Type of Review: Annual Review
Project Title: Climate Change Programme
Date started: Sept 2008
Date review undertaken: 5- 13 February, 2012
Introduction and Context
What support is the UK providing?
The UK is providing up to £75 million to support national plans and processes to reduce
the impacts of climate change on vulnerable people. The programme has three
components:

The Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund (BCCRF) (£60 million) is a multidonor trust fund supporting the implementation of the national Climate Change
Strategy and Action Plan. The plan prioritises adaptation and disaster risk
reduction, and also addresses low carbon development, technology transfer and
research. The fund is managed by Government of Bangladesh with the World
Bank providing technical support and financial safeguards.

The Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme (CDMP II) (£12 million) is a
multi-donor programme led by UNDP to support government and civil society to
strengthen national systems and help communities reduce the risk of disasters.

The Strategic Fund (£3 million) managed directly by DFID pilots climate relevant
innovations and research in Bangladesh e.g. best practice designs for cyclone
resilient housing. It provides financing for research and training, and supports the
Government of Bangladesh to engage with international climate negotiations.
What are the expected results?
Overall 15 million people will have increased resilience to climate change and enhanced
capacity to respond to and recover from natural disasters.
This overall result from UK assistance includes our share of the following overall results
from the different sub-components of this programme:
 Over 1 million additional people directly protected by gender sensitive climate
resilient infrastructure (e.g. cyclone shelters, embankments to protect from
flooding);
 Up to 21 million people covered by improved early warning systems (e.g. mobile
phone alerts, warnings on TV, radio, and through trained local people);
 2 million people with reduced vulnerability due to local risk reduction plans being
implemented in their village; and
 Improved knowledge and institutional capacity in 12 key government ministries to
manage climate change impacts and disasters better.
1
What is the context in which UK support is provided?
Bangladesh is one of the most climate vulnerable countries in the world and will
become even more so as a result of climate change. Floods, cyclones, storm surges
and droughts are likely to become more frequent and severe. These changes will
threaten the significant achievements Bangladesh has made over the last 20 years, and
will make it more difficult to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
The Government of Bangladesh, with support from international development agencies,
has invested over £6.5 billion since 1971 to make the country more resilient to
disasters. These investments include flood management schemes, coastal polders,
cyclone and flood shelters, and the raising of roads and highways above flood level. In
addition, the GoB has developed state-of-the-art warning systems for floods, cyclones
and storm surges, and is expanding community-based disaster preparedness. The
challenge Bangladesh now faces is to scale up investments across a range of sectors,
to reduce vulnerability focusing on the poorest and most vulnerable groups, including
women and children. The comprehensive national Climate Change Strategy and Action
Plan is estimated to cost $5 billion over 5 years. The UK’s support is intended to make
a substantial contribution to the results in this plan.
2
Section A: Detailed Output Scoring
Output 1: Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme (CDMP) II reduces the
country's vulnerability to disasters through technical assistance in risk reduction and
comprehensive disaster management activities.
Output 1 score and performance description:
B - Of the four indicators for this output, one was met, two did not have targets for
December 2011, and one was not met and needs revision. It is therefore scored as
moderately did not meet the targeted milestones for this annual review.
The four major indicators, milestone targets and progress against this output are as
follows:
Indicator 1: Number of community based disaster management committees operational
and implementing action plans.
Milestone targets:
 December 2011: No milestone
 December 2012: 1300 Disaster Management Committees (DMCs)
Progress – No 2011 milestone, but off track for 2012. Disaster Management Committees
are responsible for coordinating disaster preparedness and response at local levels
(Union and Upazilla). CDMP has a key role in helping ensure that these committees are
active; in providing information and training; and in supporting Committees to
implement local Risk Reduction Action Plans. To date 714 community Risk Reduction
Action Plans are in place. 644 of these were established by 2009 (end of CDMP phase I)
so only 90 are additional in the first two years of Phase II. This indicator is therefore
seriously off-track and we do not expect the next milestone to be met. CDMP’s 2011
annual report acknowledges that implementation and investment has been slow and
that significant ramping up of support for local level implementation is required in 2012,
especially given significant underspend in this area. CDMP recognises that supporting
the establishment and training of new Committees and community-based action plans
is fundamental. An ‘acceleration strategy’ has been developed for strengthening
community risk reduction through the Local Disaster Risk Reduction Fund, which
includes working with many more Disaster Management Committees.
CDMP is also involved in building the capacity of existing Disaster Management
Committees so they can carry out their responsibilities effectively. Union and Upazilla
committee chairs have been trained in preparedness and disaster risk reduction, with a
focus on the responsibilities of the Committee. The Union Parishad elections in early
2011 (when approximately 80% of members changed) required new formation and
orientation of the Disaster Management Committees so further training was required.
This training and other interventions to build local capacity to manage disasters is very
important. However, further discussion is needed between CDMP, Government and
donors regarding ambitions for 2012. CDMP needs to balance the promotion of
innovative approaches and building longer-term capacity against delivering the results
that are already agreed in the project document. Investment in the implementation of
3
community level risk reduction planning and programming has always been identified
as a priority for the programme, and DFID should continue to engage to ensure that this
focus is maintained and strengthened.
Indicator 2: Lead time to flood forecast.
Milestone targets:
 December 2011: no milestone
 December 2012: 4 days
Progress: Good progress but no 2011 milestone, and not appropriate for annual
tracking against milestones. A 36-month research project is underway with the Institute
of Water Management on prediction modelling for flood warning, aiming to increase the
warning ‘lead time’ from 3 to 5 days by the end of the project. The methodology is
agreed and initial data collected. A Technical Working Group headed by the Chief
Engineer of Hydrology has been established and a capacity building needs assessment
for professional development is completed. CDMP is working with the Flood Forecast
Warning Centre which is actively engaged with the Regional Integrated Multi-Hazard
Early Warning System working to translate better flood forecasting into practical early
warning of severe flood risks. This indicator therefore appears to be on track. However,
given that this indicator is not appropriate for annual tracking, we recommend that
another be selected instead.
Indicator 3: Number of people covered/reached by improved early warning systems.
Milestone targets:
 December 2011: 3,000,000 people (approx)
 December 2012: 10,000,000 people (approx)
Progress – Milestone met. CDMP trains volunteers so they can mobilise to warn people
of a flood, cyclone or other disaster before it happens. Many methods are used
including TV, radio, mobile phones and people riding bicycles using megaphones.
CDMP is piloting early warning systems that use text alerts through mobile phones to
reach more people. Early warning systems have already saved thousands of lives in
Bangladesh, but many people still don’t have access to this life-saving service and
CDMP is working to fill the gap.
Approximately 3 million people are now covered by improved early warning systems so
the milestone has been met. This includes the baseline of 1 million people covered in
the first phase of CDMP. In 2011-12, an additional 1.9 million people were covered, most
of these through extension of the Cyclone Preparedness Programme (5 additional
coastal Upazillas, 6,500 new volunteers). CDMP also contributed to other notable
results on early warning systems and preparedness from 2011, including:
- 50,000 people observed two cyclone early warning and response mock drills in 2
very vulnerable Unions.
- The Disaster Management Information Centre network has been expanded to all
64 districts.
- Local Government officials in over 400 Upazillas will now receive text message
warnings.
