GEF PAS Progress Report World Bank

1. GEF PAS Progress ReportWorld Bank GEF Pacific Workshop Port Moresby, February 2010 Erik Johnson Senior Operations Officer Sustainable Development Network World Bank, Papua New Guinea

2. Projects in Pipeline • Vanuatu - NAPA Implementation • Objective: improve the livelihoods of upland farmers and coastal communities by increasing their resilience to the impacts of climate variability and change as well as weather related hazards • Financing: $6M (incl. $2.5M GEF; $3.2M EU) • Status: PIF and PPG approved 11/08; still in preparation stage; PMU in process of contracting studies; about 10-12 months behind original schedule (Board approval: Jan 2010) • Kiribati - Increasing resilience to climate variability and hazards • Objective: strengthen resilience to the impact of climate change by reducing the impact of storm surges and coastal erosion on the quality and availability of freshwater resources and the livelihoods of coastal communities • Financing: $6M (incl. $3M GEF; $3M GFDRR tbc) • Status: PIF approved 10/09; preparation & PPG request to start around April 2009; on track to sequence with KAP II which is scheduled to close in Dec 2010; quick start-up upon approval (Jan 2011) expected due to use of same team as KAP II

3. Projects in Pipeline • Solomon Islands- Strengthening Adaptation to climate change Risks • Objective: To increase resilience of key sectors through better planning and effective implementation of CCA and DRR measures • Financing: $10M ($5M GEF, $5M others, GFDRR tbc) • Status: took time to finalize NAPA in 2008 and translate into priority project; revised PIF received in mid-Jan, pending WB response; PIF to be finalized and submitted shortly • Energizing the Pacific projects in PNG, SI, Vanuatu, Kiribati • Objective: promote strategic development of the electricity sectors in participating countries so that sustainable and efficient electricity supply and use leads to reduced GHG emissions and improved energy security and access • Financing: $1M GEF for each country; co-financing specific to each country • Status: PIF approved in September 2009; implementation options under discussion

4. Challenges • Time expectations for filtering process • Natural process of filtering strategy (NAPA) into priorities and projects requires time for dialogue and trade-offs to build strong ownership • NAPAs set a broad stage, everything is a priority • Too many sectors, too many institutions will negatively affect implementation • Regional approaches pose significant implementation and country dialogue difficulties (lowest common denominator) • If a regional organization is the vehicle, the approach is more viable • Competition among government agencies when cross-cutting coordination is essential • All key players may not be engaged • Taxing limited country preparation (and eventually implementation) capacity • May require supplementing with TA capacity

5. Lessons • At policy level: • Commitment at the highest level of government is essential for the cross-cutting nature of climate change projects • Climate change adaptation and hazard risk management are highly complementary and reinforcing • should be integrated • At project level: • Focus initially on the most immediate priorities or sectors where climate stress is already being experienced • Carefully assess implementing institution capacity and calibrate project design and needed resources accordingly • it is easy to overtax high quality agencies with limited resources – supplemental capacity may be needed