Recommendation Response Explanation Action plan (including responsible areas and timeframes) RECOMMENDATION 1 DFAT should increase the profile of climate change in its overarching aid narrative and, in the medium term, develop a strategy that clearly articulates its vision, goals and approach to implementation for climate change action across the aid program. The strategy should include: recognition of the importance of integrating climate change and DRR efforts clear identification of sectors likely to benefit most from early mainstreaming efforts overarching corporate-level indicators against which performance towards achieving climate change goals and Agree DFAT’s existing integration of climate action within its overarching 2014 aid policy, and its 2017 humanitarian strategy, is a solid platform for strengthening climate action in the aid program. DFAT has prioritised the sectors of infrastructure, DRR, and water security in producing technical guidance on climate change implications and is progressing work on others. A Climate Change Action Strategy, as initiated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in July 2017, will build on these efforts to outline Australia’s commitment and approach to tackling climate change across the entire aid program. The value of a strategy was reinforced by the priority accorded to climate change in the 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper. The strategy will address the suggestions in Recommendation 1, including to strengthen Australia’s integrated approach to climate change action and building disaster resilience, and to identify the key sectors through which Australia’s DFAT will: Deliver the Climate Change Action Strategy in consultation with line areas, relevant government agencies and other external stakeholders. (CCB, by end 2018). Develop a PAF that will identify corporate-level indicators to assess progress towards meeting the strategy’s objectives, and report annually through the APPR. (CCB and ACD, 2018–19). Assess how to utilise, improve and build upon DFAT’s current reporting requirements and communication methods to enhance DFAT’s approach for reporting of climate change action through the aid program. (CCB/ACD, 2018–19).
These domestic actions and regional policy forums have usefully reinforced internationally the seriousness of Australia’s commitment to combating climate change beyond aid in its region. This effort builds upon the implementation of the Prime Minister’s $1 billion climate finance commitment, and the mainstreaming of climate action through the aid program. RECOMMENDATION 4 Sustainability and Climate Change Branch should engage with other divisions within DFAT to establish a set of robust practices in program management that are for the demands of the forthcoming climate change strategy. This process should address: developing and implementing mandatory climate change screening procedures (across the whole program cycle) to ensure climate change considerations are embodied in aid investments Agree This process was commenced upon agreement by the Development Policy Committee in July 2016 to mainstream climate action throughout the aid program. It is well advanced. Embedding of these practices in DFAT’s program management frameworks will be supported by the strategy and its implementation toolkit. Practices introduced to date include: The new Environmental and Social Safeguard Policy has introduced a consolidated approach to managing safeguard risks in the Australian aid program and mandatory requirements for screening and managing climate change and disaster risks. Under these, all new aid investments are screened for potential climate DFAT will: Ensure that the Climate Change Action Strategy and implementation toolkit support DFAT staff to effectively consider, plan for and integrate climate change and disasters during the planning, analysis, design, implementation and M&E of aid investments. (CCB/ACD, by end 2018). Establish a dedicated climate action technical advisory capacity, to be available to Canberra and Posts in the development of climate action programming. (CCB/ACD, 2018–19). Complete the development of a climate change module for all staff, including those undertaking induction and pre-posting training. (CCB/HPD/Diplomatic Academy, 2018–19). learning purpose
In September 2016, DFAT established an interdepartmental Climate Change and Development Working Group. The working group is co-chaired by the assistant secretaries of the Sustainability and Climate Change Branch and the Development Policy and Education Branch. Membership comprises a broad range of DFAT policy and program areas, as well as other Australian government organisations with an interest in climate change and international development, such as the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), BOM, CSIRO, DoEE, and Geoscience Australia. At the time of preparing this evaluation, the Sustainability and Climate Change Branch indicated its intention to seek senior-level endorsement of a climate change and development strategy, integration and implementation plan for the department in 2018. The working group will help develop and test the strategy. The ODE evaluation of climate change assistance was designed and timed to feed into this process of strategy formulation and early stage implementation.