- The urban volunteer service developed in collaboration with the Fire Service and
Civil Defence now covers a population of 3,200,000 urban dwellers. So far 8,000
4
-
urban volunteers have been recruited and trained (out of the targeted 32,000 by
2014).
200,000 people are involved in the ongoing pilot project on community-based
landslide early warning in Chittagong and Cox’s Bazaar hilly areas.
2,900 people in Sirajganj and Cox’ Bazaar are participating in the piloting of early
warnings shared through the mobile phone network.
In 2012, CDMP is looking to bring more mobile telephone operators into the text alert
scheme. Government and donors should agree clear levels of ambition for scaling up
the mobile phone and other early warning systems in 2012. The current overall
programme target of 21,000,000 covered by improved early warning systems relies very
heavily on successful scale up of the mobile early warning system.
Indicator 4: Number of Ministries (out of the 12 targeted Ministries) with policies and
plans that incorporate analysis of risk and adaptation.
Milestone targets:
 December 2011: 4 ministries
 December 2011: Disaster Management Bureau established a Secretariat for Local
Consultative Group on Disaster Emergency Response (LCG-DER) and actively
coordinating the DER group and response
 December 2012: 7 ministries
Progress – 2011: First milestone not met but some progress made across all 13
Ministries. CDMP has signed MOUs (Memorandum of Understanding) with 13 ministries
and departments, but none of these has yet systematically adopted policies and plans
that incorporate analysis of risk and adaptation.
Such mainstreaming takes time and it was probably unrealistic to expect any of the
Ministries to have fully adopted new policies and plans at this stage. It is more likely all
the Ministries will move at a more similar pace, ideally all achieving substantive
changes by the end of the project. There is equally a risk that policy changes at the
highest level do not result in changes to programmes and working practices so
systematically monitoring progress is essential. Milestones should be reconsidered in
this light to be realistic but to ensure that progress is tracked and captured.
Important policy changes have been achieved and should be noted. CDMP provided
technical assistance to the Disaster Management Relief Division in the finalisation of
the Disaster Management Act, which the Cabinet approved in principle in December
2011. Concurrently, CDMP is working on revisiting the draft Disaster Management
Policy.
CDMP has worked with UNDP’s Poverty, Environment and Climate
Mainstreaming (PECM) Project to revise Government’s project document formats to
include disaster risk reduction and climate change considerations in development
project planning and appraisal (this will therefore cut across all ministries’ work). It can
be demonstrated therefore that policies are changing at the central level.
2011: Second milestone not met. The DER Secretariat is housed in the Disaster
Management and Relief Division, and CDMP is ready to extend technical support.
However, there are outstanding questions about the relative roles of the Disaster
Management Bureau, CDMP and UNDP itself in the DER Secretariat. It appears that
5
UNDP has currently taken on the Secretariat support role (nominated as focal point in
the latest DER minutes). The DER is now meeting more regularly and the UN Resident
Coordinator’s office has also strengthened its capacity on disaster response. DFID is
now pushing for clarification of roles and responsibilities of the CDMP programme in
supporting the DER.
Progress against expected results:
In September 2011 the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) carried out an indepth evaluation of Bangladesh’s Climate Change Programme with a 4 person team incountry for up to 2 weeks. The ICAI found that CDMP was “a proven mechanism and
benefitting from applying lessons previously learnt”. In Phase II, CDMP has focused on
strengthening the disaster management committees that are already active, and on
piloting new methodologies. There has been some good progress on engaging with
Ministries and Departments, beginning to embed disaster risk reduction and climate
change adaptation into mainstream government planning and training at central level.
Many achievements are not captured in the DFID logframe, including1:
The Bangladesh Disaster Management Education and Training Network: 21
academic and training institutions involved in the knowledge and education
network; 5 more universities are offering disaster management programmes.
Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into urban planning: collaboration with the
Urban Development Directorate of the Ministry of Housing and Public Works for
Mymensingh. Designed a detailed socio-economic survey and started the
digitization of maps to integrate risk information with physical urban planning.
Urban Community Assessment Guidelines drafted and piloted in Sylhet.
Capacity building of construction workforce to build resilient building started:
250 workers trained in how to improve earthquake resilience of buildings
Education: A chapter titled “Climate change adaptation, Disaster Risk Reduction,
Preparedness & Mitigation” has been incorporated in the national curriculum text
book “Bangladesh and Global Studies” for classes VI, VII and VIII and distributed
in the 1st week of January 2012
Earthquake contingency planning and training across 9 most earthquake
vulnerable cities.2
However, delivery against expected results has been slow and milestones are not all
being achieved. The main recommendations from DFID’s Annual Review 2011 were i)
scale up of Local Disaster Risk Reduction Fund (LDRRF) activities (taking Phase I pilot
activities to scale) and ii) revision and implementation of the monitoring and evaluation
framework. An ‘acceleration strategy’ for the implementation of LDRRF is now in place,
and CDMP is now looking at significant revisions to the results framework. This will
provide a much stronger and more rigorous framework for monitoring and evaluation.
These are very positive steps, but drive and commitment from Government and donors
will be required to see these translated into better results on the ground.
Recommendations:
1. CDMP needs to deliver the results it is committed to in its own results framework,
1
2
CDMP Annual Report 2011
CDMP quarterly report July – September 2011
6
which requires rapid and immediate scaling up of key activities. Work planning
(including any change in strategic direction) needs to be agreed between the
project, Government and donors. DFID should work with Government, CDMP and
UNDP to understand what the obstacles are to scale up and tackle delays.
2. DFID should work with CDMP and all other donors to strengthen and revise
CDMP’s monitoring framework and processes.
There should be agreed
milestones and targets, with an agreed mechanism for monitoring at outcome as
well as input/output level.
3. DFID and CDMP should revise the indicators, milestones and targets in the
logframe, in line with revised DFID guidance that requires annually measurable
milestones.

Indicator 1: the CDMP monitoring framework needs a clearer definition of what
a functioning Committee would look like (i.e. are committees formed, meeting,
discussing the right issues, implementing plans) and a mechanism for
tracking progress. It needs to be clear what expectations are placed on CDMP
and what Government will do directly.

Indicator 2 should be revised as it cannot be tracked on an annual basis.

Indicator 3: this appears to be a good indicator; targets are important and
should be achievable. CDMP should not lose sight of continued scale up of
this important (life saving) component of the programme, and should continue
to explore the best way to measure it.

Indicator 4: DFID and CDMP should consider revising this indicator. It needs
to be realistic but also meaningful. CDMP needs a clear mechanism in place to
monitor the extent to which Ministries are incorporating risk and adaptation
analysis, but also changing behaviours and programming approaches
accordingly.
Impact Weighting (%): 35%
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Risk: Medium
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Output 2: Operational Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund (BCCRF) -Multidonor pooled fund for climate change
Output 2 score and performance description:
C - This output exceeded one of the four target milestones for this annual review, but
did not meet the others and is therefore scored as substantially not meeting targets.
The two major indicators, milestone targets and progress against this output are as
follows:
7
Indicator 1: Number of projects supported through the pooled fund in line with the
Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP)
Milestone targets for December 2011:
a) 1-2 major projects identified
b) Mechanism for administering grants for civil society finalised and first batch of
projects selected
Progress: First milestone exceeded: One major project has been identified, approved
and is now in implementation. Three more have been approved by the Management
Committee and are being designed and technically reviewed (a process known as
‘appraisal’). The project that has been approved was selected in May 2011 and became
operational in Dec 2011. It is an addition to the existing World Bank Cyclone Shelter
project which was topped up through the BCCRF. The World Bank had allocated $75
million (mainly as a loan) to the project, after which an additional $25 million grant was
contributed through the BCCRF which is now being disbursed in parallel. The cyclone
project meets an obvious and priority need as GoB has identified a gap of 2,500 cyclone
shelters.
