knowledge products, alongside the climate data and information enhancements through the CCKP, the ThinkHazard will allow users to get information by country-subnational level on how flood, drought, landslide, cyclone strong wind, cyclone storm surge, volcanic eruption, tsunami and earthquake could affect development projects. Think Hazard, an open-source web-based tool (www.thinkhazard.org), is hyperlinked into the screening tools and the CCKP. It includes guidance on the level of hazard present, how climate change might exacerbate these hazards, 3-8 recommendations on how to reduce the risk and a list of resources for additional information is provided. A new Programmatic Technical Assistance (Enhancing Climate and Disaster Resilience of World Bank Sustainable Development Operations - P158601) was implemented from July 2016, with the objective of (i) make projects and sectoral, local, or national development strategies more resilient to climate change and natural disasters and (ii) better assess how projects can effectively build climate and disaster resilience. The outputs would also include more detailed guidance based on recent project-based solutions for operations team including those in water, agriculture and transport. Completion is scheduled in December 2017. Climate-Resilient Power Systems Planning (P159094) is an analytical work to develop an approach for power system planning for WBG clients that incorporates information on climate variability projections and potential climate change impacts. This ASA aimed to enhance the traditional least-cost (generation) planning approaches in power systems to render a plan to be more 'climate resilient' to current and future climate risks. More specifically, the objectives are to: (i) develop a set of models using stochastic linear programming (SLP) and robust decision making (RDM) techniques that incorporate climate variables and (ii) apply the methodology for a country - initially for Bangladesh that has significant exposure to climate change related risks and has experience using conventional least-cost planning models that can be enhanced as part of this planning work. Virtual decision meeting was held from June 16 to 22, 2017. Final summary report included: (i) context, literature review and methodology and (ii) case studies for Bangladesh using SLP and RDM. The efforts summarized above along with the learning programs are resulting in a systematic integration climate and disaster risk and resilience measure into project/program design and implementation. As clearly articulated in IEG Learning Engagement Report, even in FY15-16, 75% of interviewed TTLs indicated that if risks were identified during the concept note stage, they incorporated appropriate resilience measures to their project. A helpdesk (climatescreeninghelpdesk@worldbankgroup.org) associated with the screening tools has been established and has been providing tailored support for the task teams under a dedicated TA program Scale up Screening Climate Risks & Support Helpdesk (P157057). A number of face-to-face and virtual training sessions have been offered to task teams helping them go through the screening process and offering guidance on ways to incorporate screening results in project concept notes. There is also pro-active participation of climate change experts (CCG and others) to enhance the quality of the screening and resilience measures. In addition, at least 8 CCG staff have provided more detailed support for operation during preparation and implementation. CCG provided such support for operations in approximately 30 countries, and the wide area of engagement in such countries includes carbon pricing, health, glaciers, solar, green growth, capacity building, climate readiness and fiscal exposure, and refrigerants. In addition to the project focused initiatives above and at a more corporate strategic level, the Bank is also promoting systematic accounting of Climate and disaster risks into country products such as Systematic Country Diagnostics(SCD) and Country Partnership Frameworks(CPF) The Bank's SCD corporate guidance was updated in December 2016 to include the incorporation of climate change risks and countries Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) as appropriate in all SCDs in addition to similar guidance for CPFs in 2014. This has provided a stronger basis for a more robust engagement and climate change considerations in SCDs and CPFs to help fulfill IDA policies and the World Bank's commitment of 28% climate co-benefits in its portfolio by 2020. Decision notes coming out of ROC meetings are increasingly reflecting this, by explicitly including the importance of addressing climate change risks more systematically. There has been an increase in TTLs requesting the services of the climate change group to help incorporate climate change risks and opportunities into the processes. To continue to provide the necessary advisory and analytical services to achieve this, the climate change group has increased the number of Climate change experts from across the CCG working on SCDs and CPFs, with a more diverse regional and range of technical expertise including economics, gender and climate change and development experience. . This is resulting in strengthened climate risk and resilience in the diagnostic documents and a prominent climate change focus in the CPF..In FY17 the Climate change group reviewed SCDs/CPFs products for 46 countries at various stages in the cycle compared to 28 reported in FY16. The climate change group strategy on SCDs/CPFs is moving from a response only strategy towards more upstream engagement with regions, by getting engaged earlier in the drafting process to ensure that climate is sufficiently accounted for in the narrative and analysis. CCG staff have worked directly in supporting the preparation of SCD/CPF drafts in 14 country SCDs compared to 9 reported in FY2016. This type of engagement occurs across regions including Morocco, Zambia, Timor-Leste, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Djibouti, Niger, Armenia, South Africa, Benin, Nepal, Somalia, Cabo Verde and Thailand, where CCG staff serve as focal points and team members of the SCD drafting team or early engagement in providing comments to TTLs at Zero or draft concept note stage. This type of support ranged from directly drafting climate change sections into the SCD document for Zambia, Benin and Morocco SCDs, providing analytical documents in support to Papua New Guinea, directly providing inputs to the Results Framework for the CPF in Ethiopia, and contributing to country benchmarking processes with climate vulnerability and other climate indicators in Zambia. The demand for CCG focal points is increasing steadily as well as sustained efforts for continued engagement from SCD process to CPF process. Attachment: Decision note "Enhancing the Climate and Disaster Risk Screening Tools" (P163410)
The World Bank has continued to take a number of actions that help to support incorporation of climate risk management into project and program design. The Bank deserves credit for making this a priority area and undertaking significant efforts.