Table 4: Australia’s country and regional level engagement through a systems lens Assessment of country and regional operating environment Australia’s strategic approach Institutional architecture Capacity within and across government Coordinated donor environment National agenda for tackling climate change Functional policy and strategy framework Australia’s country and regional approach to climate change engagement Examples of strategic opportunities, given the country context Solomon Islands Emergent. Siloed departments working on climate change despite the fact that climate change, disaster risk management and environment are in one ministry. No culture of mainstreaming or working collaboratively across government on climate change. Very limited capacity and not making best use of what is there. Major gaps at provincial level. Some limited and unsuccessful attempts. Donors actively looking for places to put money. An agenda that focuses on DRR but does to attend to the sensitive area of logging practices. Documentation exists but has limited traction. Work underway on a new climate change policy. Recognition of the FRDP. No strategic portfolio approach. Stronger in DRR than in climate change. Not visible in climate change dialogue. Australia is largest donor in-country. Support national and sub-national architecture to deliver climate change and DRR priorities. Encouraging discussion on the wider climate change challenges of logging, migration and security. Vietnam Strong centre with maturing of MONRE and MARD. Other ministries still marginal in terms of concerted action on climate change. Competitive funding environment at provincial level Some significant progress in recent years at the centre. More mixed, but improving, picture at sub-national level. Technical assistance links with externals that brings capacity development Fast-changing donor landscape with continued shift away from grant funding to loan finance. Mature aid coordination structures have struggled to adjust. National government remains Green growth agenda is central. Greater practical application needed. Key challenges to this include economic policies which are not conducive to investments in Rapidly maturing policy and strategy framework (to which DFAT and other donors have made an important contribution). Integrated Climate Change Investment Strategy 2010–2017 aligned to government priorities. Engage with the Vietnamese authorities on major challenge it faces. Support capacity to be developed and used within the Vietnamese system
constrains effective collaboration on shared challenges. through joint action favoured. concerned over donors (non-traditional channels) pushing their own agenda. measures that support adaptation and mitigation. Good practice approach building strong relationships. Supported by technical resources, funding and as an aid priority until late 2013. (within and outside of government). Pacific region A limited number of key regional agencies with discrete roles in relation to climate change action (roles which need to be upheld and not conflated). Some important work underway on national financial system strengthening. Good—not fully utilised technical capacity within regional organisations (risk that capacity gets diverted to chasing finance). Need to understand the limits of capacity in the region and where and when supplementation rather than capacity building is optimum. The FRDP has potential as an effective coordinating mechanism for donor engagement and financing. Still messy but improving picture on donor co-funding. A confusing picture. The region is chasing renewable energy support (benefits are more economic than global good) while adaptation agenda remains FRDP has strong potential to unify a regional approach, integrate disaster risk management and climate change. Climate change a key objective of regional strategies. Portfolio heavily weighted towards climate science investments to inform adaptation planning. Engagement in Green Climate Fund can support Pacific engagement and access to funds. Act as broker between actors in climate change with a focus on improving donor coordination and enhancing aid effectiveness (development impact). Leading role in accelerating the maturing of national responses guided by the regionally
2A – Key Evaluation Question Sub-Question Level of Enquiry Data Sought Evidence Sources To what extent has Australia’s Engagement in climate change reduced vulnerability to climate change (increased resilience or decreased emissions) as a result of targeted and/or mainstreamed action? Is there evidence that emissions are lower, or communities are more resilient as a result of Australian engagement? Achievement of CC results: Results HAVE been achieved Look likely to be achieved Look unlikely to be achieved Results HAVE NOT been achieved Corporate Program Investment Agency Reporting/data on greenhouse gas emissions reduced. Corporate reporting on adaptation. For example: numbers of people with improved access to climate information, number of people covered by flood/early warning systems, crop losses avoided through climate smart agriculture) Program reporting—as relates to portfolio Investment Level Reporting—as relates to investment Performance of Australian Aid Report, DFAT Annual Report, Interviews with CC and DRR division, look at link to Sustainable Development Goals Review of Annual Program Performance Report and reporting back on PAFs, country/regional interviews Investment progress Reports, AQCs, Investment M&E systems, investment level interviews 2. What factors have contributed to or detracted from, effectiveness of Australian engagement in climate change? To what extent are the five identified domains of effective climate change integration evident within DFAT? Are there any examples of particularly good or poor practice and what was the impact of this? All See Annex 3B. See Annex 3B. To what extent has engagement with strategic partners contributed to improved program delivery? Are there any examples of particularly good or poor practice and what was the impact of this? Are there any opportunities for improvement or leverage? Corporate Program Investment Level of engagement of strategic partners in strategic Australian approach/policy to international engagement on CC Extent of collaboration and working together to implement complementary programs and/or international policy dialogue. Engagement of strategic partners in program level policy direction setting Extent of strategic collaboration to deliver on the Australian Aid Program in country/region. As above at investment level Interviews with DoEE, ACIAR, BoM, CSIRO, Geoscience, Dept. Agriculture and Water Resources, ACFID/NGOs, Private Sector, CCB, DRR Branch, Corporate document review Interviews with relevant partners (focus on Australian Govt partners) at country/regional level, DFAT CC lead and Head of Program. Documents: AIP, sector investment plans, APPRs