The additional contribution from BCCRF will build 63 new cyclone
shelter/schools, repair 40 existing shelters and provide 13.65 km of approach roads. So
far the contracts for construction of 8 shelters have already been awarded and
construction is underway.
The three projects that are being appraised are: an agriculture programme addressing
adaptation to drought and salinity; a forestry project addressing tree planting in coastal
and hilly areas; and a mechanism to allocate grants for community based adaptation
through civil society organisations (see below).
The second milestone has not been achieved. The Community Climate Change Project
is close to being finalised, but has not be established within review period. The
appraisal process by the World Bank and negotiations with Government to set up this
agreement should be completed by end of July 2012. The BCCRF Management
Committee and Governing Council endorsed the selection of the Palli Karma Sahayak
Foundation (PKSF) as the fund manager in May 2011. Based on updated timelines, the
programme is now aiming for a first call of proposals to begin in August once the
climate change unit in PKSF is fully staffed and established. We anticipate that a first
round of grants will be awarded in 2012.
Indicator 2: Programme roll-out meeting agreed milestones
The milestone targets for December 2011 were:
a) Secretariat for the BCCRF operating and helping the Government of Bangladesh
manage multiple streams of climate change finance (Government's Climate
Change Trust Fund, BCCRF, the Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR),
etc)
b) Capacity building for the Government of Bangladesh initiated
Progress: Milestones not achieved. Significant progress has been made on the
Secretariat.
A Grant Agreement to establish a Secretariat at the Ministry of
Environment and Forests for an initial $0.2 million was signed in November 2011. This
8
was intended to be a ‘start up’ grant for the Secretariat to allow the recruitment of some
initial staff who could then develop a more comprehensive programme of support.
Unfortunately various delays have meant that the BCCRF secretariat has still not been
established and is therefore not operational. The functioning of the Secretariat is
critical to the success and sustainability of the BCCRF. The World Bank, contributing
donors and the Ministry of Environment and Forests must make establishing the
Secretariat a priority for the first half of 2012.
The capacity building component is linked to the establishment of the Secretariat.
Further work is needed to clarify the role of the Secretariat as a focal point for BCCRF.
This was anticipated to be an early role and responsibility of the initial staff – with
support from the World Bank and other donors. For example, it needs to be clarified
whether the Secretariat will have a mandate to carry out or commission the capacity
building work both within the MoEF and across the other ministries to improve sectoral
mainstreaming of Climate Change and develop suitable proposals for the BCCRF or
other climate funds. It is envisaged within the donor group that once the secretariat is
up and running, there will be active technical and administrative support for all
ministries to ensure the build up of a pipeline of projects. However, this vision needs to
be clarified, and plans for future support to the Secretariat (envisaged as a 2 nd stage of
more comprehensive support as mentioned above) needs to reflect this common
vision.
A priority for the year ahead is therefore to clarify the role of the Secretariat – what
roles and responsibilities will it perform – is it simply financial administration of the
fund, or a wider technical role across government as a focal point for ‘Climate Smart
Development’. To assist in this process, there needs to be an exercise to bring
together all the various capacity building efforts from other donors working on climate
change with MoEF, and those working with other ministries on mainstreaming CC (e.g.
CDMP and Pilot Programme on Climate Resilience etc).
Progress against expected results:
In September 2011, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) evaluation report
on this programme was positive about the overall strategic direction of the UK support
to Climate Change in Bangladesh, including the establishment of the BCCRF. It
recognised the added value provided by World Bank. It also recognised significant
delays in the establishment of the BCCRF, and that the fund has only been operational
since 2010. It did note that for these reasons, as well as some ongoing concerns (e.g.
lack of full delegation to the World Bank in Bangladesh), the BCCRF has the least
relative progress and that it has been slow to deliver results3.
The main recommendations and action points for this output from DFID’s last annual
review of the Climate Change Programme closely reflect the findings of the ICAI. The
three main recommendations were: i) the need to establish the secretariat as a priority;
ii) the need to ensure a robust monitoring and evaluation system is in place for each
project and for the overall fund; and iii) the need to establish the civil society window as
a priority.
Over the last year, the Secretariat’s initial $200,000 Grant Agreement has been signed
(November 2011) but the Secretariat has yet to be established and staffed. The M&E
system for the active project (on cyclone shelters) is operational, and the World Bank
3
Ibid, P 13
9
has developed a Results Framework for BCCRF (first draft Jan 2012). However,
significant work is still needed to develop the framework into a strategic overarching
M&E system for the BCCRF. The third recommendation on the civil society window is
delayed, as discussed above (Indicator 1b).
However, several achievements are not captured in the DFID logframe, including4:
The Management Committee of the BCCRF has now met 5 times, and the
Governing Council has met once.
A Communication Strategy has been drafted, and web-site was launched to
improve transparency and communications.
The World Bank has agreed to post a Senior BCCRF Manager in Bangladesh –
the post is currently being recruited.
The Analytical and Advisory Activities window has begun operation and two
concept notes for studies have been developed – one on waterlogging of Greater
Dhaka Area in a Changing Climate, and one on Health Impacts of Climate Change
in Bangladesh. Further work on migration is also being explored.
The first Annual Review report is being finalised.
Recommendations:
The recommendations from this review are listed below. Some are linked to relevant
recommendations from the ICAI Report.
1. The review recommends that there be a process put in place to clearly define the
structure, institutional framework and functions of the Secretariat and to drive forward
its establishment. In particular, there needs to be an agreement on whether the
Secretariat is responsible for coordinating capacity building of both MoEF and other
key GoB ministries regarding climate change mainstreaming and generation of pipeline
projects.
2. Identify a focal point for leading on capacity development within the Ministry and
across GoB.
This focal point then needs to commission a detailed capacity
development plan for both MoEF and other key ministries. The plan needs to include
an assessment of other on-going programmes e.g. CDMP, PPCR etc. A clear workplan
with targets, timelines etc then needs to be established and a funding modality agreed.
This recommendation is linked to the ICAI recommendation to plan more explicitly for
what will happen at the end of the programme. “In particular, more effort is needed to
build capacity within government to enable activities and administration to be led by
local, not international, institutions5”.
3. In line with the ICAI recommendation, DFID should continue exploring options for
establishing a clearer agreement between DFID and the World Bank regarding the
service it provides when managing the UK’s funds6. A detailed work plan could be
drafted with the World Bank which can be used as a monitoring tool. This work should
link to Headquarter level discussions between DFID and the World Bank regarding
Trust Fund modalities.
4. A comprehensive logframe and monitoring and evaluation plan should be developed
for the BCCRF by the World Bank in consultation with the MoEF and funders, as a
4
CDMP Annual Report 2011
5
Ibid
Ibid
6
10
matter of urgency. Currently, project level targets are being established after each
project is approved within the BCCRF.