As noted, all IDA operations continue to face a requirement for climate and disaster risk screening. IEG is carrying out a Learning Engagement on the climate and disaster risk screening in conjunction with the climate change CCSA, aimed at helping to identify whether and how the climate risk screening mandate is affecting project design. Findings from this are not yet available to inform this current MAR update, but will be intended to contribute to the review of tools and to contribute to the final 2017 MAR update for this action. The WBG climate change action plan commits to extend the screening requirement to IBRD operations starting in 2017.
The ThinkHazard website appears to be a useful source for helping non-specialist project designers identify basic risks and potential paths of mitigation, with simple advice for what types of experts that might want to consult for additional detail.
The Programmatic Technical Assistance looks likely to provide the types of guidance envisioned in the recommendation, once completed, including detailed guidance for task teams in specific sectors.
The management update notes that climate risk screening is being worked directly into the SCD/CPF process and drafts, as suggested in the recommendation.
The final update on this recommendation in 2017 will draw on the findings of the climate risk screening learning engagement and progress on the programmatic TA program.
Since July 1, 2014, as reported in the 2015 management update, all IDA operations continue to be screened for climate and disaster risks. Several additional activities have been initiated or planned to further support the mainstreaming of climate risk and resilience into operations. These include 1) the commitment in the WBG's Climate Action Plan for all IBRD operations to be screened as of January 1, 2017 2) review the existing tools and strengthen them as needed 3) completion of ThinkHazard is an open-source web-based tool (www.thinkhazard.org) that allows users get information by country-subnational level on how flood, drought, landslide, cyclone strong wind, cyclone storm surge, volcanic eruption, tsunami and earthquake could affect development projects. Guidance on the level of hazard present, how climate change might exacerbate these hazards, 3-8 recommendations on how to reduce the risk and a list of resources for additional information is provided. The users are able to download all the underpinning hazard data. As this is an open-source tool, it can be further customized for use by different institutions (e.g., the World Bank), governments and/or by sectors. 4) A new Programmatic Technical Assistance (Enhancing Climate and Disaster Resilience of World Bank Sustainable Development Operations - P158601) was initiated with the objective of (i) make projects and sectoral, local, or national development strategies more resilient to climate change and natural disasters and (ii) better assess how projects can effectively build climate and disaster resilience. The outputs would also include more detailed guidance based on recent project-based solutions for operations team including those in water, agriculture and transport.
The efforts summarized above along with the learning programs are resulting in a systematic integration climate and disaster risk and resilience measure into project/program design and implementation. A helpdesk associated with the screening tools has been established and has been providing tailored support for the task teams. There is also pro-active participation of climate change experts (CCG and others) to enhance the quality of the screening and resilience measures. In addition, at least 8 GCC staff have provided more detailed support for operation during preparation and implementation.
In addition, the Bank is working to incorporate climate variability projections and potential climate change risks in power system planning. The work will use Bangladesh as a case study to identify key requirements to successfully mainstream climate change (see also update under Action 249).
Climate and disaster risk is being systematically integrated into the SCD/CPF process. Climate change experts from CCG and others have worked directly in supporting the preparation of SCD/CPF drafts including in Iraq, South Sudan, Mauritania, Moldova, Guinea-Bissau, Ukraine, Thailand and Tanzania. This is resulting in strengthened climate risk and resilience in the diagnostic documents and a prominent climate change focus in the CPF.