To what extent have DFAT program priorities been aligned with NAPs on climate change? To what extent is there congruence between Australia’s bilateral programming priorities and Australia’s approach to working with relevant regional organisations? All Program Evidence of alignment in policy and practice at Department, Program and Investment levels. Evidence of partner government commitment to delivery of NAP priorities and to DFAT delivery through partner systems as far as possible. Policy/strategic planning documents, and interviews with CC leads (Department, Program and Investment level). Country Cases, but particularly the regional case. Is there evidence to suggest consideration of climate change in the investment has enhanced sustainability? Are there any examples of particularly good practice where it is possible to identify what systems were put in place/approaches taken to enhance sustainability? Investment and Program Level Interesting cases at investment or program level where it is possible to identify the factors that have supported sustainability to be enhanced. Assessment of KEQ1 at investment and program level, Assessment of levels of sustainability (KEQ4, subquestions 1–2), interviews. 5. How credible are the methods or approaches the Department uses to establish Value for Money? What methods are in place to determine that investing in climate change is good value for money? Assess in terms of: do they exist at each level: yes/no/unclear What is the credibility of these methods to demonstrate value for money: Robust (methodical, well considered and informed) Adequate (some consideration) Weak/Unclear (lack basis). All See Annex 3 - M&E/Reporting systems. See Annex 3B. Have investment managers made delivery choices that demonstrate climate change impact and value for money (return on investment) have been sensibly balanced? Are there any examples of particularly good balanced assessments, that provide insight into how this was done, or missed opportunities which had unintended impacts/costs? Investment & Program Evidence that investment managers have considered different types of investment, modes of delivery, levels of safeguard to deliver the same outcomes (mitigation and/or adaptation). Evidence that the benefits of the investment outweigh the costs. Program: AIPs, APPR, Program interviews Investment: Design documents, Design Appraisals, annual reports, AQCs, evaluations, investment level interviews
2B – Domain Element of Good Practice Integration - Lines of Enquiry: Level of Enquiry—look for evidence of: Evidence Sources Agency Program Investment Climate change and ODA strategic clarity Clear goals and objectives and outcomes for climate change exist within the agency Exists Reflected at program level Corporate Plan, Climate Change Policy, AIPS and Sector Investment Plans The agency goals include clear mainstreaming objectives Exists Evidence of application Evidence of application As Above Goals, objectives and outcomes are supported by a clear, feasible implementation plan Exists and evidence of delivery Exists and evidence of delivery As Above + interviews to assess feasibility Climate change and DRR policy agendas are closely aligned or integrated Exists Exists + Evidence of application Evidence of application Policy papers, interviews with CC and DRR branches. There is a long-term commitment (including funding) to integrate climate change Public commitment Public commitment Policy papers, Corporate Plan, AIPs interviews with senior management Internal design/ approval/ management processes Mandatory climate change screening occurs for all projects (Design/Approval) Mandate exists Knowledge of and use Knowledge of and use Aid Programming Guide, interviews with CC team, Design unit, environmental safeguards + DRR Climate change impact assessments are undertaken for major projects with an identified climate change focus/link Mandate exists Knowledge of and use Knowledge of and use Aid Programming Guide, interviews with CC team, Design Unit, environmental safeguards Guidance documents and support tool exist to help program staff to integrate CC at the design stage Guidance/tools exist and use Knowledge of and use Knowledge of and use Aid Programming Guide, interviews with CC team, Design unit, environmental safeguards
Staff have access to CC specialists, support units/helpdesks, focal points Support Exists and use Support exists and use Knowledge of and use CC team + external resourcing, demand V supply, self-assessed confidence to meet DFAT staff needs, interviews Training Exists and use Access and use Access and use Diplomatic Academy training schedule, CC team, interviews Monitoring, evaluation and staff capacity Robust M&E systems, using appropriate adaptation and/or mitigation indicators. Exists and use Exists and use Exists and use Document and guidance review (APG), review of Corporate targets/reports, AIPs/APPRs, Investment M&E Frameworks and Reports CC indicators are part of DFAT’s core/mandated organisational reporting processes and part of a mandatory annual reporting process Exists Evidence of application Evidence of application Document and guidance review (APG), review of Corporate targets/reports, AIPs/APPRs, CC team, interviews Departmental measures (indicators) and reports on how CC has been mainstreamed across the portfolio. Exists Evidence of application Evidence of application Document and guidance review (APG), review of Corporate targets/reports, AIPs/APPRs, CC team interviews Tools and guidance on how to set up appropriate M&E systems for climate impacts exist. Exists and use Knowledge and Use Knowledge and Use Aid Programming Guide, interviews with CC team, Design unit, environmental safeguards Staff are adequately “climate aware” and have the skills to apply guidance and tools Awareness+ application Awareness+ application Awareness + application Interviews, self-assess awareness (scale 1–10) Cross check with application within programs/projects