However, this is insufficient to provide a
strategic overview of GoB and donor support to the much higher level multi-billion
dollar scope of the overall BCCSAP. Jointly developing a BCCRF logframe will help in
developing a greater strategic clarify and direction for the BCCRF. It will help identify
the specific focus for this fund, in comparison to other modalities (e.g. Government’s
own Climate Change Trust Fund, the PPCR, GEF and other climate funds). This can
then be linked to a revision of DFID’s own climate change programme Logframe,
including targets and milestones for Output 2 (BCCRF) as well as overall outcomes
5. After a logframe has been agreed, a robust monitoring and evaluation plan needs to
be developed. Monitoring and evaluation capacity is required both at a central level
within the GoB Secretariat and the World Bank, and at individual project level. This
need does not seem to be reflected currently in the staffing of BCCRF within the World
Bank or Government – and is linked to lack of clarity about the need for a
comprehensive results framework.
6. The Community Climate Change Programme (civil society funding window) should be
established as soon as possible (new target date end March 2012).
7. As recommended by ICAI, DFID should initiate a scoping exercise to assess how to
support monitoring by local and international civil society organisations of the
activities and achievements of the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action
Plan7. This requires significant consultation prior to design to ensure sufficient
support from Government of Bangladesh and other donors – which is essential to
ensure it is effective.
8. BCCRF can also assist with taking forward other ICAI recommendations, specifically
regarding the research on climate change and migration. After completing a rapid
needs assessment for analytical work to support BCCSAP, the World Bank team has
identified the need to study the threat of climate-induced out-migration from vulnerable
areas. DFID should keep track of this study, and ensure it complements other relevant
ongoing work.
9. DFID and other key stakeholders in the BCCRF should also address any outstanding
issues/concerns regarding the modality. A clear joint vision is needed regarding what
the BCCRF should deliver. If there are aspects that cannot be delivered through the
World Bank modality discussions should be initiated to supplement/support it in a
jointly agreed way (e.g. possible use of private sector managing agents for capacity
building work).
Impact Weighting (%): 50%
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Risk: High
Revised since last Annual Review? No
7
Ibid, p 1
11
Output 3: Strategic fund generating new knowledge and capacity for improved climate change
adaptation, mitigation and low carbon development
Output 3 score and performance description:
A+ – Outputs moderately exceeded expectations
Progress against expected results:
Indicator 1: Climate resilient innovations and knowledge products produced
Milestones for December 2011 - none. The strategic fund is a relatively small fund
managed by HTSPE (a consultancy firm selected by DFID through competitive tender as
its “Livelihoods Resources Centre”). It is designed to be able to respond quickly to
strategic opportunities.
Progress - Outputs fully meeting expectations. HTSPE gives effective and timely
planning, implementation and monitoring of projects. Progress reports are up to date
and there is close oversight of implementers to prevent misuse of funds. Four projects
have been commissioned to date:
1. Affordable Housing in a Changing Environment – a review of best practice in
climate change adaptation & disaster risk reduction of housing in Bangladesh.
Study conducted by RESET Development working with local partners Practical
Action, JA Architects Ltd, DHARA and Khulna University. Preliminary results
already produced and piloted.
2. Community Based Adaptation Conference – organised by the International
Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). This was conducted
successfully in March 2011.
3. High-Resolution Regional Climate Change Information for Bangladesh to inform
Impact Assessments, Vulnerability Indicators and Adaptation Policies – this
climate modelling programme operates through a partnership between the UK
Meteorological Office and Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology.
4. Action Research for Community Adaptation in Bangladesh – led by
IIED/Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies with up to 10 NGO partners. DFID
Bangladesh is co-funding this activity with Climate and Development Knowledge
Network (CDKN) and DFID’s South Asia Research Hub. Results are of interest to
Bangladesh and globally.
All projects under the Strategic Fund are progressing well – with significant
achievements on most. Some set-backs due to severe weather disrupting building and
field work in the coastal belt, and scheduling issues have caused minor delays to
project progress. However, this has been managed well and delayed projects such as
the affordable housing review (project 1 above) are back on track.
Administrative / Financial
Administrative/financial management of the Flexible Fund is also largely on track. Some
inconsistencies have been recorded between forecasting and actual project spend, due
to slower than anticipated progress and resulting underspends. This is being
12
addressed and should be more accurate forecasting for the next financial year. The
managing consultants HTSPE are confident that the programme will fully meet its
targets in the timeframe stipulated.
Indicator 2 – Stakeholder capacity built
Milestone – No milestone for 2011
Progress – Outputs fully meeting expectations. During this period, the Government of
Bangladesh climate change negotiation team were supported to co-ordinate their
position and inputs and to attend the 17th Conference of the Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference in Durban. This
helped ensure the team was well briefed and prepared. Bangladesh made a significant
contribution to the outcome in Durban. The Bangladesh delegation received positive
feedback for their performance – and Bangladesh is clearly contributing significantly to
the UNFCCC process as a lead member of the Least Developed Countries group. The
Government of Bangladesh has also provided very positive feedback on the consistent
UK support to the delegation through this fund, which allowed a broad delegation (both
Government and civil society experts) to attend key preparatory meetings as well as the
main Conference of the Parties.
Indicator 3 - Number of People trained in Climate Change.
Milestone : December 2011: 100 short course graduates (80 with DFID funding)
Progress – Milestone exceeded. The International Centre for Climate Change and
Development (ICCCAD) has met and exceeded its targets for numbers of people trained.
In 2011, over 150 course graduates were trained in a range of climate relevant subjects.
The centre has also managed to leverage funds from other sources to increase the
number of participants and the frequency of the courses
Recommendations:
1. HTSPE retain a contract for management of the Strategic Fund until 2013.
Although ICAI made reference to potentially managing the fund within DFID
Bangladesh, given current staffing levels in DFID, and strong performance of
HTSPE to date we recommend no changes in the next year. However, HTSPE
could be more involved in the project selection process – for example they could
be asked to sit on the selection committee for the fund. This would enable them
to share their experiences of managing the fund, and provide additional technical
and operational inputs.
2. HTSPE should use their local partner more effectively to monitor project
activities in country.
3. The strategic fund is delivering useful outputs, but is close to being fully
committed. DFID should top up the fund to ensure it can remain responsive to
needs.
Impact Weighting (%):10
Revised since last Annual Review? N
Risk: Low/Medium/High - Low
Revised since last Annual Review? N
13
Output 4: Improved donor co-ordination and monitoring of Climate Change initiatives
and finance in country
Output 4 score and performance description:
A – Outputs meet expectations
Progress against expected results:
Indicator 1 – Local Consultative Group Working Group on Environment and Climate
Change functioning effectively with good stakeholder involvement
Milestones – none for 2011. Target for 2012 - 3 meetings a year.
Progress – No target for this year but meeting expectations and on track for 2012 target.
DFID has been the co-chair on the Environment and Climate Change Local Consultative
Group. Achievements in 2011 include:
 Re-established the group with Secretary of Ministry of Environment and Forests
as Chair, and DFID as co-chair, clarification of Terms of Reference and
membership.
 Held three meetings during the year (18th April, 21st Sept and 13th December).
Meetings provided good opportunities for information sharing and discussion.
Topics included: Climate change activities of Government (BCCRF and the
Climate Change Trust Fund), updates from UNDP on their Green Development
Initiative and the Climate Public Expenditure Review, presentations from GoB on
Sixth Five Year Plan priorities in environment and Climate Change plus UNFCCC
meeting in Durban.
 Coordination and consolidation of development partner comments on the Sixth
Five Year Plan.