Overall, there has been continued progress on mainstreaming consideration of climate risk during the project design phase, particularly for IDA operations.
Climate and disaster risk screening tools have been developed to cover a wide range of sectors. As noted in the 2014 IEG update, these are decision support tools that provide a framework in which tasks teams can organize their analysis. The tools do not directly provide guidance to task teams on appropriate levels of due diligence: this is left to the individual task team's expert judgment. The original recommendation envisioned screening tools that would provide guidance directly to task teams to help them decide what level of due diligence was appropriate (eg by providing rules of thumb as to which cases climate risks should or should not be a high priority). The approach implemented has been slightly different, as it uses the tool as a platform for having a discussion about climate risk, bringing in and applying technical expertise to meet task team needs on a case by case basis. IEG cannot immediately determine whether one approach is better than the other, each has relative advantages. As a significant number of projects have now been screened it would be interesting to carry out a survey of task teams as to how helpful they have found the tools and whether they have felt able to access sufficient technical expertise. However, the Management update also notes that Bank is developing guidance notes to inform the integration of resilience measures in projects.
Since the 2014 update, the tools have been made easier to access and have benefited from user and expert feedback. The Bank has had an extensive training program on the risk screening tool, and has also carried out some training of client government officials. Assisting client governments to adopt the tool is a positive step that goes beyond the expectations set out in the action plan.
The Management update notes continued a range of pilot studies in specific countries and sectors, including in energy infrastructure (action 1D)
Future updates could usefully provide guidance on the extent to which screening frameworks are being used in CAS/CPS development (action 1B).
The Management update notes that work on developing a knowledge product on good practices in guidance development is in progress but not yet complete (action 1C).
IEG also notes ongoing work on incorporating decision-making under uncertainty principles into project design, particularly on improving economic analysis to include more explicit consideration of risk and uncertainty, including climate risk, and on applying these principles in investment operations.
1A, 1B, 1D, 1E: Climate and disaster risk screening tools are available online to both Bank staff and external users. The tools include a framework and key sectors/subsectors (water, agriculture, health, energy, transport, coastal areas). A general tool was also developed to support projects not covered by the specific sectors above and include: Community Development, Education, Finance, Industry, IT & Communications, Mining and Metals, Natural Resources, Non-Road Transport, Social Development, Solid Waste, Urban Development.
A dedicated website for accessing the tool has been established. Within the tools access to climate and disaster risk related information and adaptation options for at least 113 countries is provided through links to the through the Climate Change Knowledge Portal (CCKP). The tools provide users a systematic way to consider climate and disaster risk and thus act as guidance on the approaches to manage climate and disaster risk. The tools provide a link to complementary resources to undertake follow-up in-depth analysis for specific sectors (e.g. energy, urban, water). Since their launch, the tools have been used in 291 Bank operations and by 120 external users. The tools have been discussed with and have benefited from inputs from other MDBs and external experts building on the meetings mentioned in the last reporting period.
The Bank's operations portal now requires team to flag the risk at both the PCN and PAD stages for IDA operations. This requirement alerts the Bank on operations that might be at high risk from climate change. A range of efforts such as upstream planning and policy support are being considered to reduce the risk. In some cases the teams are changing activities and/or develop resilience measures that can address the risk in short and long-term. For example, the water and energy sectors are identifying appropriate resilience measures and making good decisions in situations of deep uncertainty. They have been applied to urban flood management, urban planning, hydro-dam development, and large infrastructure projects in Nepal and Peru, amongst others.
GFDRR has also established specialized teams to support preparation of operations that include risk identification and risk-based planning for public infrastructure. These provide additional support to the teams to ensure that identified risks are addressed.
The Transport Sector has also completed a pilot study (June 2015, financed by the Korean Green Growth Trust Fund) to support the Moroccan Ministry of Equipment, Transport and Logistic for the evaluation of the climate risk and vulnerability of some important road sections in the country, and the suggestion of specific technical recommendations, aimed at improving the resistance of the sections to the climate change.