 Discussions on the Development Results Framework.
 Development of a matrix of key donor-funded activities in environment and
climate change.
 Discussed plans for 2012.
Through regular meetings the group is being re-energised. A small technical group will
be established to finalise a matrix of donor-funded activities. There have been
challenges in identifying volunteers to represent civil society but two well respected
local NGOs have now been invited to be representatives.
Indicator 2 - Joint programme assessments of pooled funded programmes
Milestone December 2011 - Multi-donor review of CDMP informing improved disaster
management
Progress: Review postponed to mid-2012. By mutual agreement of the 5 key CDMP
donors and the implementing partners, the review has been re-scheduled to June 2012.
There is robust joint working on all programmes (CDMP and BCCRF). Successful joint
field trips have been conducted over the review period for CDMP and other donors were
consulted during the ICAI review.
14
On BCCRF donors have agreed to use the EU’s annual monitoring tool.
Indicator 3 - Effective donor representation on the BCCRF
Milestone December 2011 - none – milestones yet to be agreed with all donors.
Progress – During 2011 it has been agreed that both the Governing Council and the
Management Committee (under BCCRF) will be chaired by the Government, and will
include representatives from line ministries, Development Partners and Civil Society.
During 2011 DFID had observer status and EU the voting member role on behalf of
donors. For 2012, DFID has been selected as the voting donor of the two development
partners represented on these bodies.
Recommendations:
1. DFID should review this output and related indicators and milestones. This output is
currently weighted at only 5%, and several aspects lie outside the control of DFID and
our climate change programme.
Impact Weighting (%):5%
Revised since last Annual Review?
No –
New guidance on logframe suggests that no output should be weighted less than 10%.
DFID should consider suitability of this output for this programme.
Risk: Low/Medium/High
Low
Revised since last Annual Review?
No
Section B: Results and Value for Money.
1. Progress and results
1.1 Has the logframe been updated since last review?
No. The log frame needed to be updated as it became clear during the year that
unrealistic milestones had been set for both CDMP and BCCRF. However, given that
the new results framework for the BCCRF and revision of CDMP Results were both
ongoing during the year we chose to await the outcome of those reviews before
finalising DFID’s logframe. Both these processes are coming to a conclusion and the
DFID logframe will to be reviewed and revised before the next annual review.
1.2 Overall Output Score and Description:
Score: B
This review scores the Climate change Programme according to the score chart below.
15
Table 1 – Overall score calculation
Output
number
1
2
3
4
Annual
Output
Scoring
Annual
Output
Score
Annual
Output
Perform
ance
Impact
Weight
(%)
Output Description
Comprehensive Disaster Management
Programme (CDMP) II reduces the
country's vulnerability to disasters through
technical assistance in risk reduction and
comprehensive disaster management
activities.
Operational Bangladesh Climate Change
Resilience Fund (BCCRF) -Multi-donor
pooled fund for climate change
Strategic fund generating new knowledge
and capacity for improved climate change
adaptation, mitigation and low carbon
development
Improved donor co-ordination and
monitoring of Climate Change initiatives
and finance in country
Output Performance
Risk
50%
Outputs moderately did
not meet expectation
(B)
Outputs substantially
did not meet
expectation (C)
10%
Outputs moderately
exceeded expectation
(A+)
Low
5%
Outputs met
expectation (A)
Low
100%
all outputs scored
35%
Medium
High
B
Outputs moderately did not meet
expectation
As outlined in Table 1 above the overall results score is a B – Outputs moderately did
not meet expectations.
This conclusion is broadly in line with ICAI observations which stated: “The programme
has started well, with progress in pilots and early initiatives across a wide front.
Challenges remain to take such progress to scale. There are significant management
challenges that have yet to be resolved”. The review team also concurs with the ICAI
view that channelling funds through the World Bank and United Nations Development
Programmes add technical value and helps to reduce the risk of corruption. There do,
however, remain challenges in holding them to account for performance, and setting
realistic targets for such complex programmes with multiple stakeholders.
The overall conclusion is that the targets set for this programme were too ambitious
and timelines have been unrealistic particularly for the BCCRF which is a totally new
modality. The programmes are now in a position to take stock and set more realistic
targets and a key priority for 2012 is to finalise the reviews of the results frameworks of
the component programmes (particularly BCCRF and CDMP) and update DFID’s own
logframe accordingly.
1.3 Direct feedback from beneficiaries
The ICAI team visited six sites in three districts to see current and planned work being
funded by the programme. At the six sites the team met with direct beneficiaries,
implementing agents and local and international climate change and disaster risk
16
management experts. The annexes on pages 25 and 27 of the ICAI report provide
examples of feedback received by the ICAI during their review – which was generally
positive.
The ICAI team reported that: “From our meetings, the Government of Bangladesh,
representatives of civil society and Bangladeshis welcome UK assistance. Elements of
this assistance which were particularly praised were8:
 the partnership approach;

the support for Bangladesh on the international stage (in global climate change
negotiations);

the technical knowledge (on climate change and disaster preparedness); and

the advice and support, not least from DFID’s staff resources in country.
During the course of the year, several DFID staff visited implementation sites of the
climate change programme in coastal and flood prone districts. In addition, this review
included one field visit to meet CDMP partners and beneficiaries. The Union Disaster
Management Committee and local community were able to explain the community risk
assessment process they had undertaken and how interventions had been selected.
However, to date no system is in place to regularly collect beneficiary feedback e.g.
quotes, concerns, case studies etc.
In future DFID should work with both CDMP and BCCRF to explore more systematic
mechanisms for sharing beneficiary feedback to the project and to DFID, as part of
wider monitoring processes.
1.4 Summary of overall progress
DFID’s Climate Change Programme comprises two very ambitious and comprehensive
multi-donor programmes (CDMP and BCCRF), and a smaller Strategic Fund managed
directly by DFID.
The ICAI report states that: “The programme overall has balanced objectives aligned to
the country’s needs. It focuses on adaptation, seeking to improve the resilience of
communities to climate shocks. It aims to make improvements sustainable by building
local knowledge, skills and systems. The UK’s assistance is seen to add particular value
by Bangladeshi partners.”
The ICAI pointed out a range of results had already been achieved (by Sept 2011) such
as:




8
744 community risk reduction projects underway and helping to improve
livelihoods for 33,000 beneficiaries in five cyclone Aila-affected districts;
5,000 people directly benefiting from community action planning, with access to
safe drinking water, upgraded cyclone shelter approach roads and improved
sanitation facilities. Over 100,000 indirect beneficiaries;
6,500 new volunteers trained on early warning systems in five newly-selected
Upazilas;
4,616 urban community volunteers trained on fire service and civil defence with
rescue equipment being procured;
Ibid, pg 8
17


cell broadcasting pilot provided timely early warning systems to over 1 million
people with system being further developed; and
Letter of Agreement signed with National Curriculum and Textbook Board to
incorporate disaster and climate risk learning further into textbooks.
This review, undertaken some 5 months after the ICAI review, found that the programme
has made progress in a number of areas, including those recommended in the report
(e.g. the World Bank has now developed a draft Results Framework for BCCRF,
discussions are underway to develop clearer forward work plans for BCCRF and CDMP
etc). However, overall the programme is still running substantially behind schedule. As
the ICAI acknowledged, various factors and delays have meant that both CDMP and
BCCRF have set back achievements by almost two years. ‘Catching up’ is unlikely and
so there is a need to review and revise time lines and ambitions. DFID needs to work
closely with all partners to agree these revised targets and timelines, and then follow-up
closely to ensure tangible results are realised. It may not be possible to achieve all
planned results within the next 2 years and 10 months (the current life-time of the
programme).
1.5 Key challenges
Key challenges for the programme overall include:
1. DFID developed a climate change programme logframe for overall management
and tracking of the programme. However, this logframe was developed prior to an
agreed results framework for BCCRF (which was circulated in draft in January
2012) and included selected targets from CDMP’s logframe. Neither set of targets
was agreed with partners (in the case of BCCRF because it was not known which
projects would be funded).
DFID’s new annual review guidelines have
implications for monitoring all of the climate change programme components,
and will require actions by all stakeholders. Within the next year comprehensive
revisions to logframe targets, milestones and indicators need to be undertaken by
DFID and all programme partners. DFID’s new processes – including the new
annual review scoring and publishing system – need to be clearly explained to all
partners.
2. Slower than expected implementation and particularly ‘on the ground delivery’
means slow disbursement of funds particularly in Outputs 1 and 2. DFID and
partners need to improve fund forecasting to ensure that projected expenditure is
realistic.
3. The third component of the climate change programme – the Strategic Fund – is
producing important and innovative action research products. The products from
the Strategic Fund are at risk of being overlooked because it is a small
component of the programme but it is important to continue to draw on these
products and provide opportunities for their scale up through the larger
component programmes.
4. More effort is needed to ensure good co-ordination and integration between the
elements of the Climate Change Programme (e.g. the cross- ministerial work of
CDMP and BCCRF) – as well as with other climate change activities in
Bangladesh.
Key Challenges for CDMP (Output 1):
18
As noted by ICAI, CDMP is a more established project than BCCRF, already
incorporating lessons learned from the previous phase. Key challenges, identified
jointly by DFID and CDMP, include:
1. Speed of delivery. CDMP is confident that end of project targets can be achieved,
but this will require a significant increase in pace from delivery to date. A priority
area should be expanding coverage of the community risk assessment and risk
reduction action plans, with the Local Disaster Risk Reduction Fund and other
partners supporting implementation of the activities.
2. Tracking progress. Monitoring and evaluation systems are in place but need to be
strengthened. Clearer indicators and realistic targets need to be agreed in a
number of areas. These need to be carefully tracked at output level, but the links
to outcomes and impact also need to be understood and captured more
systematically.
3. The political environment may become more of a challenge across the
programme in the lead up to 2014 elections.
4. Ensuring the proper use and maintenance of equipment (such as computers,
water purification systems etc) throughout and after the project lifecycle is a
fundamental sustainability issue and requires further attention.
The key challenges around the BCCRF (Output 2) include:
1. Scaling up and Speed of Delivery. Projects which seek funding from BCCRF
require appraisal and approval using World Bank processes, which on average
take 12 – 18 months. The Government has bypassed its normal project approval
process with special permission from the Prime Minister in order to speed up its
internal approval processes. While the World Bank has committed to try and
speed up processes for the BCCRF, evidence suggests the scope for World Bank
to do this is limited. .
2. Additional funding for existing World Bank loans vs. new projects. Scaling–up
delivery through the BCCRF in the current programme life-time is a big challenge
– and there is significant pressure from all parties (GoB and donors in particular)
to show tangible results on the ground as quickly as possible. One option is for
funds to be allocated to existing World Bank projects working in areas relevant to
the BCCSAP, which have already gone through appraisal etc. However, the
government of Bangladesh has expressed a desire that future projects funded
through the BCCRF should not simply be additional contributions to existing
operations. Unfortunately the capacity of government departments to generate
high quality proposals in line with the BCCSAP is limited. GoB and donors
expect that the World Bank will assist with development of suitable proposals.
The World Bank has requested a clearer prioritisation by Government of
Bangladesh of programmes to be considered for support under BCCSAP to
enable it to focus technical support to relevant ministries.
3. World Bank as provider of fiduciary and technical oversight, and size/type of
projects. World Bank processes provide very high fiduciary assurances and its
modality of operation is generally well suited to large scale infrastructural
programmes. However, this has tended to favour certain types of projects and
19
proposals – and means that smaller projects with more ‘soft’ elements such as
technical advice and capacity building have not been selected.
4. World Bank role in policy and strategy. There remains a lack of clarity between
donors and the World Bank regarding what level of ‘strategic oversight’ the Bank
can provide to the fund, in support of the Government, and what level of policy
engagement etc. Ideally strategic and policy leadership would come from
Government – but it is the view of this review that the World Bank needs to
engage more on this, particularly in the early years when the Government’s
secretariat is not in place or fully operational.
5. Capacity of the Ministry of Environment and Forests/Government of Bangladesh
to Administer the Fund. The stated intention of the BCCRF is that it should be a
long-term funding mechanism in support of the national climate change strategy
and action plan, with potential to channel both bilateral and multi-lateral funds to
priority programmes in line with the BCCSAP. The World Bank’s role is intended
to be temporary – providing technical and fiduciary support until Government,
and specifically the Ministry of Environment and Forests’, capacity has been built.
It remains unclear, however, what the necessary capacity/conditions are for
World Bank’s role to end. Although this is not likely to be an issue in the coming
year, it is important that the World Bank, donors and Government develop a clear
list of criteria and develop the capacity building plans necessary to address these
issues. These capacities may not be solely in relation to the Ministry of
Environment and Forests’ capacity, and if so this should be made clear (e.g.
criteria may relate to audit capacity of Government, public financial management
capacity etc).
6. Tensions regarding World Bank’s “value added”. Despite ongoing efforts to
clarify the reasons why donors are not able to provide direct budget support in
Bangladesh, the role of the World Bank as provider of fiduciary and technical
oversight remains contentious within civil society and Government. The ICAI
concluded that the World Bank’s overheads were reasonable, and appear to be
good value for the technical services provided.
7. A number of questions/issues remain which need to be resolved to ensure a clear
‘joint vision’ between Government of Bangladesh, donors and the World Bank.
The World Bank is now addressing many of the concerns raised by donors and
GoB over recent months (see above e.g. re levels of senior staffing in country to
manage BCCRF). However, there remain ongoing unresolved issues including:



Who is responsible for supporting development of pipeline proposals from
other ministries?
Who is responsible for building capacity of other ministries to mainstream
climate change – linking in with ongoing efforts from other programmes such
as CDMP?
Can projects below the current indicative threshold of $15 million be funded
under BCCRF with World Bank support? If this is not possible given World
Bank procedures etc, is another parallel mechanism for smaller projects
required?
Key challenges - Strategic Fund:
1. Long distance management (from the UK) can make it difficult to track and
20
monitor progress – which can be overcome through the assistance of HTSPE’s
local partner (Verulam Consulting) when necessary. Verulam has not been
engaged with any monitoring to date.
2. Delay to start of some of the projects and delays during others has had a knock
on effect on timely submission of invoices and progress reports – which is being
addressed.
Key Challenges - Donor co-ordination
1. The Local Consultative Group (LCG) mechanism for Environment and Climate
Change has been re-invigorated. A few issues remain – for example that ensuring
robust, frank discussions can be held as the group becomes more familiar with
the format of meetings etc.