ESMAP has just completed a draft report which has looked at some of the measures to be put in place due to extreme events on energy sector. The energy sector tool (ATECA) has continued to be used. It provides guidance to the teams on incorporating climate risk as part of project preparation. In addition, in-depth assessments have or are being conducted in partnership with government of Albania, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan (and in partnership with USAID). Rapid vulnerability Assessments have been applied to Vietnam, Nepal, Zambia, and are underway in Mozambique.
ESMAP's tool for screening energy sector vulnerability to climate change has been used in the IDA operation to help country teams identify potential risks to projects and country plans they are working on. The tool was also used by the WB team in Mozambique to inform development of that country's 2nd Climate Change DPO and in Belize to inform the GEF Energy Resilience for Climate Adaptation Project.
Under IDA 17 commitments, climate risk screening is mandated for all new investment lending operations in IDA countries. This is a major achievement that surpasses what was envisioned at the time of the IEG evaluation. We note that climate risk screening is not required for IBRD operations, but the IDA commitment covers 75% of the portfolio (by number of operations) including the poorest and most vulnerable countries. The Bank has developed national and project level climate and disaster risk screening tools and has started to use these in some operations and country strategies. These decision support tools represent an important first step in developing a system that provides guidance to task teams. The tools pose specific questions to task teams and helps teams to organize their analysis. They provide a framework for task teams to apply expert judgment based on country and project specific circumstances.
In addition to identifying risks to be assessed, the evaluation recommended that guidance be provided on available risk assessment tools including their strengths, limitations, and applicability and on options for integrating climate risk considerations into design and implementation. The Bankâs action plan indicates that the Bank will also develop guidelines for how to incorporate climate risk in project design, but work on this has not yet commenced.
ESMAP is continuing to provide in-depth and rapid assessments of climate change vulnerability in the energy using tools developed prior to the IEG evaluation.
It is too soon to assess how effective the SORT tool is in capturing climate risks, but the inclusion of climate risk screening and resilience measures is a positive step.
Climate and disaster risk screening tools have been developed and launched internally in the Bank in early July, 2014 (http://wbclimatescreeningtools.worldbank.org). Two sets of tools have been developed to support early-stage screening at (1) the national (or sector) level, incorporating climate and disaster risk considerations in development planning, and (2) the project level, to screen all operations for short- and long-term climate change and disaster risks. The project level tool covers the following key sectors: agriculture, water, health, roads, energy, coastal flood protection and a genera tool (which covers natural resources, solid waste, and education etc. a range of sectors) and specific sectors can be selected through a menu driven approach. These tools build on a robust methodology that links the subject matter expertise with climate and disaster information to characterize risks as part of early stage due diligence at the PCN stage. These online tools can be accessed directly all Bank staff, and includes training videos. The two sets of tools were tested against specific project teams (Nepal, Timor Leste, Mozambique, Malawi, Sri Lanka, Vanuatu, etc.) to validate the approach, methodology and enhance usability. Since July, training sessions are being offered about twice a month, and a help desk facility is available to respond to queries from staff. Evaluation of the feedback from training and applications is being consolidated to help fine tune the tools ahead of a global launch in early 2015.
These early due diligence screening tools are complemented by other sector based tools in the Bank.
For Energy sector, a country level rapid assessment tool for vulnerability to climate change was developed and piloted in Mozambique and Zambia using the ESMAP tool. This will be available as a printed version in late 2014.
CityStrength Diagnostic tool was developed and facilitates a dialogue among urban stakeholders about climate-related risks, such as flooding, in their city and the performance of urban systems. It was piloted in Can Tho, Vietnam in June 2014. The guidance document with the methodology will be freely available from the Urban Global Practice Website and the Climate Smart Planning Platform, once pilot testing is finalized.
The tools have been tested through the pilot development phase (see above). Currently the tools have been applied by task teams as part of their due diligence (Mozambique, India) and the feedback and lesson are being generated. The guidance for the application is online (through the training videos) and also through face-to-face training.
Discussions are underway on systematizing the consideration of climate and disaster risk screening, particularly for IDA countries, and through the Bankâs new âSystematic Operations Risk-Rating Tool (SORT)â â which is mandatory for all projects and CPFs, through the operations Portal.
The tool development process also brought together MDBs, bilateral and other organizations in workshop in March 2014, to share lessons learned for both the development and the use of the tools. As a product of this â a mapping questionnaire has been developed to allow an inventory of the processes underway in each agency relating to climate screening.
Examples of the application of the tools are being captured as tools get applied for operations in IDA countries.