2. Civil Society members of the LCG did not volunteer themselves to represent civil
society in meetings. The most recent meeting nominated two civil society
organisations who will be approached to take on this role.
1.6 Annual Outcome Assessment
ICAI report stated that Significant parts of the programme (CDMP and BCCRF) have
been subject to delay in start-up and are, therefore, not yet having widespread impact.
Where activity is underway, it appears to be performing well and establishing effective
models with good local engagement. Activities are being monitored but there is no
regular assessment of the impact they have9.
The outcome of the programme is to: Reduce the impacts of climate change on
vulnerable people in districts most prone to floods, droughts, cyclones, tidal surges and
high salinity. This review concludes that the ICAI statement remains valid. Despite
progress in the last 5 months, there remain significant problems (listed above) with
aspects of the climate change programme that need to be addressed to ensure specific
outcome indicators can be achieved. In particular, the first two outputs of the climate
change programme (BCCRF and CDMP) need to finalise reviews of their own logframes
or results frameworks. When these key components are clearer about what they are
realistically likely to achieve, DFID will be able to predict with greater confidence what
outcomes are achievable for the climate change programme, and under what timeframe.
2. Costs and timescale
2.1 Is the project on-track against financial forecasts:
No
There have been significant delays in start-up. Only £19.3 million of the £75 million
programme has been spent thus far. It is unlikely that financial expenditure on the
BCCRF programme (£60 million of the overall £75 million) will rise significantly over the
next year. Given that DFID’s programme is due to end in December 2014, DFID needs to
consider the possibility of a programme extension.
9
ibid
21
2.2 Key cost drivers
The under-spend to date reflects slow implementation rather than cost savings across
the programme.
Future cost drivers for CDMP include potential surge need for equipment and
equipment repair on a large scale. Additional monitoring mechanisms (for the Disaster
Management Information Centre network in Dhaka and across the country, for example)
may also require additional resources. Additional requests or refinements to requests
from Ministries and Departments in later years of the project (once policies and plans
are in place) may come at a higher cost.
For BCCRF the cost drivers will depend on the type of projects selected, the
implementing partners used and national inflation rates. For the project currently in
implementation (cyclone shelters) a key cost driver is wage rates (for labour) and cost
of key inputs for construction (concrete, steel etc). Both of these are managed by the
World Bank and the Government who conduct competitive tenders for construction
contracts. Current average costs per cyclone shelter are $300,000. The procurement
includes cross-contractor comparison mechanisms, and is in line with global best
practice.
2.3 Is the project on-track against original timescale:
No
In retrospect, the original timescales for the Climate Change Programme were
ambitious given the nature of the partners and programme instruments employed. The
BCCRF in particular was a completely new ‘instrument’ for addressing the multisectoral risks that Bangladesh faces due to climate change. The BCCRF required
establishing a completely new system of operating in Bangladesh – and is a global first.
All stakeholders have been ‘learning by doing’ and expectations, long term vision etc
are not yet completely aligned. While significant progress is now being made, the
BCCRF is unlikely to be able to ‘catch up’ with the original time-scales envisaged.
For CDMP, there is a need to review timescales and readjust expectations being more
pragmatic about what can be achieved through community and district disaster
management structures. CDMP is effectively a second phase of an established
programme, so should be making faster progress.
Revised prioritisation and
timescales need to be mutually agreed and tracked to ensure faster pace of
implementation and delivery in future.
3. Evidence and Evaluation
3.1 Assess any changes in evidence and implications for the project
The evidence of need for the programme remains strong. Bangladesh is one of the
most vulnerable countries in terms of natural disasters, and climate change is likely to
worsen this vulnerability. The programme is designed to respond to this growing need.
22
Evidence of impact is not yet available – the overall programme remains at a very early
stage. The programme will be of interest in terms of impact but also modality. The
BCCRF in particular is essentially an innovative approach to supporting climate change
activities, and a test case on how to potentially channel bilateral and global climate
finance to national and sub-national levels. The fund should actively generate lessons
on what works and why for other countries to learn from and to inform global climate
finance planning.
3.2 Where an evaluation is planned what progress has been made?
In September 2011 the Climate Change Programme was the subject of an independent
external evaluation by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI). At present
there is no further evaluation planned for this programme. However in line with the
drive for better evidence and learning from programmes it is the recommendation of
this review that a sum be set aside for full programme evaluations across the three
main components of the programme. These evaluations could be planned for end
2013/early 2014 to allow for further progress and potential impact on all components.
4. Risk
4.1 Output Risk Rating: Low/Medium/High
The overall risk rating for this programme is HIGH.
4.2 Assessment of the risk level
The ICAI report’s comment on risk stated ‘The widespread nature of corruption in
Bangladesh means that continual vigilance is needed. Experience from previous years
suggests that risks may increase in the run-up to elections at the end of 2013’10.
Risk is highest around the BCCRF primarily because of the challenges around ensuring
the sustainable establishment of a national climate financing mechanism working
across ministries. The delays demonstrate the many challenges of setting up such a
system given the existing governance and institutional context. The political economy
around climate financing has been a key factor in delays. This review recommends
further analysis of political economy issues to understand the incentives necessary for
sustaining such a funding mechanism. Projects identified under the BCCRF will
primarily be implemented by government ministries and this comes with the inherent
issues around government’s implementation, capital absorption and technical
capacities.
Fiduciary risks in Bangladesh remain high, and despite World Bank appraisal and
assurance processes, it will be a challenge to set up a secretariat that can take over
fund management in the short/medium term.
For CDMP, the main risk relates to the effectiveness of local governments, many of
10
ibid
23
which are weak and need capacity building to be more responsive to community needs
and to manage the funds (such as the Local Disaster Risk Reduction Fund) effectively.
This component is the one facing most delays. The programme has also been
ambitious about the extent to which it can influence cross-sectoral policies and plans.
4.3 Risk of funds not being used as intended
Low
The ICAI’s report stated: “The volatile political environment and the risk of corruption in
Bangladesh bring significant challenges. The UK is taking strong action to manage the
risks to UK aid. No UK finance is given directly to the Government of Bangladesh. We
think this caution is appropriate. Instead, DFID uses international organisations and
NGOs to manage UK money on its behalf11”. This is still the case.
4.4 Climate and Environment Risk
This is a core climate change programme responding to climate and environmental
pressures and maximising opportunities for building resilience and adaptive capacity to
cope with climate and environmental risks. As a result, the projects and programmes
are actively designed to have minimal adverse impacts on the environment and both
UNDP and the World Bank have strong environmental impact mitigation standards to
ensure this. Climate and Environment risks are well managed.
5. Value for Money
5.1 Performance on VfM measures
ICAI reported that from the available information, administrative charges for DFID’s
three funding channels did not appear to be excessive and are proportionate to the
amount of work required. Mutual fund investment management fees are in the range of
1-2%, which is comparable to the World Bank's 1% fixed fee. The additional World Bank
charges of up to 4% relate to actual costs, agreed with the donors. UNDP charges are
higher as a proportion of the funds managed, 12.5%, but in line with standard UNDP
rates12.
Both the World Bank and UNDP are providing technical, as well as administrative,
services. Management fees for similar development funds usually range between 8%
and 15% and can be as much as 20% depending on the level of involvement and
support provided by the fund manager. Given the requirement for high levels of
oversight of and support for projects on the ground by the UNDP/CDMP team, the costs
appear to be reasonable13.
This review team supports the findings of the ICAI, and concludes that if the
11
ibid
Ibid p 14
13 ibid
12
24
implementation challenges are overcome this programme will be of high value. Given
the low management fees this would represent very good value for money. However
systems to track value for money are not yet consistently in place.
The review team recommends exploring whether the World Bank’s management fee on
the BCCRF should be reviewed to allow for more World Bank staffing, and increased
engagement on both strategy and policy, which may speed up delivery and also
improve the quality and sustainability of the overall fund mechanism.
Recommendation: This review recommends that all programme components (CDMP,
BCCRF and Strategic Fund) review their monitoring systems and include more
systematic indicators for measuring value for money.
5.2 Commercial Improvement and Value for Money
The ICAI team assessed DFID’s financial controls and the procedures of its managing
agents (UNDP, the World Bank and HTSPE). These are in line with agreed international
standards.
5.3 Role of project partners
DFID channels most of its funds for the climate change programme through the World
Bank and United Nations Development Programme. The ICAI team observed that these
organisations add technical value and help to reduce the risk of corruption. UNDP and
the World Bank provide technical oversight of the projects that they manage, while
strategic decision-making rests with the Government. Respondents from the
Government of Bangladesh, civil society and funders report that this arrangement adds
value while maintaining national ownership14. The ICAI report stated that DFID,
however, is not holding implementing partners such as UNDP and the World Bank
sufficiently to account for their performance in implementation.
It should be noted that both CDMP and BCCRF are multi donor funded mechanisms.
This means that any management of UNDP or the World Bank must be done in
partnership and negotiation with other donors who may not always have the same
perspectives or requirements as DFID.
This review has noted that since the ICAI review, DFID Bangladesh has done the
following to strengthen its management of the programme and seek better performance
from both UNDP and the World Bank:
1. Written (with the joint donor group) to the World Bank requesting increased
staffing, a clear results and monitoring matrix, clear communication and visibility
of BCCRF activities.
2. Initiated several donor meetings where the donor position on BCCRF
implementation has been discussed and clarified.
3. Briefed DFID senior management for high level meetings with World Bank
directors, taking forward ICAI recommendations regarding Trust Fund
management in Bangladesh and globally.
14
Ibid, pg 10
25
4. Provided briefing to UNDP and the World Bank on new requirement for DFID
programmes on results, value for money, transparency and annual reviews and
financial reporting.
More need to be done to improve implementation and strengthen partnerships. There
are also cross programme lessons that can be shared between CDMP and BCCRF for
example on capacity building of different ministries. This review recommends that
DFID continues to work with other donors to improve programme delivery and build on
programme synergies.
5.4 Does the project still represent Value for Money :
YES
At the current stage, with limited results to review, it is too early to provide a definitive
value for money assessment. The ICAI strongly endorsed the vision of the programme
and if measures are taken to improve the overall implementation, we are confident that
it will represent value for money. Recommendations outlined above will address the
implementation challenges and ensure results are achieved to enable a full assessment
of economy, efficiency and critically effectiveness of the programme.
5.5 If not, what action will you take?
6. Conditionality
6.1 Update on specific conditions
No specific conditions on this programme.
7. Conclusions and actions
The ICAI report’s main recommendations were as follows15:
Recommendation 1: DFID should ensure that organisations implementing UK aid are
selected competitively and managed according to clear performance targets, set out in
a service level agreement.
Recommendation 2: DFID should ensure that all UK resources that support
Bangladesh’s response to climate change are managed in a co-ordinated and
integrated manner.
Recommendation 3: DFID should support monitoring by local and international civil
society organisations of the activities and achievements of the Bangladesh Climate
Change Strategy and Action Plan.
15
Ibid, pg 1
26
Recommendation 4: DFID in Bangladesh should use the programme to fund research
and activities to address migration caused by climate change over the next 20-30
years. It should support building capacity to deal with such effects of climate change.
Recommendation 5: DFID should plan more explicitly for what will happen at the end of
the programme. In particular, more effort is needed to build capacity within
government to enable activities and administration to be led by local, not international,
institutions.
These recommendations are being taken forward and tracked as part of ICAI follow up,
but are also integrated into the key recommendations from this review which are listed
below. These recommendations are aimed at improving operational management of
the programmes as a whole and its key sub programmes:
Overall Programme Recommendations:
1. Conduct a full review and revision of the overarching programme logframe –
after detailed discussions and revision of individual component logframe/results
frameworks. This should ensure that indicators are appropriate and measurable,
are negotiated and agreed with programme implementers, and are pitched at a
more pragmatic scale/level. The logframe revision should also produce two
value-for-money indicators to track how value for money is achieved through
effective procurement and contracting.
2. Conduct a thorough review of M&E systems for all components to ensure that
systems are accurately monitoring and recording the appropriate activities,
gender disaggregated results, capturing value for money measures and
indicators.
3. Develop more systematic mechanisms for sharing beneficiary feedback on all
components of the programme to DFID and other stakeholders, as part of wider
monitoring processes. Consider if this could assist in building systems of
accountability particularly for BCCRF and CDMP.
4. Review the results matrix in the DFID Bangladesh Operational Plan and
clarify/update the contribution to the overall results that relate to the climate
change programme and its sub-programmes.
5. Strengthen joint donor processes and mechanisms to ensure clearer
communication to the sub programmes (especially CDMP and BCCRF) around
improved quality and speed of programme delivery and better co-ordination.
6. All programme components (CDMP, BCCRF and strategic Fund) review their
monitoring systems and include more systematic indicators for measuring value
for money.
7. DFID uses a number of partners to deliver the climate change programme, and
should consider conducting a review of Financial Management and Procurement
procedures and processes for all partners where necessary. This should
include a) strengthening budget forecasting (budget spend against planned), b)
an assessment of any reviews and audits undertaken and how recommendations
were taken up, c) a review of how Value for Money is achieved through effective
procurement and contracting (both within the programme and through 1 st and
27
2nd tier suppliers, d) how allegations of corruption are addressed.
For recommendations relating to individual programme sub-components, please
refer to earlier sections of this report.
8. Review Process
The review was conducted by an internal team of advisors including.
 Climate Change Adviser and team leader. Responsible for overall report.
 Disaster Management and Resilience Adviser. Responsible for reviewing CDMP
and considering how the overall programme addresses the resilience agenda.
 Private Sector Advisor. Responsible for reviewing the BCCRF and addressing
monitoring mechanisms.
The review built on the ICAI review conducted in September 2011 and included:
 A review of available core documents and evidence presented by the World
Bank for BCCRF, UNDP for CDMP and HTSPE; for the Strategic Fund to develop
an overview of progress across the programme
 A review of the last annual review recommendations to develop observations
and assessments of the extent to which the recommendations have been
addressed
 A review of milestones and results as indicated in the logframe, a reflection on
evidence and evaluation
 A field visit with CDMP to review progress on the ground and gather feedback
directly from beneficiaries.
The team members held meetings and discussions with key stakeholders. They
shared the new Annual Review Template along with the How to Note with all relevant
stakeholders and conducted interviews using these documents as a framework for
discussion. Meetings were conducted with the stakeholders.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
BCCRF, WB
PKSF
Joint Secretary, Department of Forests
Deputy Secretary, MOEF
Project Manager, HTSPE (Strategic Fund)
Practical Action – RESET Project
IUCN
CDMP
UNDP
28